Premo 1

Destiny Premo

Mrs. DeBock

English IV Honors

4 April 2019

Changes in the Destructive Practices of Population Control

Animal shelters across the world have numerous difficulties to face. One of the most

controversial topics is population control of stray, domesticated animals. Animal shelters use

population control to prevent overpopulation in animal shelters and on the streets. One method of

population control is euthanasia, or, the killing of animals through lethal injection. Euthanasia,

over time, has become a widely debated issue. Numerous accounts of people have the belief that

with the right members in power, shelter death rates can be lowered. Others believe changes in

daily shelter practices are vital in reducing the number of animals put down. Another method in

keeping animal populations down is sterilizing, the surgical process of removing the genitals of

an animal. The surgery takes away the animals ability to reproduce and animal workers hope to

limit the number of animal births taking place with this surgery. Although the surgery

guarantees animal lives are not taken, this does not ensure that their lives are healthy. Studies

show how spaying or neutering an animal early in life can negatively impact their growth and

can even lead to cancers. Finding the safest, most effective methods of controlling the animal

population in shelters and on the streets has proven to be a difficult task for animal shelter

workers. The changes implanted in the shelter system will determine the fate of all shelters and

most importantly, the lives of our furry companions.

 Premo 2

Statistics have shown a decrease in the euthanasia rates of animal shelters. A study of all

animal shelters in Michigan was taken in 2011. This study was taken before changes were

implanted into the animal shelter system (“Admission, Euthanasia Rates”). During this time,

multiple animal shelters had incredibly high death rates. One such example is the Humane

Society of Macomb with a rate of over seventy percent. The Michigan Humane Society is the

largest animal shelter in the state and one of the biggest pet sanctuaries in the country. Being as

large as it is, the animal shelter had a death rate of sixty-eight percent. An euthanasia rate of

68% is considered incredibly high. Other shelters such as the Michigan Anti Cruelty Society and

City of Romulus Animal Shelter​ had a percentage of 50 or higher. The humane society of

Macomb had a high rate of 74%. The numbers indicate that of all the animal intake of these

shelter, over half of them did not live long enough to come back out. Since 2010, changes have

been implemented in the shelters such as a change in leadership. The resignation of the CEO of

the Michigan Humane Society sparked a debate involving euthanasia. The Michigan Pet Fund

Alliance pressured the Humane Society to elect a new CEO who will lower the euthanasia rate in

the animal shelters (Welch). The euthanasia rate was around sixty-nine percent in 2010. The

Alliance argued that by hiring the right people, the euthanasia rate would be lowered. The

Humane Society, in response, emphasized their goal has always been to protect as many animal

lives as possible. Years later, the euthanasia rate was lowered significantly. The author notes

“[In] just under six months into its fiscal 2014, [the Michigan Humane Society] has adopted out

more than 95 percent of its treatable dogs and more than 60 percent of its treatable cats…

[Michigan Humane Society’s] euthanization rate was down to 33 percent in fiscal 2013”
 Premo 3

(Welch). Due to changes and the help of workers, the animal death rate had been significantly

lowered.

Successfully lowering the euthanasia rate of an animal shelter can be quite trying for the

operators and workers of the shelter. However, it is known to be possible to accomplish. A

shelter in Georgia previously had one of the highest euthanasia rates and in just five years, was

able to decrease it to one of the lowest (Brzozowski). Euthanasia was divided into two categories

of acceptable and wrong. Under the acceptable category is the euthanasia of animals who are

severely sick or injured, living only with immense suffering. Euthanizing animals due to housing

and spacing was placed under the heading of “wrong”. The animal shelter then worked to get rid

of the wrong euthanasia. The shelter started an animal rescue program called “Save-A-Pet”. This

program focused on getting animals adopted by working with other shelters to make pets

adoptable, train professional volunteers, spaying and neutering, finding homes for cats (who

have a harder time then dogs finding homes), and establishing programs for medical and

behavioral needs and problems (Brzozowski). By doing this program, the shelter was able to

successfully help find homes for more animals than before. Animal shelters across the world

have been able to accomplish lower death rates as well. In Australia, shelters have discovered

methods in successfully reducing the euthanasia rate to be no greater than ten percent with the

use of sterilizing, or, the surgical removal of animals genitals. The article explained that the use

of euthanasia caused mental and emotional struggles within the lives of animal shelter workers,

saying “Using euthanasia to manage dog and cat overpopulation causes health issues and

emotional stress in employees involved, increases staff turnover, and has financial, moral and

ethical ramifications for communities” (Inwood 1). The shelters spay/neuter stray animals and
 Premo 4

released them back to their previous location. In doing this, the stray population was eventually

lower without animal deaths. Euthanasia is a complex, debated issue but has been proven to be

limited only to when it is necessary to save the lives of animals and the well being of animal

shelter workers.

Using the method of spaying and neutering has helped to drastically drop the shelter

death rate, however, this method has its downfalls. Both positive and negative sides exist with

the topic of spaying and neutering animals (Cargill). Altering animals helps to control the

overpopulation of animals and the overflow of spays in animal shelters, but early spaying and

neutering have been shown to negatively affect the growth of animals. A data set taken from the

Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital consisted of male golden retrievers, some of which were

neutered at a young and others not at all. The results indicated a higher percentage of neutered

dogs with joint disorders and cancers than those who had not been neutered. Fewer dogs, that

have not been sterilized, acquired these health hazards (Torres de la Riva 2). An article written

by John Cargill and Susan Thorpe-Vargas used studies on humans to help predict what may or

may not happen to spayed animals, claiming “...​some human research shows bone mass in young

girls is seriously compromised if appropriate sex hormones are not available. This would

increase the chance of stress fractures later in life, but one cannot assume this would affect

canines the same way” (​Cargill​). The author suggests that although health concerns are present

for early-spayed and neutered animals, there has not been any recorded issues linked to

sterilizing animals at a young age. With the help of spaying and neutering, animals are able to

live while decreasing the population but precautions must be taken when considering this surgery

for animals.
 Premo 5

All different methods of population control implanted in the shelter system have their

dark and light sides. Every approach to population control determines the fate of all shelters and

the animals who come through their doors. Euthanasia is used to kill animals usually due to

overwhelming numbers in animal shelters and because of the age and health of the animals.

Sterilizing animals is another method of population control but has its downfalls. Other methods

and tactics are used by shelters all over the world to limit the excessive population of animals.

All efforts made go towards the ultimate goal of making the world a better place for animals and

humans alike.
 Premo 6

Works Cited

“Admission, Euthanasia Rates.” ​Crain's Detroit Business​, vol. 27, no. 24, 13 June 2011, pp.

0029–0029. ​Small Business Reference Center​, EBSCOhost, Accessed 12 Mar. 2019.

Brzozowski, Carol, brzozowski.carol@gmail.com. “Give 'Em Shelter.” ​Public Works,​ vol. 147,

no. 7, Aug. 2016, pp. 4–4. ​Applied Science & Technology Full Text(H.W. Wilson)​,

EBSCOhost, Accessed 12 Mar. 2019.

Cargill, John, and Susan Thorpe-Vargas. “The Ethics and Responsibilities of Spaying and

Neutering.” ​Dog World​, vol. 83, no. 2, Feb. 1998, p. 58. ​MasterFILE Premier,​

EBSCOhost, Accessed 12 Mar. 2019.

Inwood, Georgina, et al. “Strategies to Reduce the Euthanasia of Impounded Dogs and Cats

Used by Councils in Victoria, Australia.” ​Animals (2076-2615)​, vol. 8, no. 7, July 2018,

p. 100. Accessed 12 Mar. 2019.

Torres de la Riva, Gretel, et al. “Neutering Dogs: Effects on Joint Disorders and Cancers in

Golden Retrievers.” ​PLoS ONE​, vol. 8, no. 2, Feb. 2013, pp. 1–7. Accessed 13 Mar.

2019.

Welch, Sherri. “Humane Society CEO Search Reignites Euthanasia Debate.” ​Crain's Detroit

Business​, vol. 30, no. 10, 10 Mar. 2014, pp. 0001–0001. ​Small Business Reference

Center,​ EBSCOhost, Accessed 12 Mar. 2019.

Premo 7