1

Campbell

What are some ways to reduce the number

of stray animals in Salinas, Ca?

Introduction:

As many U.S. citizens look past the increasing number of stray animals found on the streets, the Humane Society of the United States reports around 2.7 million healthy dogs and cats are euthanized in the U.S. shelters per year.[footnoteRef:1] As this statistic covers the United States as a whole, Salinas, Ca has a higher amount of stray animals that are also euthanized. In 2010, the Salinas Police Department had an intake of 2,756 dogs and cats into the shelter, which many were euthanized for various reasons. [footnoteRef:2] As the number of stray animals increase in Salinas, Ca, the stakeholders focused on generating a solution for this problem include the following: animal activists, pet owners in the Salinas community, and public health activists. Animal activists are apart of this situation, as they want to create a healthier community for the animals inhabiting it. Salinas Animal Services are fighting for animals rights within this occurring problem. The pet owners within the Salinas community is a stakeholder affected by this problem, as they are directly interacting with these stray animals as they can cause negative repercussions in their community. Last stakeholder is public health activists as they are aware of the negative impacts stray animals have on public health. With all stakeholders interests in consideration, what are some ways to reduce the number of stray animals in the Salinas community? [1: The Humane Society of the United States. Pet Overpopulation. Retrieved February 27, 2014, from http://www.humanesociety.org/] [2: City of Salinas. Animal Services. Salinas, California a great place to live, work, & visit. Retrieved February 27, 2014 from http://www.ci.salinas.ca.us/services/animalservices/animalservices.cfm]

Background:

Although stray animals have been apart of the Salinas community since the founding of Salinas, there has been no government involvement in the topic until 2011. State senator Ted Lieu issued a bill that would require all cats and dogs adopted from shelters, or later in their lives, to be microchipped.[footnoteRef:3] This bill was approved by the state assembly, however was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown as he believed requiring this of pet owners would require the state to pay for the microchipping. Additionally, Governor Jerry Brown believed since certain local agencies require this action, such as certain veterinarians and animal shelters, a statewide protocol is not necessary.[footnoteRef:4] An animal being vaccinated against rabies is a state law, but an animal being microchipped or tattooed when neutered is not. Since California does not require pet owners to have proper identification on pets, the Salinas community must make the change. Stray animals have overpopulated the city of Salinas for years, however in 2008 the Salinas Animal Shelter received 3,938 dogs and cats through various ways including animal control officers, Salinas citizens, or surrendered by an owner[footnoteRef:5]. With the 2008 shelter statistics being so high, the Salinas Animal Shelter had to reduce their holding time for animals from four to three days. Once an animal is brought in and these three days are up, the animal is then relinquished to be able to be adopted, various rescue agencies, or euthanized, seen in in Figure 1.[footnoteRef:6] The total of animals being taken into the Salinas Animal Shelter is seemingly increasing as in 2008, 3,938 animals were bought in; 2009, 3,908 animals; and in 2010, 4,246 animals.[footnoteRef:7] Additionally with the high numbers of stray animals, Salinas water quality has been affected. In 2013, the Salinas water quality report stated various aspects cause the contamination of the water. The aspects include: inorganic and organic contaminants, pesticides and herbicides, radioactive contaminants, and microbial contaminants.[footnoteRef:8] The microbial contaminants are due to the free range stray animals have to the water. As stray animals drink and defecate in the water, bacteria build within the water.[footnoteRef:9] In decreasing the number of stray animals, the water quality can increase without the bacteria stray animals cause. As the number of stray animals increase, there are multiple approaches to achieve the goal of reducing that number. [3: Howard,J. (2011, August 31). Pet-Microchipping Bill Awaits Signature - Government - Redondo Beach, CA Patch. RetrievedAugust1, 2014, from http://redondobeach.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/pet-microchipping-bill-awaits-signature] [4: REDONDOBEACHPATCH.Com: Gov. Vetoes Pet Microchipping Bill | Senator Ted Lieu. (2011, October 10). RetrievedMarch1, 2014, from http://sd28.senate.ca.gov/news/2011-10-10-redondobeachpatchcom-gov-vetoes-pet-microchipping-bill] [5: Ibid.] [6: The Californian.com. (2009, August 13). Retrieved March 1, 2014 from: http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20090813/NEWS01/90813037/1002/rss?nclick_check=1] [7: Ibid.] [8: Salinas District. "Water Quality Report." Calwater. Retrieved April 24, 2014 from: https://www.calwater.com/docs/ccr/2013/sln-sln-2013.pdf] [9: Ibid.]

Figure 1: Statistics taken from Maricopa County Animal Shelter, however Salinas Animal Shelter provides similar data without a chart (http://urbanrescues.com/more-information/shelter-statistics/)

There are various approaches one might apply to reduce the number of stray animals in the Salinas community.. One approach to the situation is requiring all cats and dogs to be properly suited with identification. The various identification processes include microchipping, tattooed when neutered, and identification collars. Another approach to this problem is creating greater disciplinary action when pets are brought into the shelter in order for the owner to understand the importance of maintaining their pets. Within this policy analysis, the general approach of requiring all cats and dogs to be properly identified will be focused on. More specifically, the mutually exclusive policy options of 1) requiring microchipping governmentally funded, 2) requiring microchipping personally funded by the pet owner, and 3) not requiring microchipping will be addressed within this policy paper. A microchip is a small, permanent identification piece injected under the pets skin by a veterinarian, seen in Figure 2. The microchip contains the owners information and is received through a barcode when scanned by a specific microchip scanner (Figure 3).[footnoteRef:10] When choosing among the policy options of requiring or not requiring microchips of animals, Salinas city counsel members would be involved including the mayor, various counsel members, and the Salinas Animal Services. [10: Dog and Cat ID Microchipping | HomeAgain Pet Microchip. Retrieved April 24, 2014 from: http://public.homeagain.com/how-pet-microchipping-works.html]

Figure 2: Describes the technique of microchipping (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations)

Figure 3: Shows the microchip scanner that emits low frequency to retrieve the owners information

(http://wideshut.co.uk/microchipping-dogs-government-ignoring-common-sense/)

Stakeholder Perspectives:

Animal rights activists hold an intense interest in this issue as their central values are the well-being and safety of animals in all areas. A specific animal activists group acting on the current issue of increasing number of stray animals in the Salinas area is Salinas Animal Services (S.P.D.). As their mission statement comments on their commitment to bettering the life of domestic pets through their duties, they try to return pets to their owners or have them adopted before they are euthanized.[footnoteRef:11] S.P.D. is governmentally funded, so they cannot turn animals away when they are brought into the shelter. Without turning away animals, in 2010, S.P.D. in took 2,756 dogs and cats and 513 were adopted, 461 were returned to their owners, and 1,782 were euthanized.[footnoteRef:12] With the statistics given of how many animals are taken into the shelter through the public and euthanized, it can be assumed that animal activists, including S.P.D., holds the empirical assumption that if more animals were microchipped, the amount of strays would decrease, which would decrease the number of animals euthanized. A fact that Ohio State University discovered was the amount of cats returned to owners increased 20% and dogs 2.5% when the microchipped animals when the animals were microchipped.[footnoteRef:13] In evaluating the evidence, although the fact does not specifically state the methods of the research, the information provides strong, unbiased evidence towards the benefit of microchipping. I believe this is an un-bias evidence as the study was conducted under a university, not a organization promoting microchipping pets. The source of the evidence, Ohio State University, is also a reliable source as it is a prestigious university. Additionally a personal experience of me being a veterinarian assistant is when a cat with a shattered jaw was brought into the hospital from S.P.D. and was going to be euthanized due to its injuries; however once scanned for a microchip, the owner was located. Once the owner was located the reconstructive jaw surgery was paid for and the veterinarian proceeded without euthanasia. The S.P.D. holds the goal of reducing the amount of stray animals on the streets and within their shelter. With Ohio State Universitys research and person experience in mind, microchipping has the potential to reduce the amount of strays euthanized. As S.P.D. wishes the number of stray animals was reduced, they would prefer the mutually exclusive policy option of requiring microchipping governmentally funded because more pet owners would be motivated to follow the law. Without personally purchasing the microchips, the rate of legal pet ownership would assumingly increase. Animal activists as an entire group would feel an associated with this topic, but the Salinas Animal Services hold a special association as they are working daily against this problem. [11: Ibid.] [12: Ibid.] [13: Caldwell, Emily. "Microchips Result In Higher Rate Of Return Of Shelter Animals To Owners." Microchips Result In Higher Rate Of Return Of Shelter Animals To Owners. Web. Retrieved April 24 2014 from: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/shelterchip.htm]

Additionally the pet owners in the Salinas community has a stakeholder position in the issue as they live and interact daily with the stray animals on the streets daily. As Salinas has a high population rate, the high stray animal rate creates overpopulation within their community. As a community, they hold the value of their personal lives, including their finances. Local veterinarian Doctor James Ponder examines nearly five animals per week coming in as strays, however most clients decline microchipping their pets, as they do not want to pay for it.[footnoteRef:14] Additionally, Jessica Ramirez, citizen of Salinas, stated that microchips are positive in requiring owners to take more responsibility for their pets, however personally she would not want to be forced to pay for multiple microchips for her multiple pets. [footnoteRef:15] In 2012, the Department of Numbers released the fact that the average income in Salinas, Ca is $58,109 with four individuals living inside the home with 35.% of the community living at or below the poverty line.[footnoteRef:16] These statistics are strong evidence supporting the value of the Salinas community, as they are a low-income community. Also the source of this evidence, the Department of Numbers is reliable as they provide viable numbers of multiple communities. Additionally a fact relating to the finance of the Salinas community is the cost of a microchip is that it is about $45.[footnoteRef:17] This fact comes from PetFinder, which is a website directly working with the microchip companies, so they have extremely trustworthy evidence. An empirical assumption of Salinas community is that as the Salinas community is a low-income neighborhood, individuals may not be able to afford the cost of the microchip. With this in mind, the pet owners of the Salinas community would prefer not requiring a microchip, as many would not afford them. Additionally, not requiring microchips provides the pet owners freedom to decide this for their pets. Although the microchips would reduce the amount of strays, the communitys personal lives hold a higher standing rather than the stray animal situation. [14: Doctor James Ponder, Veterinarian, Owner of Romie Lane Pet Hospital, personal communication, March 8, 2014.] [15: Doctor James Ponder, Veterinarian, Owner of Romie Lane Pet Hospital, personal communication, March 8, 2014.] [16: Jessica Ramirez, Salinas citizen, personal communication, March 12, 2014.] [17: Pet Microchip FAQs - Petfinder." Petfinder Pet Microchip FAQs Comments. Retrieved April 3, 2014 from http://www.petfinder.com/dogs/lost-and-found-dogs/microchip-faqs/]

The last stakeholder in this current issue would be public health activists, as they value the health of the public and know the affect of stray animals have. Stray animals can affect water quality and carry zoonotic diseases, diseases transmitted from animals to humans. Stray animals have free range to various water sources, where they are able to deposit waste and drink from the same source.[footnoteRef:18] When they access these water sources, they can carry harmful bacteria, which people can potentially drink.[footnoteRef:19] A fact relating to this issue is that 3.2% of human deaths are caused by unsafe water.[footnoteRef:20] This fact comes from a website revolving around the impact of animals, so they provide trustworthy although bias information. They are providing negative impacts of stray animals without identify possible positive impacts, however the information given is still reliable. Additionally the zoonotic diseases the stray animals carry include rabies, a fatal disease causing inflammation in the brain, and leptospirosis, possibly life-threatening disease causing organ failure and internal hemorrhaging.[footnoteRef:21] A fact is in the past ten years, a total of 28 people in the United States have died due to being infected with rabies.[footnoteRef:22] As rabies can be treatable, however not cured, leptospirosis is curable with antibiotics.[footnoteRef:23] Only one in every one hundred patients die from leptospirosis, if it is not treated.[footnoteRef:24] This evidence comes from an international medical organization providing extremely dependable information relating to the diseases. However with such dramatic symptoms, one does not want to encounter leptospirosis. An assumption public health activists would have is that reducing the amount of stray animals by microchipping would benefit the publics health as less stray animals would pollute water and carry zoonotic diseases. This stakeholder would prefer the policy option to require microchipping personally funded by pet owners. As public health activists do not surround their goals around animals, such as animal activists do, they do not hold as strong as an opinion on the issue. However since they are working towards bettering public health, they would want to reduce he stray animal numbers additionally with other issues relating to public health. [18: McAllister, T. A. & Topp, E. (2012, April). Role of livestock in microbiological contamination of water: Commonly the blame, but not always the source. Animal Frontiers, 2(2), 17-27. Retrieved April 26 2014. Available from: http://animalfrontiers.org/content/2/2/17.full.pdf+html] [19: Ibid.] [20: Ibid.] [21: Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, n.d. Web. Retrieved April 4, 2014 from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/181980.php] [22: "Understanding Rabies : The Humane Society of the United States." RSS. 26 September 2013. Web. Retrieved April 24 2014 from: http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/resources/facts/rabies.html] [23: "Leptospirosis." Leptospirosis, Information about Leptospirosis. Web. Retrieved April 24, 2014 from: http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/61/Leptospirosis.html] [24: Ibid.]

Evaluation of Policy Options:

When considering the question of What are some ways to reduce the number of stray animals in Salinas? the issue must be completely analyzed, including the stakeholders and possible options revolving this issue. The mutually exclusive policy options are 1) requiring all animals to be microchipped governmentally funded, 2) requiring all animals microchipped personally funded by pet owners, and 3) not requiring all animals to be microchipped. When examining these options the following criteria should be taken into consideration: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and social equity. Environmental sustainability is how much the policy is protecting the natural world. Stray animals negatively impact the environment through water contamination, so reducing the number of stray animals has the potential to increase water quality in Salinas, Ca. Economic sustainability is how great the policy will use the resources of society without unwanted wastage. Requiring or not requiring microchips could positively or negatively impact economic sustainability for various business associated with this issue, including veterinarians and animal shelters. Lastly, social equality is how everyone in society will be affected in the issue. If microchips are required, the fairness of this law must be examined on pet owners in Salinas. Also if microchips are not required, the fairness for the animal shelters must be taken into account. All criteria must be analyzed in examining all mutually exclusive policy options.

The first option of requiring all animals to be microchipped governmentally funded has both positive and negative effects within the various criteria of environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and social equity. If all animals were microchipped this would cause less stray animals leaving a positive affect on environmental sustainability. Although previously stated, stray animals cause a negative impact on water quality when they have free range to water access, meaning they can drink from the water and also dispel waste into the same water.[footnoteRef:25] As Salinas is also battling water issues, having stray animals contaminate certain water sources does not benefit the situation. More viable water sources would create greater environment sustainability as the water source could be used by future generations. The requirement of microchips governmentally funded would benefit both pet owners and animal shelters. Pet owners would receive the microchips free of charge, allowing them to save that money. Additionally if the microchips were governmentally funded, animal shelters would receive funding for the microchips, so they would be able to use the money towards a different aspect for the animals. However, the cost of a microchip is around $45, so the government would be loosing profit, as they would need to provide various animal shelters these microchips to then provide them to the public.[footnoteRef:26] Since the pet owner would be purchasing the microchip, they must let go of the $45 cost of the microchip. As small as the cost seems, if an owner has multiple pets, that is multiple microchips they must purchase, which can add to become a large sum of money. Lastly, when examining the social equity of requiring microchips, there is an overall positive effect. Since the microchip is governmentally funded, the pet owners are not required to provide this cost and additionally receive the benefit of having their pets microchipped. Also animal activists would benefit as the amount of stray animals would decrease and more pet owners would abide by the law, as they would not pay. Although the first policy option of requiring microchips governmentally funded in all animals has both pros and cons in the various criterions, the second policy option must also be analyzed. [25: "What Is the Impact of Animal Production on the Environment?" Environmental Impact of Animal Production. Retrieved April 2, 2014 from http://animalsmart.org/animals-and-the-environment/environmental-impact-of-animal-production] [26: Ibid.]

In analyzing the second policy option of requiring microchips for all animals with pet owners in the Salinas community paying for them, there are similar effects on environmental sustainability as the first policy option of requiring microchips governmentally funded. In the second policy option, the number of stray animals will be reduced producing an increase in environmental sustainability. However in analyzing the economic sustainability of the two policy options there are differences. As pet owners would be required to purchase the microchips, they would lose personal profit. As previously stated, the cost of microchips are $45, so if a pet owners owns multiple animals, they would need to purchase multiple microchips. As the microchip cost is not cheap, the cost of multiple microchips can add up for pet owners owning multiple pets. In comparison, animal shelters and veterinarians would increase profit, as they would be selling more microchips to pet owners. Lastly, in looking at the criteria of social equity, the pet owners of the Salinas community is negatively impacted because the requirement will be forced upon them. The policy requires more than the cost of a microchip, as it also requires more responsibility for their animals. Additionally this would have a great impact due to the low-income community of Salinas. Many pet owners will find the requirement unfair, as they cannot afford it. However animal activists, such as Salinas Animal Services, would socially benefit because the amount of stray animals would reduce. As their goal revolves around serving the animals in Salinas, if more animals were off the streets, they would benefit additionally. Although the first policy option of requiring microchips in all animals has both pros and cons in the various criterions, the second policy option must also be analyzed.

The third policy of not requiring microchips in animals has a negative impact on environmental sustainability as more animals would remain stray rather than in permanent homes. Although no statistical data of this statement was found, it can be generally assumed. This would cause negative impacts on water quality and causes zoonotic diseases, diseases that are carried from animals and transmitted to people.[footnoteRef:27] Additionally, stray animals can cause harm to pets, such as carrying contagious diseases such as canine distemper, parvovirus, and feline AIDS.[footnoteRef:28] Specifically canine distemper parvovirus is the most feared disease for all dogs as most unvaccinated puppies and even vaccinated older dogs have a high potential of catching this virus due to its contagiousness.[footnoteRef:29] This virus can be contracted through any environment that a previously infected dog passes through, if the particles of the virus enters the dogs respiratory track, it has the potential to become infected.[footnoteRef:30] When examining the economic impact, there would be less income for the animal health services, but pet owners would not be required to pay the cost of a microchip unless independently decided. This would benefit pet owners, as they would not be forced into the payment. Finally, the social equity of policy option two would be vice versa of option one creating a social benefit for the community, as they still have freedom in deciding to microchip their pets or not, but animal activists would not benefit. They would continue their battle against the large number of stray animals without help of the requirement of microchips. [27: Trotman, Mark, Dr. "Impact of Stray Dogs and Cats on the Community Impact on Economy, including Tourism Impact on Livestock, Wildlife and the Environment." Regional Realities.] [28: Ibid.] [29: Baker Institute. "An Overview of Canine Distemper." Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine Baker Institute for Animal Health. Retrieved March 8, 2014 from: http://bakerinstitute.vet.cornell.edu/animalhealth/page.php?id=1088] [30: Ibid.]

(See Policy Options Summary Chart on page 15)

Environmental Sustainability

Economic Sustainability

Social Equity

Requiring microchip of animals and government pays for microchip

(+) Long term environmental sustainability

(+) Less stray animals causing water pollution

(+) Government official animal shelters would receive profit from government to provide services

(-) Government would cover cost of microchip loosing profit

(+) Animal Activists, such as S.P.D., would achieve goal of reducing amount of stray animals as more pet owners would abide by law

Requiring microchip of animals and pet owners pay for microchip

(+) Long term environmental sustainability

(+) Less stray animals causing water pollution

(+) Provide health animals services profit in selling microchips

(-) Pet owners must purchase microchips for each pet, costing around $45

(-) Unfair to force pet owners to purchase microchip without option to decline

(-) Salinas community unable to cover cost of microchip due to low income

Not requiring microchip of animals

(-) More stray animals causing water pollution and transmittable diseases

(+) Pet owners would have the freedom to decide whether to microchip pets or not

(-) Less income for animal health services, as less microchips would be purchased

(+) Pet owners would have freedom in deciding health services for their pets

(-)The amount of stray animals would increase, as stray animals would not be returned to permanent owners

Recommendation:

Of the three mutually exclusive policy options I have presented in this analysis paper, I recommend the first policy option of requiring the microchipping of all domestic animals governmentally funded. As I recommend the policy option of requiring microchips governmentally funded, I have additionally presented various sources to reinforcement my recommendation.

The main limitation of my analysis is the lack of concrete detail relating to specifically to microchips in the Salinas area. As I have gathered information regarding microchips in other areas, such as the Ohio State University study, there is no statistics relating to microchipping in the Salinas area. The veterinarians I have communicated with do not keep record relating to the amount of animals they microchip, so providing facts of how microchipping can benefit the number of stray animals specifically in the Salinas area is difficult. If I were able to obtain this evidence, my analysis would have been stronger in providing evidence of how microchipping can benefit.

In making this recommendation, an important concession relating to requiring the microchipping of all animals governmentally funded is the government involvement in the communitys lives. Some citizens would not agree with the additional involvement of this requirement. As the Salinas community has the freedom to own pets, they would feel the need to have the freedom to make decisions for their animals. In requiring this, they are taken away a small amount of freedom relating to their pet. However, the requirements of microchips is related to the requirement of rabies vaccine. These requirements are for the benefit of the animals, not to take away the freedom of the people.

The justification I hold for recommending the requirement of microchipping animals greatly revolves around the rights of animals. I believe that animals deserve the right for a healthy, safe life as mankind does. As mankind provides permanent homes for animals, microchipping those pets would provide an extra, beneficial security for the pet. Additionally, decreasing the amount of stray animals increase the environmental sustainability. Despite the positive and negative impacts on economic sustainability and social equity, we should prioritize the environment and those who inhabit it, including animals and mankind. An empirical assumption that greatly convinced my recommendation was the assumption of stray animals negatively affecting specifically the Salinas area. Stray animals negatively impact water quality and carry zoonotic diseases, which can be harmful to mankind. In the beginning of my analysis, I did not realize how many stray animals there were in the Salinas area. Once researching in the Salinas Animal Services documents, I realized how large the number is and greatly a solution is needed. As a solution is seemingly needed, I formed my recommendation of requiring microchips in all animals.

An unwanted consequence in following my recommendation would be the special planning needed to require this action of pet owners. Since currently not all pet owners have microchipped their pets, the requirement would cause a large increase in each animal health service to provide microchipping. This would cause extra funding in the health services providing the microchipping and the pet owners, as they would then purchase the microchips. Additionally since there are multiple microchip companies, the health services would need to decide to provide a single brand of microchip or multiple choices leaving the owner to decide which company to support. In considering my recommendation the consequences and implications of the special planning must be addressed to conduct a proper analysis.

In concluding my analysis, the stakeholders who are negatively impact needs to be addressed to mitigate opposing opinions upon my recommendation. As stated earlier the Salinas community would assumingly be most negatively impacted due to the requirement. In requiring this action, some freedom regarding them owning pets are diminished, however possibly suggestions with this recommendation can help the situation. Since microchips would be a requirement, the price of the microchip could decrease. The microchip companies would be selling more of the products, so in decreasing the price of the microchip they would still have a high income each year. Additionally if the animal health services are purchasing the microchips at a discounted price, they could then sell the microchips to pet owners at a discounted price. This would mitigate the consequence of forcing pet owners to pay an explicit amount to microchip their pets.

I continue to recommend the requirement of microchipping all animals in reducing the number of stray animals in Salinas. Although my policy recommendation focuses on the stray animals in the Salinas area, in creating this requirement other overpopulated areas could follow Salinas path. Since California does not have a statewide law requiring microchip, individual communities must make the requirement of the citizens. As stated, stray animals provide negative impacts on the environments they occupy, so decreasing their numbers would benefit each community. In requiring microchipping, the environment and those who occupy it are benefitted long-term.