Читать книгу Animal Behavior for Shelter Veterinarians and Staff - Группа авторов - Страница 185

Surgical sterilization services for owned animals have become commonly established programs to reduce pet overpopulation by avoiding unwanted litters and preventing behavioral and medical concerns associated with an intact reproductive status. Effective spay‐neuter programs can successfully increase the prevalence of altered animals in the community (Dolan et al. 2017; Frank and Carlisle‐Frank 2007). A corresponding decrease in shelter relinquishment in communities with accessible spay‐neuter programs has also been documented (Scarlett and Johnston 2012; White et al. 2010), though this reduction was only consistently identified for cats and not dogs. Research findings also support the reach of non‐profit spay‐neuter programs to animals that would not otherwise receive veterinary care (White et al. 2018) and show that client race and ethnicity are not barriers to program utilization (Decker Sparks et al. 2018; Poss and Bader 2008; Schurer et al. 2015).

Accessible spay‐neuter services benefit the pet by enhancing animal health, avoiding unwanted litters, and preventing nuisance behaviors (American Veterinary Medical Association n.d.). When successful, these programs also positively impact the community through reduction of relinquishment, nuisance behaviors such as vocalization or urine marking, and, potentially, the incidence of serious dog bites, for which intact dogs are overrepresented (Patronek et al. 2013). Effective spay‐neuter outreach also reduces pet overpopulation, a clear benefit for communities experiencing a significant homeless pet overpopulation. Even for communities with unmet adopter demand for puppies and kittens, effective spay‐neuter outreach is an important population‐level strategy to reduce disparity in the access to these services. Accessible spay‐neuter services also allow for thoughtful consideration of where new pets in the community are obtained, such as through animal transport (thus addressing pet overpopulation in other communities) or through responsible breeders. With careful program design and outreach, these programs can be an opportunity for collaboration with the local veterinary community. Practitioners can refer clients unable to afford full‐cost sterilization or may participate in providing low‐cost or free sterilization services.

While spay‐neuter programs can have significant overall impact, they are resource intensive to establish and maintain. This is particularly true given that successful programs are accompanied by community outreach to build trust and interest in the program. Effective programs also address the issue that low‐cost or even free spay‐neuter programs may still include insurmountable barriers for clients who lack transportation or cannot take time off work to bring the pet for a surgical appointment. For these reasons, implementation of spay‐neuter safety net programs should be carefully preceded by an analysis of the existing community landscape to assess the community need and to effectively target the desired population.