June 30, 2012 11 Comments
In response to the news that the City of Calgary will be considering a pet sale ban in the fall (hooray!) and that Mississauga, Ontario is poised to become the third Canadian city with a pet sale ban, the National Post printed the article Cities barking up wrong tree with pet sale ban, critics say.
The criticism the headline alludes to – that retail pet sales should not be a municipal concern – has already been addressed many times over the course of discussion on this topic, which apparently had been missed by the Post: here, from when Richmond, B.C., instated their ban; and here, readily available on the Actions Speak Louder (Calgary) website.
Therefore, I am not going to revisit that issue at this time.
Instead, I would like to focus on something the Petland representative said in his quote to the National Post, which was “We carry about 20 puppies in my store at any given time.”
This figure is about right, because I went into that mall Petland location, which sells dogs from “Petland Certified Breeders” (whatever that means), this week and counted over 15 puppies on display.
Back when I went on my fact-finding field trip to Petland, staff there informed me a puppy is in the store for an average of about 10 days before it is sold – same day as arrival sales are not unheard of, but 10 days is the average.
So, if the average stock of that one store is 20 dogs, there for 10 days, I think it is reasonable to conclude that store sells approximately 60 puppies per month. That would result in an estimate of 720 per year.
And I can’t tell you otherwise, since a lack of transparency on Petland’s part doesn’t only mean no breeder or inspection information. So I’m going to move forward on the information I have and welcome any clarifications.
In addition, unlike rescue organizations, where the pets you adopt are spayed/neutered prior to them going home with you, pet store puppies usually come intact, with only a $50 incentive to get them fixed down the road (noting the costs of spaying/neutering in this city are ridiculously high, though the City does have its No-Cost Spay/Neuter Program to assist low income residents).
The risks of 720 (which are some sort of unregistered purebred “type”) unfixed puppies entering Calgary’s pet community are obvious, but here’s an illustration of what two can do.
Suffice it to say that backyard breeders and so-called “oopsie” litters are a major contributor to pet overpopulation and the hundreds of ads you see on Kijiji. And if these people are getting their breeding animals from stores, the stores are not helping combat this problem.
There is also another way to look at this number 20.
Twenty is the number of dogs currently up for adoption through the City’s Animal Services. These are stray or unclaimed dogs in need of rehoming, which the City also spays/neuters before they go out for adoption. This figure does not include the dogs that are simply impounded.
Instead of a turnaround of 10 days for these dogs, based on the ones it currently lists, it looks like the average stay for an adoptable dog at Animal Services is over a month, with many having been there for over two months.
Based on the 2010 report numbers, the City adopts out 9% of the dogs that end up its care, which works out to about 390 dogs per year, or about 30 per month. 86% of dogs get returned to their owners, and the remaining percent would be dogs that do not get adopted or are deemed not fit for adoption.
In other words, the retail pet sales from one store are double the City’s adoptions.
I do not know the daily cost to house a dog or cat at the City’s Animal Services, but these are costs that are paid out of the City’s budget, and other municipalities have released figures we can use to estimate the cost.
- In LA, the estimate is $428 USD per animal on an average 44 day stay, which is a total that includes medical costs, staffing and other overhead, as well as takes into account adoption fee revenue.
- The Butler County Humane Society in Pennsylvania estimates the daily cost to feed and house an animal is about $15.
- Iowa City Animal Care also estimates a cost of about $15 to feed and house an animal.
- Another animal shelter in Hailey, Idaho estimates the cost at $20/day to care for a cat and $25/day for a dog.
- The Calgary Humane Society itself lists daily cost at $15/day.
So, using the $15/day figure (not including staff salaries and other overheads, extra medical costs, microchipping, spaying/neutering, vaccinations, and your complementary adoption kit and food), and knowing the average stay for a dog at Calgary Animal Services is over a month ($15 × 35 days), the average cost for a dog or cat to stay at Animal Services is at least $525 – which is obviously not fully covered by a $200 adoption fee (or $150 for a cat).
This means that the City pays at least $300 for each adoptable animal in its care. And multiply that by the 390 dogs adopted per year, that’s a minimum cost of $117,000. For the approximate 235 cats they adopt in a year (again based on the 2010 report, that’s another $82,250 (at the cost of $350 per animal, since the adoption fee is only $150).
Sure, it’s an intentionally low and very rough estimate, but it works out to at least $199,250 of Calgary’s dollars directly spent per year on housing, caring for, and adopting out animals.
And this figure does not include animals that are impounded, or animals that are housed and cared for but never eventually adopted or later deemed not fit for adoption.
Now imagine if the retail front, which sells 720 dogs per year, switched and gave exposure to the City’s 390 adoptable dogs per year. And lets include the 235 cats, too. Not only would the animals find homes faster, be adopted out already spayed and neutered so they couldn’t contribute to overpopulation (and the intake of the City, the Calgary Humane Society, and the other dozens of local rescues), but there are indirect benefits, too: people would be more exposed to and therefore better educated about ethical pet procurement generally.
But my point right now is: a retail pet sale ban would cost the City less.
Now imagine the pet stores decide it’s once again financially beneficial to sell animals and reinstate the practice – if one store can stock 20 dogs at once and sell about 720 per year, how many can 8 stores sell?
Sure, the courts have determined that “promoting the welfare of animals provides an intangible moral benefit to humanity in general“, but, as you can see, there’s a financial benefit to consider, too. So if concerns about unethical breeding and selling of companion animals don’t speak to you, maybe some numbers and financials will. If a pet sale ban can reduce unwanted pets and save money, what has the City got to lose?
After all, if pet over population is directly costing municipalities money, why wouldn’t they look at and implement all possible solutions?