Ringworm and animal shelters

The Ontario SPCA in Canada has just published the findings of an independent investigation into the handling of ringworm cases at their York region branch last year. It's extremely long and detailed (the link above goes to the summary), but contains lots of very important discussion, not just about how shelters should deal with the issue of ringworm infection, but also about the role SPCAs play in society. 

One thing that comes over very strongly is that the report's co-authors (the former Dean of Ontario Veterinary College and the former Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court) essentially looked at everything the SPCA was struggling to do and recoiled saying no-one could possibly cope with it all on the kind of budget they have available.

Ontario SPCA is one of the few SPCAs round the world which have statutory powers and duties to investigate and prosecute animal cruelty entirely independently of the police. It also has virtually sole responsibility for stray animals and apparently an open-ended commitment to take in unwanted animals. Unlike the RSPCA it does get some government funding for its law-enforcement role, but the amount is quite low.

This means its shelters are continually under pressure to house the unwanted and strays and also any animals taken into care as a result of ongoing investigations and prosecutions. Recent legislation imposes conflicting obligations to take all possible measures to prevent spread of disease, while forbidding vaccination of incoming strays because there is no way to get the owner's permission. 

Ringworm is particularly frightening to any shelter because it can infect humans as well as most other mammals, but it is a fungal disease (nothing to do with worms) which normally causes nothing more than self-limiting skin disease (possibly no visible disease at all) in healthy people and animals. 

This means there are really serious moral issues about dealing with cases in a shelter. On the one hand it's essential that the disease is contained (no-one is going to adopt from a shelter if it means all your children end up itching and scratching). On the other hand it's very difficult to justify extreme measures, like mass culling, to control something that the vast majority of people and animals will throw off with  quite minor  treatment.


In OSPCA's case the misery seems to have been compounded by the inherent inaccuracies in scientific tests for ringworm which meant shelter management could never be quite sure whether it was still present or not. The final straw came when staff and volunteers had become so distressed by the probability it would lead to animals being killed that they were refusing to notify management of possible human ringworm infections they were experiencing themselves. This was illegal under Ontario's Health and Safety legislation and the Ministry of Labour then stepped in.  

The independent investigation was set up in response to a campaign against the shelter sparked off by reports that all animals currently in its care were to be euthanased in order to stamp out infection. The failings which it did expose seem likely to fuel further campaigns and I think it's likely these will have the opposite effect from that intended by reducing funding for the shelter while increasing the amount of resources they have to divert into health and safety compliance, and possibly requiring them to set tighter limits on the numbers of animals they can house.


It seems likely that there never was an "epidemic" of ringworm and that the infection was in fact limited to the original group of very matted long-haired cats who had been taken in at the start of the incident. 


Ironically this report comes out as the e-coli salad vegetable incident demonstrates just how difficult it is to pin down the origin and spread of disease, even with all the resources of a government health department.


Incidentally, infections are not a one-way-street: animals can sometimes catch nasty bugs from humans  too.

Pioneers at Bath Cats and Dogs Home

In England and Wales, the term "non-destruction" is normally the preferred term for what would be referred to as "no-kill" in the US and Australia. I hope BCDH won't object to me reproducing the following timeline from their website:

1937

• Three local animal charities unite to become RSPCA Bath Branch.

• Bath resident Mrs Bayntun gifts five acres of land and £4,000 (equivalent to nearly £200,000 now) enabling the new charity to set up a dog shelter.

1948

• John and Mary Hobhouse join the Bath Branch committee.

1953

• John Hobhouse becomes chairman of the Bath Branch (until 2000).

• After considerable arguments, the City Council concede that stray dogs can go to the kennels for re-homing rather than being destroyed.

• The Bath Branch is the first RSPCA branch to implement a strict non-destruction policy.

1955

• John Hobhouse is elected to the RSPCA National Council.

1960

• John’s five-year battle to form and chair a ‘Homeless Animals Committee’ is finally realised.

1962

• The Homeless Animals Committee persuade the RSPCA Council to spend £100,000 to build or rebuild an animal centre in each major city. Within a year these new kennels were saving the lives of 10,000 dogs that would otherwise have been destroyed.

1969 – 1975

• John Hobhouse elected as chairman of the RSPCA National Council. 

1986

• The Friends of Claverton is formed. A separate registered charity, the Friends raise funds through membership and legacies.http://www.friendsofclaverton.org/

1995

• After three generous legacy donations totaling £500,000 the Home plan a redevelopment of the dilapidated 50 year old buildings with modern facilities. 

2001

John is elected Bath and District President

2002

• The first two stages of redevelopment are completed, including four kennel blocks and runs, a cattery, vet suite, administration offices, visitor facilities and a new sewerage system. The cost of £2.2 million had been raised solely by donation and fundraising.

2006

• The third stage of development is completed, with two circular kennels. The cost was paid for by the fundraising efforts of the Friends of Claverton. 

2009

• John Hobhouse dies peacefully in Frome Hospital, Somerset, on Thursday 24 December, aged 99.

There's some more information about how BCDH works with the local authority dog wardens in this article. 

Redemption: by Nathan Winograd

Redemption is a fascinating account of the campaign to end the killing of healthy pets in American animal shelters.

From similar beginnings, animal protection societies evolved very differently in the US and the UK. In this country the RSPCA, Scottish and Ulster SPCAs remained comparatively separate from local authority dog wardens (and local authorities on the whole confined their activities only to stray dogs). In the US, local SPCAs almost invariably became the major agencies of "animal control" (usually with some financial support from the local authority) and ended up operating open-access shelters with a remit to take in any pet animals whose owners no longer wanted them. Until pet spaying and neutering became routine and safe operations, this inevitably meant that SPCAs spent much of their time and energy killing precisely the animals they cared about.

Sadly, the advent of safe fertility control methods did not lead to the rapid decrease in killing that might have been expected and Winograd lays out a very persuasive argument explaining why this is so and what the animal protection movement needs to do to achieve the objective of no destruction of healthy animals. Perhaps the most important message of his book is that caring for animals is not enough: saving pets' lives is impossible if the would-be animal rescuers lack empathy for human beings and drive away the very people who would choose to adopt shelter animals. The majority of pet owners are decent and want to do the right thing.

The second important message is the need for transparency and accurate documentation of statistics to show what is actually happening in animal shelters. Without such statistics it is impossible to make rational decisions: one reason why the killing continues is the belief that there is a huge problem of "pet over-population" and there are far more animals than available homes. In fact, Winograd argues, this has never been true for adult animals. There was a problem of annual surplus production of young animals and this has already been significantly diminished by owners choosing to get their pets neutered. So long as people keep pets there will be some who get into difficulties and have to relinquish their animals, but this is balanced by people who want to acquire pets. The job of animal shelters is to match up the two - if necessary providing support in terms of advice on training etc. Provision of low-cost and/or free neutering services is vital, but it is not sensibly viewed as a way of reducing the overall pet population but as a control on that population's production of young animals.

It would be very interesting to have a proper comparison of the US vs UK situation (possible PhD subject for an aspiring student?). The US shelters Winograd discusses are all open-access - i.e. the shelter is required to take any animal presented to it. By comparison virtually all UK shelters are "limited access" (they can refuse animals if they are full) and even the local authority dog wardens are only required to take dogs who are actually stray and running loose; they do not normally take unwanted dogs direct from their owners. This means that even the local authority shelters are virtually "no-kill" by US standards and charity shelters normally treat rather than euthanase even quite seriously ill or injured animals. It may be that this is just displacing the decision to euthanase from the shelter to the owner: we simply do not know.

The no-kill equation
I. Feral Cat TNR (Trap Neuter Return) Program

II. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter

III. Rescue Groups

IV. Foster Care

V. Comprehensive Adoption Programs

VI. Pet Retention

VII. Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation

VIII. Public Relations/Community Involvement

IX. Volunteers

X. A Compassionate Director

Vicious circles and Virtuous ones

One reason why some people take on more than they can cope with is fear that the animals may be put down if they are handed over to an animal welfare organisation. Conversely, some welfare organisations argue that "limited access" animal shelters, where animals are never put down to make space for more admissions, may mean more euthanasia in the long run if owners decide to have their animals put down rather than wait until space is available. By US standards the RSPCA would be entitled to call itself a "no-kill" organisation — one which does not put down animals capable of rehabilitation.

Once things have got out of control, owners may be deterred from seeking veterinary help by lack of money and fear that approaching the RSPCA or PDSA might lead to prosecution instead. This is actually most unlikely — in about 20 years I can only think of two cases where our clinic reported an owner to the Inspectorate as a result of them bringing an animal for treatment. One was a case where the owner's boyfriend had deliberately broken their dog's leg and the other was a dog whose collar had been put on when he was a puppy and left until it had grown into his neck over a period of months. Someone who seeks help reasonably quickly would never be reported even if the vet might privately feel they'd been irresponsible or inefficient. Most of the time, someone who phones the RSPCA for help with veterinary treatment (rather than visiting a clinic) won't actually meet anyone from the organisation in person, but will be given help with the cost of going to a private vet.