3 year trend analysis of intake and euthanasia in maryland...
TRANSCRIPT
3 Year Trend Analysis of Intake and Euthanasia in
Maryland Animal Shelters Identifying Trends from Initial Quarter in 2013 through the
Fourth Quarter of 2016 FINAL 7/27/2017 Maryland Department of Agriculture Jane Mallory, Program Coordinator, Agency Grants Specialist
2 | P a g e
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SPAY AND NEUTER GRANTS PROGRAM
3 YEAR TREND ANALYSIS OF INTAKE AND EUTHANASIA IN MARYLAND ANIMAL SHELTERS Identifying Trends from Initial Quarter in 2013 through the Fourth Quarter of 2016
The purpose of this report is to determine if there have been any changes in the intake and
euthanasia of dogs and cats in shelters state wide in the first three years since the inception of
the Maryland Spay and Neuter Grants Program in late 2013.
Maryland Spay and Neuter Grants Program in Brief
The Maryland Spay and Neuter Grants Program is the result of the passage of Maryland Senate
Bill 820 in 2013. The goal of the program is to reduce intake and euthanasia of cats and dogs in
county shelters by providing grants to local government agencies and non-profit animal welfare
organizations, who in turn provide free spay and neuter services and outreach to pets of low
income Marylanders and to populations of feral cats. In order to increase spay and neuter
capacity in general, the program also funds equipment costs for establishing new low cost
spay/neuter clinics or to expand existing clinics. Finally, funds may also be used for specialized
training in High Volume/High Quality Spay Neuter techniques for veterinarians and technicians.
The program is managed by the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) and is funded
solely from a special spay/neuter program fee charged to pet food manufacturers who have
their products registered with the Maryland State Chemist Office.
In addition to awarding grants, the program collects intake and euthanasia data for the state.
As required by Agriculture Article §§ 2-1602 and 2-1605, Annotated Code of Maryland, and
starting in the last quarter of 2013, county animal shelters and shelters run by private
organizations but contracted by counties to provide sheltering services must provide MDA with
quarterly statistics on intake and disposition, including euthanasia (see Attachment 1 for
sample survey data sheet). In addition to these facilities some private facilities voluntarily
provide data or are required to provide data by the terms of a grant agreement with the
program. Please see Attachment 2 for the list of shelters providing data. Each quarter the data
provided by the shelters is combined and presented in state-wide quarterly report. Each report
is posted on the program webpage and is available to the public. This data is intended to help
3 | P a g e
determine the impact that the program is having on intake and euthanasia state wide over
time.
Summary of Program Grant Cycles to Date
The program began awarding grants in June of 2014. A total of 14 grants were awarded during
this initial grant cycle (FY15 cycle), each grant representing a project with a specific target area
that focused on pets of low income state residents. These projects either started in late
December of 2014 or in January of 2015. For this cycle, only pets were targeted, and with a
cumulative target goal of 5,340 spay/neuter procedures.
In 2015 (FY16 cycle) more 19 projects were funded to fix both pets and feral cats, with a
cumulative target goal of 8,231 procedures and in 2016 (FY17 cycle) 26 projects were funded
for both pets and feral cats with a cumulative target goal of 13,038 procedures.
In addition, 29 more projects were approved for funding for the FY18 cycle but as of this date
were not yet active.
To date, of the FY15, FY16, and FY17 cycle projects, 20,688 (or 78%) of the funded spay/neuter
procedures have been completed.
Data Examined
In late 2013, MDA requested intake and euthanasia data from all county animal shelters in the
state. The shelters queried included government run shelters, shelters run by private
organizations but contacted to the county to provide shelter services, and private shelters in
hopes that they would choose to volunteer information. The 30 respondents included 26
county shelters and 4 private shelters. The data covered the period from October 1, 2013
through December 31, 2013 and is referred to as the Initial Quarter. This data set is considered
the baseline by which future quarterly data would be compared. Subsequent to the Initial
Quarter, shelters have supplied data every quarter thereafter (January-March, April –June, July
–September, and October-December). All survey datasheets are retained by MDA and made
available to the public upon request.
4 | P a g e
The information presented below represents the findings from the initial quarter through the
final quarter of 2016, first presenting the findings pertaining to dogs and cats combined, then
presenting cat and dog data separately.
Findings-Dogs and Cats (I.E. All Animals) Combined
The graph below (Fig. 1) depicts the total number of cats and dogs combined that entered the shelters
(i.e. intake) and were euthanized since the initial quarterly survey (October-December 2013) through
the last quarter of 2016. The following can be seen from this data:
There are distinct and parallel periods of peaks and valleys in intake and euthanasia that are
consistent from year to year;
Both intake and euthanasia peak during the summer quarter (July-September);
The lowest period for both intake and euthanasia occurs during the winter quarter (January-
March);
Intake is at its second highest period during the spring quarter (April-June) and nearing the low
period during the fall quarter (October-December);
Conversely, euthanasia is at its second highest period during the fall quarter and nearing the low
period during the spring quarter, though not to a great degree; and
There is a gradual reduction of both intake and euthanasia, with both peaks and valleys trending
lower over time.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Oct
-De
c 1
3
Jan
-Mar
14
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
4
Jul-
Sep
14
Oct
-De
c 1
4
Jan
-Mar
15
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
5
Jul-
Sep
15
Oct
-De
c 1
5
Jan
-Mar
16
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
6
Jul-
Sep
16
Oct
-De
c 1
6
Nu
mb
er o
f A
nim
als
Fig. 1. Comparison of Animal (Dogs and Cats Combined) Data for Intake and Euthansia Trends Over Time: From Initial Qtr in 2013
through the 4th Qtr of 2016
Intake
Euthanasia
5 | P a g e
A comparison of euthanasia in the initial quarter in fall 2013 (8,137) to that of the last quarter in 2016
(4,979) -three years later- reveals a reduction of euthanasia by 3,158 animals or by 39%. To a much
lesser extent, intake dropped from 19,140 in the fall of 2013 to 18,504 in fall of 2016; a reduction of 636
animals or by 3%.
By comparing quarters covering the same time period (i.e. like quarters) consistent downward trends
are easier to see (Fig. 2 and 3 below).
23
,99
4
23
,51
6
23
,37
8
21
,89
4
19
,96
5
20
,70
1
19
,14
0
18
,50
4
19
,36
5
18
,50
4
13
,96
8
13
,74
4
14
,93
0
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Jul-
Sep
14
Jul-
Sep
15
Jul-
Sep
16
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
4
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
5
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
6
Oct
-De
c 1
3
Oct
-De
c 1
4
Oct
-De
c 1
5
Oct
-De
c 1
6
Jan
-Mar
14
Jan
-Mar
15
Jan
-Mar
16
Fig. 3. Comparison of All Animal (Dogs and Cats) Intake Data
Trends Over Time Grouped by Like Quarters
10
,13
0
8,2
47
6,7
08
7,3
20
5,8
40
5,0
12 8,1
37
7,0
70
6,3
45
4,9
79
4,1
90
3,8
22
3,5
73
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Jul-
Sep
14
Jul-
Sep
15
Jul-
Sep
16
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
4
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
5
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
6
Oct
-De
c 1
3
Oct
-De
c 1
4
Oct
-De
c 1
5
Oct
-De
c 1
6
Jan
-Mar
14
Jan
-Mar
15
Jan
-Mar
16
Fig. 2. Comparison of All Animal (Dogs and Cats) Euthanasia Data Trends Over Time Grouped by Like Quarters
6 | P a g e
The following graphs show the changes in euthanasia and intake numbers between like quarters.
During the July-September timeframe (the period of highest intake and euthanasia during each year)
from 2014 to 2016 (Fig. 4), euthanasia decreased by 3,422 animals or a decrease of 33%. Intake changes
were much less with a decrease of 616 animals from 2014 to 2016 or less than 3%.
During the June-April timeframe (the next highest period for intake during each year) from 2014 to 2016
(Fig. 5), euthanasia decreased by 2,308 animals or a decrease of 31%. Intake decreased by 5%.
21,894 19,965 20,701
7,320 5,840 5,012
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Apr-Jun 14 Apr-Jun 15 Apr-Jun 16
Nu
mb
er
of
An
imal
s
Fig. 5. All Animals Trends of Intake and Euthanasia During Spring Period
April-June Quarters, 2014 to2016
Intake
Euthanasia
23,994 23,516 23,378
10,130 8,247
6,708
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Jul-Sep 14 Jul-Sep 15 Jul-Sep 16
Nu
mb
er
of
An
imal
s
Fig. 4. All Animals Trends for the Highest Period of Intake and Euthanasia
July-September Quarters, 2014 to 2016
Intake
Euthanasia
7 | P a g e
During the October-December timeframe (approaching the lowest period of intake but the second
highest period for euthanasia during each year) from 2013 to 2016 (Fig. 6), euthanasia decreased by
3,158 animals or a decrease of 39%. Intake changes were much less with a decrease of 636 animals
from 2013 to 2016 or 3%.
During the January-March timeframe (the lowest period of intake and euthanasia during each year)
from 2014 to 2016 (Fig. 7), euthanasia decreased by 617 animals or a decrease of 15%. This was the
only quarter where combined animal intake increased. Animal intake increased from 2014 to 2016 by
962 animals or 6%.
13,968 13,744 14,930
4,190 3,822 3,573
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Jan-Mar 14 Jan-Mar 15 Jan-Mar 16
Nu
mb
er
of
An
imal
s
Fig. 7. All Animals Trends of Intake and Euthanasia During Lowest Period
January - March Quarters, 2014 to 2016
Intake
Euthanasia
19,140 18,504 19,365 18,504
8,137 7,070 6,345 4,979
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Oct-Dec 13 Oct-Dec 14 Oct-Dec 15 Oct-Dec 16
Nu
mb
er
of
An
imal
s
Fig. 6. All Animals Trends of Intake and Euthanasia During Fall Period October-December Quarters, 2013 to 2016
Intake
Euthanasia
8 | P a g e
Findings-Cats vs. Dogs
In all 13 quarters considered in this report, cats make up the majority of the total animals euthanized,
ranging from 59% to 78%, with an average percent of 70%. The percent of the euthanasia attributed to
dogs ranges from 22 to 41%, with an overall average of 30% (Fig. 8).
Similarly, cats make up the majority of the intake (Fig. 9) with a percent ranging from 50 to 67% (with an
average of 60%) and dogs ranging from 33 to 50% (averaging 40%).
40 50
39 35 43 50 37 35 40 48
36 33 40
60 50
61 65 57 50 63 65 60 52
64 67 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Oct
-De
c 1
3
Jan
-Mar
14
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
4
Jul-
Sep
14
Oct
-De
c 1
4
Jan
-Mar
15
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
5
Jul-
Sep
15
Oct
-De
c 1
5
Jan
-Mar
16
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
6
Jul-
Sep
16
Oct
-De
c 1
6 Pe
rce
nt
Inta
ke
Survey Quarters
Fig. 9. Percent of Animal Intake Cats vs Dogs From Initial Quarter in 2013 through 2016
% Animal Intake-CATS
% Animal Intake-DOGS
24 41
28 24 27 40 30 22 25
37 36 24 30
76 59
72 76 73 60 70 78 75
63 64 76 70
0
20
40
60
80
100
Oct
-De
c 1
3
Jan
-Mar
14
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
4
Jul-
Sep
14
Oct
-De
c 1
4
Jan
-Mar
15
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
5
Jul-
Sep
15
Oct
-De
c 1
5
Jan
-Mar
16
Ap
r-Ju
n 1
6
Jul-
Sep
16
Oct
-De
c 1
6 P
erc
en
t Eu
than
ize
d
Survey Quarters
Fig. 8. Percent of Euthanized Animals Cats vs Dogs From Initial Quarter in 2013 through 2016
% Euthanized Animals-CATS
% Euthanized Animals-DOGS
Figures 10 and 11 show the euthanasia and intake of cats versus dogs from fall 2013, through fall 2016. Cat euthanasia dropped from 6,144 in
the initial quarter to 3,503 (a difference of 2,641 cats or a decrease of 43%) and dog euthanasia dropped from 1,993 dogs to 1,476 (a difference
of 517 dogs or a decrease of 26%). Throughout each year, peaks and valleys occur for both cats and dogs, with variability much more dramatic
for cats. However, even with the variability, there is a decrease between like quarters with the exception of intake of cats in 2016, which
increased (Fig. 14).
1,993 1,737
2,084 2,388
1,882 1,519
1,771 1,850 1,614
1,332 1,445 1,624 1,476
6,144
2,453
5,236
7,742
5,188
2,303
4,069
6,397
4,731
2,241
3,567
5,084
3,503
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Oct-Dec 13
Jan-Mar 14
Apr-Jun 14
Jul-Sep 14
Oct-Dec 14
Jan-Mar 15
Apr-Jun 15
Jul-Sep 15
Oct-Dec 15
Jan-Mar 16
Apr-Jun 16
Jul-Sep 16
Oct-Dec 16
Fig. 10. Euthanasia: Dogs VS Cats Oct-December 2013 to October-December 2016
DOGS
CATS
7,734 7,047
8,463 8,329 7,980
6,839 7,414
8,200 7,777
7,106 7,536 7,689 7,393
11,406
6,921
13,431
15,665
10,524
6,905
12,551
15,316
11,588
7,824
13,165
15,689
11,111
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Oct-Dec 13
Jan-Mar 14
Apr-Jun 14
Jul-Sep 14
Oct-Dec 14
Jan-Mar 15
Apr-Jun 15
Jul-Sep 15
Oct-Dec 15
Jan-Mar 16
Qtr Apr-Jun
16
Jul-Sep 16
Oct-Dec 16
Fig. 11. Intake: Dogs VS Cats Oct-December 2013 to October-December 2016
DOGS
CATS
11 | P a g e
Cat Data: Comparing Like Quarters
By comparing the euthanasia and intake numbers between the initial quarter in 2013 to the final quarter
in 2016, there has been a decrease in cat euthanasia of 43% and a decrease in cat intake by 2.6%.
Because of the variability from one quarter to the next (Fig. 12 above), it is helpful to compare like
quarters to see the overall trend. When comparing each quarter to that of the same time period in each
year, a downward trend is evident in euthanasia (Fig. 13 below). This was also the case with intake up
until a spike in the fall of 2015 and an increase in all quarters of 2016 from that of the previous year.
(Fig. 14 below).
11,406
6,921
13,431
15,665
10,524
6,905
12,551
15,315
11,588
7,822
13,165
15,689
11,111
6,144
2,453
5,236
7,742
5,188
2,303
4,069
6,397
4,731
2,241
3,567
5,084
3,503
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Oct
-De
c 2
01
3
Jan
-Mar
2
01
4
Ap
r-Ju
n
20
14
Jul-
Sep
2
01
4
Oct
-De
c 2
01
4
Jan
-Mar
2
01
5
Ap
r-Ju
n
20
15
Jul-
Sep
2
01
5
Oct
-De
c 2
01
5
Jan
-Mar
2
01
6
Ap
r-Ju
n
20
16
Jul-
Sep
2
01
6
Oct
-De
c 2
01
6
Nu
mb
er
of
Cat
s
Fig. 12. Comparison of Cat Data for Intake and Euthanasia Trends Over Time: From Initial Qtr of 2013 to 4th Qtr of 2016
Intake
Euthanasia
12 | P a g e
15
,66
5
15
,31
5
15
,68
9
13
,43
1
12
,55
1
13
,16
5
11
,40
6
10
,52
4
11
,58
8
11
,11
1
6,9
21
6,9
05
7,8
22
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
Jul-
Sep
20
14
Jul-
Sep
20
15
Jul-
Sep
20
16
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
4
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
5
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
6
Oct
-De
c 2
01
3
Oct
-De
c 2
01
4
Oct
-De
c 2
01
5
Oct
-Dec
20
16
Jan
-Mar
20
14
Jan
-Mar
20
15
Jan
-Mar
20
16
Fig. 14. Comparison of Cat Intake Data Trends Over Time Grouped by Like Quarters
7,7
42
6,3
97
5,0
84
5,2
36
4,0
69
3,5
67
6,1
44
5,1
88
4,7
31
3,5
03
2,4
53
2,3
03
2,2
41
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Jul-
Sep
20
14
Jul-
Sep
20
15
Jul-
Sep
20
16
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
4
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
5
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
6
Oct
-De
c 2
01
3
Oct
-De
c 2
01
4
Oct
-De
c 2
01
5
Oct
-De
c 2
01
6
Jan
-Mar
20
14
Jan
-Mar
20
15
Jan
-Mar
20
16
Fig. 13. Comparison of Cat Euthanasia Data Trends Over Time Grouped by Like Quarters
13 | P a g e
A comparison of the summer quarters (peak period, Fig. 15) shows a 34% decrease in euthanasia from
2014 to 2016. Euthanasia decreased from 2014 to 2015 by 17% and from 2015 to 2016 by 20%. Intake
decreased from 2014 to 2015 by 2% but increased from 2015 to 2016 by 2%, resulting in very little
difference overall.
For the spring quarters (Fig. 16), euthanasia decreased 32% from 2014 to 2016, at a rate of 22% from
2014 to 2015 and by 12% from 2015 to 2016. Intake decreased by 2% from 2014 to 2015 but increased
by 5% from 2015 to 2016, resulting in a small decrease overall of 2%.
13,431 12,551
13,165
5,236 4,069 3,567
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Apr-Jun 2014 Apr-Jun 2015 Apr-Jun 2016
Nu
mb
er
of
Cat
s
Fig. 16. Cat Trends for Spring April-June Quarters 2014-2016
Intake
Euthanasia
15,665 15,315 15,689
7,742 6,397
5,084
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Jul-Sep 2014 Jul-Sep 2015 Jul-Sep 2016
Nu
mb
er
of
Cat
s
Fig 15. Cat Trends for the Peak Period July-September Quarters 2014-2016
Intake
Euthanasia
14 | P a g e
For the fall quarters (Fig. 17), which include the initial quarter in 2013, euthanasia decreased from 2013
to 2016 by 43%, at a rate of 15% from 2013 to 2014, by 9% from 2014 to 2015, and by 26% from 2015 to
2016. Intake decreased by 8% from 2013 to 2014, but increased by 9% from 2014 to 2015. Intake then
decreased by 4% from 2015 to 2016, resulting in an overall decrease of 2%.
For the winter quarters (Fig. 18), the lowest period of the year, the overall decrease of euthanasia was
9%. Euthanasia decreased by 6% from 2014 to 2015 and by 3% from 2015 to 2016. Intake decreased by
0.2% from 2014 to 2015, but increased by 12% from 2015 to 2016.
6,921 6,905
7,822
2,453 2,303 2,241
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Jan-Mar 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Jan-Mar 2016
Nu
mb
er
of
Cat
s
Fig. 18. Cat Trends for the lowest Period January - March Time Quarters 2014-2016
Intake
Euthanasia
11,406 10,524
11,588 11,111
6,144 5,188 4,731
3,503
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Oct-Dec 2013 Oct-Dec 2014 Oct-Dec 2015 Oct-Dec 2016
Nu
mb
er
of
Cat
s
Fig. 17. Cat Trends for Fall October-December Quarters 2013-2016
Intake
Euthanasia
15 | P a g e
Dog Data: Comparing Like Quarters
By comparing the euthanasia and intake numbers between the initial quarter in 2013 to the final quarter
in 2016, there has been a decrease in dog euthanasia by 26% and a decrease in dog intake by 4%.
As with cats, there is variability in dog euthanasia and intake from one quarter to the next (Fig. 19
above), so it is helpful to compare like quarters to see the overall trend. When comparing each quarter
to that of the same time period in each year, a downward trend is evident in euthanasia (Fig 20 below).
This was also the case with intake during the peak quarter, but with more variability in the other 4
quarters (Fig. 21 below).
7,734
7,047
8,463 8,329 7,980
6,839
7,414
8,200
7,777
7,106
7,536 7,689
7,393
1,993 1,737
2,084 2,388
1,882 1,519
1,771 1,850 1,614
1,349 1,445 1,624 1,476
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Oct
-De
c 2
01
3
Jan
-Mar
20
14
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
4
Jul-
Sep
20
14
Oct
-De
c 2
01
4
Jan
-Mar
20
15
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
5
Jul-
Sep
20
15
Oct
-De
c 2
01
5
Jan
-Mar
20
16
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
6
Jul-
Sep
20
16
Oct
-De
c 2
01
6
Nu
mb
er
of
Do
gs
Fig. 19. Comparison of Dog Data for Intake and Euthansia Trends Over Time: From Initial Qtr of 2013 to 4th Qtr of 2016
Intake
Euthanasia
16 | P a g e
8,3
29
8,2
00
7,6
89
8,4
63
7,4
14
7,5
36
7,7
34
7,9
80
7,7
77
7,3
93
7,0
47
6,8
39
7,1
06
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Jul-
Sep
20
14
Jul-
Sep
20
15
Jul-
Sep
20
16
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
4
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
5
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
6
Oct
-De
c 2
01
3
Oct
-De
c 2
01
4
Oct
-De
c 2
01
5
Oct
-De
c 2
01
6
Jan
-Mar
20
14
Jan
-Mar
20
15
Jan
-Mar
20
16
Fig. 21. Comparison of Dog Intake Data Trends Over Time
Grouped by Like Quarters
2,3
88
1,8
50
1,6
24
2,0
84
1,7
71
1,4
45
1,9
91
1,8
82
1,6
14
1,4
76
1,7
37
1,5
19
1,3
49
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Jul-
Sep
20
14
Jul-
Sep
20
15
Jul-
Sep
20
16
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
4
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
5
Ap
r-Ju
n 2
01
6
Oct
-De
c 2
01
3
Oct
-De
c 2
01
4
Oct
-De
c 2
01
5
Oct
-De
c 2
01
6
Jan
-Mar
20
14
Jan
-Mar
20
15
Jan
-Mar
20
16
Fig. 20. Comparison of Dog Euthanasia Data Trends Over Time Grouped by Like Quarters
17 | P a g e
A comparison of the summer quarters (peak period, Fig. 22) euthanasia decreased overall by 32% from
2014 to 2016, at a rate of 22% from 2014 to 2015 and by 12% from 2015 to 2016. There is an overall
decrease of 8%, with intake decreasing from 2014 to 2015 by 1.5%, and by 6% from 2015 to 2016.
For the spring quarters (Fig. 23), there was an overall decrease of 31%, at a rate of 25% from 2014 to
2015 and by 18% from 2015 to 2016. Intake decreased by 12% from 2014 to 2015 but increased slightly
by 1.6% from 2015 to 2016. Even with the increase between 2015 and 2016, there was an overall
decrease of intake by 11%.
8,463
7,414 7,536
2,084 1,771 1,445
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Apr-Jun 2014 Apr-Jun 2015 Apr-Jun 2016
Nu
mb
er
of
Do
gs
Fig. 23. Dog Trends for the Spring April-June Quarters 2014-2016
Intake
Euthanasia
8,329 8,200 7,689
2,388 1,850 1,624
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Jul-Sep 2014 Jul-Sep 2015 Jul-Sep 2016
Nu
mb
er
of
Do
gs
Fig. 22. Dog Trends for the Peak Period July-September Quarters 2014-2016
Intake
Euthanasia
18 | P a g e
For the fall quarters (Fig. 24), which include the initial quarter in 2013, there was a total decrease of 32%
in euthanasia from 2014 to 2016, with a rate of 6% from 2013 to 2014, by 14% from 2014 to 2015, and
by 9% from 2015 to 2016. Intake increased by 3% from 2013 to 2014, but decreased there on, by 2.5%
from 2014 to 2015, and by 5% from 2015 to 2016. In spite of the increase in 2014, intake decreased
overall by 4%.
For the winter quarters (Fig. 25), the lowest period of the year, euthanasia decreased by 12% from 2014
to 2015 and by 11% from 2015 to 2016. Intake decreased by 3% from 2014 to 2015, but increased by
4% from 2015 to 2016. Overall, intake increased over the 3 year period by 0.8%.
7,047 6,839 7,106
1,737 1,519 1,349
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Jan-Mar 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Jan-Mar 2016
Nu
mb
er
of
Do
gs
Fig. 25. Dog Trends for the Lowest Point January - March Quarters 2014-2016
Intake
Euthanasia
7,734 7,980 7,777 7,393
1,993 1,882 1,614 1,476
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Oct-Dec 2013 Oct-Dec 2014 Oct-Dec 2015 Oct-Dec 2016
Nu
mb
er
of
Do
gs
Fig. 24. Dog Trends for the Fall October-December Quarters 2013-2016
Intake
Euthanasia
19 | P a g e
Conclusion
Because there are only 3 full years of intake and euthanasia data to examine at this point, this report
and its findings should be considered preliminary. However the data is sufficient enough to show
distinct and consistent patterns with regards to both euthanasia and intake. Throughout any given year
so far, there are high points and low points for both euthanasia and intake and they are consistent,
distinct and concurrent. Both euthanasia and intake spike during the summer months then begin to
decline during the fall months, and reach their lowest point during the winter. Numbers begin to rise
again in the spring. For this reason it is most important to compare like quarters over a span of time to
determine if there are consistent downward trends. Given this is the case in 2014, 2015, and 2016, we
expect this pattern to carry though in future quarters.
The data also indicates that overall, euthanasia and intake of cats and dogs have declined since the first
quarter of state-wide shelter data collection in the fall of 2013. From the October-December quarter of
2013 (the initial quarter that serves as the baseline) to the fall quarter of 2016, 3 years later, there has
been a reduction of 39% in euthanasia of animals in the shelters and a 3% reduction in intake.
Of cats euthanized, there has been a 43% reduction from 2013 to 2016, and a reduction of intake of
2.5%. Of dogs euthanized, there has been a 25% from 2013 to 2016, and a 4% reduction of intake.
The impact from the increase in spays and neuters (along with the public outreach and education, which
is a part of every project funded by the program) throughout the state is cumulative, with each year’s
completed projects, along with active efforts having an impact on future quarterly data. Even after only
3 years, with the full impact of the work done so far yet to be reflected, declines in numbers are already
being seen. As more time passes, and more quarterly data is available to add to this comparison, and
based on what this data shows so far, we expect to see a continuing decline in the overall euthanasia
and intake numbers.
20 | P a g e
21 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT 1. SURVEY FORM
MARYLAND ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER SURVEY / 1
(Boxes will expand as you enter text) Name of Shelter/Facility:
Address:
Name of Shelter Manager:
EMAIL: Phone:
Name of Person completing this survey:
Activity for Reporting Quarter: October-December, 2016
1/Pursuant to section 2-1602(H) of the Agriculture Article which states: “Beginning January 14,2014, each county and municipal animal control shelter and each organization that contracts with a county or municipality for animal control shall report quarterly to the Department on a form prescribed by the Department describing for the previous 3 months: (1) The number of cats and dogs taken in; (2) The number of cats and dogs disposed of, broken down by method of disposal, including euthanasia; and (3) Any other relevant data the Department requires.”Please return completed survey by email attachment to [email protected] or by mail to Maryland Department of Agriculture, Marketing Department (Spay and Neuter Program), 50 Harry S Truman Parkway, Annapolis, MD 21401. Questions call Jane Mallory 410-481-5766 email: [email protected] .
DOGS CATS
A. Live Animal Count at Beginning of Qtr
LIVE INTAKE DURING QTR:
B. Stray/At Large
C. Relinquished by Owner
D. Owner Requested Euthanasia
E. Transferred in from another Agency
F. Other Live Intakes (impounds, births, animals placed in foster care, brought in for TNR, etc)
G. TOTAL LIVE INTAKE DURING QTR (B+C+D+E+F)
DISPOSITION DURING QTR:
H. Adoption
I. Returned to Owner
J. Transferred to another Agency
K. Other Live Outcome (includes TNRs released)
L. Died/Lost in Care
M. Euthanasia- at Owner’s Request
N. Euthanasia-All other than owner request
O. TOTAL DISPOSITION DURING QTR
P. Live Animal Count at End of QTR (includes Fosters). (A+G - O)
In order to better understand to what degree unowned cats are a source of intake and euthanasia, we need your help. To the best of your abilities, please indicate what percent and/or how much of CAT intake would you consider unowned (i.e. feral, or community cats) animals: How many of the euthanized cats would you guess are unowned:
22 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT 2. LIST OF FACILITIES SENT SURVEY REQUEST AND RESPONDING WITH
INFORMATION
Facilities in italics are private and either voluntarily contribute data or do so as terms of grant agreement with
MDA
Shelter Notes:
Allegany County Animal Shelter
Animal Welfare League of Queen Anne’s County
Anne Arundel County Animal Control
Baltimore Animal Rescue and Care Shelter BARCS
Baltimore County Animal Services
Baltimore Humane Society
Baywater Animal Rescue-Dorchester Co
Cecil County Animal Services
Caroline County Humane Society, Inc.
City of College Park Animal Shelter
City of Greenbelt Animal Shelter
Dorchester County Animal Control Does not collect cats.
Frederick County Animal Control
Garrett County Animal Shelter
Howard County Animal Control
Humane Society of Carroll County, Inc.
Humane Society of Harford County All animals obtained by Harford Co.
Animal Control are transferred here.
Humane Society of Kent County
Humane Society of Somerset County Inc Handle cats for Somerset Co but not
under contract to do so.
Humane Society of Washington County
Humane Society of Wicomico County
Maryland SPCA
Montgomery County Animal Services and Adoption
Center
Prince Georges County Animal Services
Somerset County Animal Control
SPCA of Anne Arundel County
Talbot Humane
Tri-County Animal Shelter Serves Charles, St. Mary's and Calvert
Cos.
Worcester County Animal Control
Worcester County Humane Society