Efforts for animals on a SD Reservation

The 2006 Rosebud Sioux Tribe Sicangu Oyate Animal Care Project featured three high volume spay/ neuter clinics, held over the course of five months. As in previous years, clinics were held at central locations and transportation was provided from outlying areas. 897 surgeries were provided this year, with a breakdown of 54% dogs to 46% cats.

The clinics were held in Todd County, South Dakota, which is 85% Sicangu Lakota. It is the fourth to the poorest county in the US according to Census 2000 figures. The Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation includes five counties; the most populated is Todd County. Nearly 25,000 Sicangu Lakota tribal members reside here, mainly in Todd County.

Our starting point this year was one we had never experienced before. Instead of working to gain new ground, this year's project maintained success. We continued the recipe including well publicized high volume spay/ neuter clinics, transports from outlying tribal communities so all pets could be included, and preparation for transfers to out-of-state shelters.

Four letters of support written at the conclusion of 2005 reveal that the number of stray animals had been dramatically reduced. Three letters originate from school officials. The reason is that prior to this program, packs of dogs searching for food in school dumpsters terrorized schoolyards. One dogfight resulted in children witnessing a horrible incident of cannibalism. The packs of dogs had formerly been a school safety issue. Through spay/ neuter, this issue was resolved to the benefit of the animals and the children. The number of dog bites had dropped significantly and cruelty complaints have diminished significantly as well.

Our new task is to analyze the numbers and pinpoint what worked well, and what might have been done differently. The current goal is to describe our experience in detail, so that others may benefit from this information and duplicate this effort where it is appropriate.

Established to provide comprehensive solutions, since start up this program included a pet transfer relationship so that adoptable puppies and dogs could be humanely removed from the reservation. Transfer relationships with Denver, Boulder and other smaller facilities have continued (Salt Lake City, included in 2003, was too far for regular transfers). Roughly, 700 animals have been transferred to date.

Unwanted dogs are received at the clinics, and we are prepared for euthanasias. However, due to the help of humane organizations willing to receive animals at the time of the clinics, no adoptable dog has been euthanized due to a shortage of space. Euthanasias have included dogs with temperament issues and illness. 3,317 animals have been spayed or neutered at the clinics since the start of this program.

Altogether, including sterilizations, transfers and euthanasias, roughly 4,075 to 4,100 animals have been removed from reproductive circulation on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation between July 2003 and September 2006.

The changes have been dramatic.

Although the problems were visually evident, we started out with very little hard data on the numbers of unwanted animals. We used anecdotal information, regular sightings of unwanted animals and information from health administration workers on bites.

Despite a lack of hard data at start up, it has been possible to determine the reduction of dog bites and cruelty complaints. We have also been able to track changes in pet care habits, and changes in the impact that unwanted animals have on the communities.

Prior to this project, no animal control or protection program existed on the reservation. Homeless dogs, often seriously affected by mange and parasites, froze and starved to death. Packs of stray dogs survived by cannibalism. There were an excessive number of dog bites.

Animal control consisted of collecting and shooting unwanted dogs. The shootings traumatized people throughout the reservation, including those who hired the people to shoot the dogs. The last collection and shooting was in 2002.

In late 2002, the tribal health office sought assistance in addressing this issue. A 2002 tribal council resolution declared respect for animals to be a traditional part of Lakota culture.

In July 2003, the tribe held the first Sicangu Oyate Pet Care Celebration, which included the first high volume spay/ neuter clinic on the reservation. 649 animals were sterilized.

This was the first "responsible pet care event" on the reservation. It was heavily publicized and was accompanied by an educational component. Throughout the clinic, 71local volunteers signed in.

Funding History:
The 2003 clinic was funded by International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Summerlee Foundation, and the ASPCA.

ASPCA, assisted by Two Mauds Foundation, provided funding for surgeries in 2004.

In 2004, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) funded the renovation of a building to house the animal welfare/ control program. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe (RST) took the lead role in coordinated the building renovations, the educational efforts, and acquiring local donations.

PETsMART Charities, Inc., has provided funds for anesthesia and surgical equipment and a medical sterilizer. Other equipment and supplies were donated as well.

Friends of Animals generously funded this program in full in 2005.

Friends of Animals, PetSmart Charities, Inc., and the Handsel Foundation funded the 2006 clinics and PetSmart Charities, Inc., provided funding for additional equipment and training.

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe has provided housing and lodging for the visiting team since start up. This averages around $3 per surgery.

The cost per surgery for staff, travel, and disposable surgical supplies (suture material, Isoflourine, etc.), are around $21 per surgery.

Summary:
In 2003, the program started with one high volume clinic. 649 pets were spayed or neutered. Roughly three quarters of pets were females. In addition to Oklahoma staffing, Arkansans for Animals and Montana Spay/ Neuter Task Force provided staffing and coordination.

In 2004, a four-day clinic provided 459 surgeries. The pet transfers continued throughout 2004.

In 2005, three clinics, with two veterinarians lasting four days each, provided 1,313 surgeries, or 52% of the total since program start up. In 2005, the tribe initiated the use of trustees from the jail for volunteer labor. The trustees were given time off of their sentences for helping us.

To date our clinics have performed 3,317 surgeries on the reservation.

2003, 5 days total, 1 clinic for 5 days, 4 vets, 649 animals (20 veterinarian working days)= 32.5 animals per vet per day

2004, 4 days total, 1 clinic for 4 days, 3 vets, 459 animals (12 veterinarian working days) = 30 animals per vet per day

2005, 12 days total, 3 clinics for 4 days each, 8 weeks apart, 2 vets, 1,313 animals (24 veterinarian working days) = 54.7 animals per vet per day

2006, 14 days total, 3 clinics, 8 weeks apart, 2 vets for one clinic and one vet for 5 days the last 2 clinics, 897 animals (18 veterinarian working days) = 50 animals per vet per day

There have been 39 actual open clinic days (5, 4, 12, 14).

Veterinary working days- (the number of vets in the clinic, times the number of clinic days) was 74.

In 2006, again three clinics with two veterinarians for the first, and one veterinarian for five days for the second two, provided a total of 897 surgeries.

Between the second and the third clinics of 2005 (following 17 clinic working days), the change in the appearance and population density of the dogs became evident. Packs of dogs were basically gone and strays decreased overall. Many animals in packs do not survive the winter. Packs largely disappeared once the source of the packs, unwanted dogs from unwanted litters, were eliminated through spay/ neuter.

Following the very apparent (upgraded) change in the condition of the pets that were noted in 2005, the two stores that sell dry dog food were contacted to see if there had been a change in the volume of dog food sold. Management at both stores confirmed that there had been a significant increase in dog food sales as the actual number of dogs declined on the reservation (2004-05). This indicated a pro-active, as opposed to passive, change in pet health care habits.

In 2006, we noticed that the clinics included parents, specifically fathers, who spent the day at the clinic with their children and the pets. The 2006 clinics were more "social" than the previous years, with a few people coming back to visit veterinarian Dr. Brent Pitts and some requesting well- pet examinations.

It is reasonable to speculate that had the model of three shorter clinics been used the first year, the success may have occurred earlier. This does not necessarily mean that less surgery days would have been needed, but the days could have been provided in less time (2 years instead of 3). That could have potentially prevented animal suffering during the 03-04 winter.

Effective timing (shorter, more frequent clinics) enabled the clinics to terminate pregnancies, making the timing more beneficial to animals and cost effectiveness. In 2003, one clinic with "20 veterinary working days," (meaning five days with four vets), which was not filled to capacity, averaged only 32 animals per day/ per vet. In 2005, with fewer vets, the clinics averaged 54 animals per day/ per vet. (This assumes the vets are capable of high volume).

The clinics started at the end of April in 2005 and 2006. At that time, no dogs were pregnant and very few had entered estrus ("heat cycles"). The chain of unwanted animals that begins each spring was prevented for hundreds of dogs. Unfortunately, some cats were already pregnant; some had had litters. However, weather concerns prevented the clinics from being held earlier without risking holding a clinic and people being unable to get there.

The greatest costs in this model are per diem costs, or per clinic costs. The travel expenses are per person, the staff is paid per diem, etc. The surgical supplies (suture, Isoflourine, etc.) are minimal compared to the travel, etc. Consequently, the smaller clinics filled close to capacity increase the cost efficiency and availability. The timing and the ability to fill the clinics appear to be the key to efficiency and effectiveness.

The recipe includes

· Skilled high volume surgeons,

· A lot of volunteer help (this is where the jail trustees come in),

· A transport system so that remote communities are included, with effective timing and good publicity,

· The ability to accept unwanted animals at the time of the clinic so that animals may be transferred to shelters or, if unadoptable, euthanized.

Trustees from the jail received time off of their sentences for working with the clinic, which worked very well. While providing consistent staffing for the clinics, the trustees learned some job skills that may be helpful in gaining entry-level work at an animal shelter or clinic. Inclusion of trustees required some management by tribal health care workers, however it was great overall.

Additional costs included travel expenses so the coordinator could be on site, commercial dog food to send home with pets after surgery, and some additional pet health supplies. Donations from Clova Abrahamson, President of Oklahoma Humane Federation, Nancy Atwater of SPAY Oklahoma, and humane organizations in Oklahoma and South Dakota assisted with these costs.

Pet food was sent home to ensure that the animals were fed properly during the first few days of recovery. Many pets have diets mainly of scrap and commodities, including powdered milk and scraps over macaroni, etc. This diet has worked reasonably for most; however, the clinic sends home appropriate nutrition following surgery.

In addition to sterilization, dogs are dewormed and treated for mange and ticks, which can also become zoonotic issues (transmission to humans). All animals are vaccinated for rabies, a service provided by Indian Health Service. The IHS staff remains on site, administers the vaccines, and helps to facilitate the check in services.

Once sterilized, the pet can be brought back to subsequent clinics for deworming, tick prevention, mange treatment, etc.

In 2006, we tried a "bounty" or "incentive" system, which worked best when we located a key person in the community who wanted to address community issues, and paid them per dog as the animal was signed in.

At this point in the program, offering the bounty to owners did not help bring in people who were not motivated to act without it. The reason may be that homes still not participating include some primary adults who have special difficulties and are unable to even get the pet to the transport vehicle. The incentive program was generously funded in full by Joan Lawson of Minnesota.

The changes in pet care habits, (dog food, leashes, etc.) tend to support that most people do not want litters of pets to watch starve and have underfoot. Consequently, offering the incentive to a pro-active community member was more effective than targeting the individual households that were still not participating.

Transports make sure every pet can come to the clinic. The transports are somewhat costly and time consuming, but are absolutely vital to getting the pets in from outlying areas. It was meaningful to have someone included in the transports who was fluent in Lakota, especially for approaching elders.

The response to the transports was directly related to the level of outreach that was done before the clinic to let people know when to be at the pick-up location. The best way to do this was to have a health worker go door to door in the evenings (2003-04), in the targeted housing areas and communities, for a week or so before we got there. The ability of the CHR office to do this varied, based on their other activities and requirements. They are somewhat understaffed and cover an enormous service area, so activities involving added time commitment can be difficult.

We have learned a lot about how a community can find creative solutions to a tragic problem. Through teamwork and the generous support of the funders who have made this success possible, people on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation now enjoy a healthy relationship with the animals who share their homes.

It is our pleasure to share this report with other communities in the hopes that grass roots efforts to help animals may be expanded.

Sincerely,
Sid Kills In Water, Director,
Community Health Representative Program,
605-747-2316

Ruth Steinberger,
spay/ neuter project coordinator,
918-367-8999

Bev Kauth