Obtaining dogs from pet stores versus noncommercial breeders

In the report by McMillan et al¹ regarding behavioral differences between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and those obtained from noncommercial breeders, the authors concluded that dogs obtained from pet stores would be more likely to develop undesirable behavioral characteristics. However, I have serious concerns with their conclusion.

The statistical analysis did not take into account how owner perception could have biased the data. For example, it seems possible that, because of the stigma attached to pet store puppies, participating owners who had purchased a puppy from a pet store may have viewed their pets’ behavior problems more seriously, artificially resulting in less favorable behavioral assessment scores for these puppies.

In addition, other confounding factors, such as owner commitment, appear to not have been considered. As an example, puppies obtained from pet stores may have been more likely to be impulse purchases, and the owners of such puppies may have been less prepared to properly deal with issues such as housetraining and puppy training. Consequently, these puppies, as adults, might have been more likely to be relegated to the backyard or confined to a crate for prolonged periods, be less well socialized, or be less well trained. Not surprisingly, these dogs would then be more likely to have undesirable behavioral characteristics, and this would not be a result of the puppies’ origin but of the owners’ lack of preparation.

Veterinarians should be advocates for all pets, regardless of their origin. We can strengthen the human-animal bond and help ensure that all puppies become integrated into their new homes by offering extended office examinations for the first puppy visit and discussing house training and proper socialization. We can offer puppy kindergarten classes at our clinics, and we can identify professional dog trainers and board-certified veterinary behaviorists to whom problem dogs can be referred.

Patricia A. Colley, dvm, mpvm

Sterling Pointe Veterinary Clinic Lincoln, Calif

The authors of a recent study¹ on differences in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and those obtained from noncommercial breeders concluded that obtaining dogs from pet stores represented a significant risk factor for the development of a wide range of undesirable behavioral characteristics. However, the conclusion was based on scores for a behavioral assessment survey completed by a self-selected convenience sample of dog owners. Because of this, I question the validity of the conclusions. Respondents who purchased dogs from noncommercial breeders most likely differed in important ways from those who acquired their pets from shelters, and the dogs involved were also likely different between groups. However, this confounding was apparently not assessed. This is why observational studies must carefully assess their populations before analysis, not afterward.

Beyond this, the paper concludes with two contradictory comments: “the results should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any particular source of dogs” and “we cannot recommend that puppies be obtained from pet stores.” If the authors do not recommend one source, they are, by default, endorsing the other.

Lastly, the most important issue for veterinarians and pet owners is whether the pet remains in the home versus being, for instance, relinquished to an animal shelter because of undesirable behavioral characteristics. In my mind, this is a better outcome measure on which to base policy. Interestingly, Patronek et al² found that people retained their dogs longer if they came from pet shops rather than shelters, and Salman et al,³ in a 12-state shelter study, found that 22.8% of relinquished dogs came from shelters, compared with only 3.9% that came from pet shops. These studies found similar patterns for cats.

The issue of how the animals are managed while in the care of an animal shelter or pet store is an important one. Many pet stores and animal shelters could use the help of the professional veterinary community. The issue is not even pet population, but the tragedy of pet relinquishment. That has to be addressed through careful and objective analysis.

Alan M. Beck, scd

Department of Comparative Pathobiology College of Veterinary Medicine Purdue University West Lafayette, Ind

The authors respond:

We thank Drs. Colley and Beck for their comments on our article.¹ Both writers point out that the kinds of people who buy puppies from pet stores may be different from those who purchase them from noncommercial breeders and that these differences could have influenced our findings. We discussed this possibility in our paper; however, our data included insufficient information about the dogs’ owners to arrive at any conclusions in this regard.

The writers also challenge the validity of our conclusions on the basis of our use of a behavioral assessment survey and convenience samples of self-selected respondents. In response, we would point out that both types of puppy purchasers were derived from the same convenience sample and are therefore comparable, and that convenience samples, especially when large, are not necessarily unrepresentative of the populations from which they are drawn. The Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire is designed to reduce subjective biases as far as possible by asking dog owners to focus on their pets’ typical responses to specific stimuli and situations in the recent past, rather than on more general aspects of their behavior or temperament. Furthermore, the overall reliability and validity of this instrument have been demonstrated in previous studies.^2–4 The suggestion that we did not account for likely background differences between dogs acquired from pet stores and noncommercial breeds is incorrect. Our statistical models accounted for differences in a variety of potentially confounding variables including breed, sex, weight, current age, age when acquired, spayneuter status, and whether the dog was trained for specific recreational or working roles.

Respectfully, we disagree with Dr. Beck's assertion that our inability to recommend that people purchase puppies from pet stores amounts to a default endorsement of obtaining puppies from noncommercial breeders. This would be inaccurate even if pet stores and noncommercial breeders were the only sources of dogs, much less if they are just 2 among many sources. We are also puzzled by Dr. Beck's comparison of pet store dogs with those from animal shelters, in terms of the people who acquire them and relinquishment rates. We expressly avoided the inclusion of dogs obtained from shelters in our study because these animals tend to be too diverse with regard to age, life experiences, and demography to be comparable to purebred puppies purchased from pet stores and noncommercial breeders.

We agree wholeheartedly that keeping pets in their homes and avoiding relinquishment are valuable goals, but we also believe that veterinarians and pet owners should be made aware of preventable risk factors that may contribute to the development of behavioral problems. While our study does not claim to establish a causal connection between pet store acquisition and the development of such problems, we sincerely hope that it will help to stimulate further empirical investigation of this important issue.

James A. Serpell, phd

Deborah L. Duffy, phd

Department of Clinical Studies-Philadelphia School of Veterinary Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pa

Franklin D. McMillan, dvm, dacvim

Best Friends Animal Society Kanab, Utah

Elmabrok Masaoud, phd

Ian R. Dohoo, dvm, phd

Department of Health Management Atlantic Veterinary College University of Prince Edward Island Charlottetown, PE, Canada

Workforce issues

We read the Executive Summary of the 2013 US Veterinary Workforce Study¹ with great interest and thank the AVMA for continuing to better define veterinary workforce needs. Having served on the National Research Council's Workforce Needs Committee,² we share the authors’ frustration with the lack of reliable data sources upon which to make sound decisions.

In the workforce study, a variety of assumptions were used to model the future demand for veterinarians. In several places, it appears the authors used simple compounding of projected growth or shrinkage to achieve their results, but whether the projections obtained are reliable depends both on the number of years actually used and on the accuracy of the underlying assumptions.

For example, in projecting the number of veterinarians working with the US Department of Defense, the authors assumed that the demand for veterinarians would change at the same rate as the change in size of the military, and cited an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office of a 1.3% annual decrease in the size of the armed forces between 2012 and 2017 to predict a 17% decrease in demand for veterinarians in the Department of Defense between 2012 and 2025. To obtain this estimate, 2012 and 2025 were presumably included, so that the change would actually be from the end of 2011 through the start of 2026. Unfortunately, the authors provide no explanation for why a slightly different timeframe would apply to these estimates than to others in the report.

In contrast, in projecting the future demand for veterinarians in industry, a 3.75% annual growth in industry positions through 2016 was combined with a projected 1.9% annual growth thereafter to predict a cumulative increase of 37% in demand between 2012 and 2025. However, simple compounding would suggest that 2012 was not included, so that the change would be from the end of 2012 through the start of 2026.

We are also concerned about the accuracy of some of the underlying assumptions the authors used. In projecting the demand for veterinarians working in academia, for example, the authors assumed the ratio of veterinarians to graduates would remain constant over time. However, many colleges have seen substantial decreases in faculty numbers recently.² Given that academia represents 8.6% of the total projected demand for veterinarians, inaccuracies in this segment would not be inconsequential.

Importantly, the AVMA Workforce Advisory Group, in its accompanying manuscript,³ appears to recognize the deficiencies and unknowns, and these authors have made appropriate, considered, thoughtful recommendations. As stated, “the study revealed substantial gaps in the knowledge required to fully and accurately assess veterinary workforce issues.”

We intend our comments to be constructive and are interested in knowing whether we have misinterpreted the data. The National Research Council's Workforce Needs Committee also struggled with identifying appropriate data sources, and we applaud the AVMA's strategic approach in working to further address the critical issues of the veterinary workforce.

Gay Y. Miller, dvm, phd

University of Illinois Urbana, Ill

Bonnie Buntain, dvm, msc, dacvpm

University of Calgary Calgary, AB, Canada

The AVMA responds:

Thank you for your comments and requests for clarification. In the AVMA workforce study,¹ projected demand for veterinarians working with the Department of Defense was estimated by assuming that demand would change in constant proportion to the level of military funding. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that military funding will decrease from 2012 through 2017, and the authors assumed a constant level of funding for the years after 2017. Thus, the projected 17% decrease reported in the text of the report should have been only 7%. Note that the values given in Table 2 are correct, and reflect this cumulative 7% decrease from 2012 through 2017 and stable demand thereafter. Put another way, from a baseline of 990 military veterinarians in 2012, we projected a decrease in demand of approximately 13 veterinarians for each year from 2012 through 2017 and no change thereafter. Overall, this represented a projected loss of 70 of the original 990 positions.

With respect to the projected increase in the number of veterinarians working in industry, the compounding did, as you suggest, begin in 2013.

Finally, in regard to our assumption that the ratio of the number of veterinarians in academia to the number of graduates would remain constant over time, we concur that each of the veterinary colleges faces budget challenges now and may continue to face these challenges in the future. How academic leaders staff their colleges in response to these budget challenges likely will vary between colleges. Because the largest share of any college's budgeted income is student tuition and the Council on Education considers student-to-faculty ratios in the accrediting process, we used a constant student-to-faculty ratio to predict the number of faculty demanded by academic institutions. If many colleges are reducing full-time equivalent faculty positions without a corresponding decrease in the number of students being trained, then the demand projections will overrepresent future demand.

Michael Dicks, phd

Director, Economics Division AVMA Schaumburg, Ill

More on the veterinary workforce

In their evaluation of the veterinary workforce, authors of the recently published AVMA Veterinary Workforce Study¹ calculated that there currently is an excess capacity of 12.5% and predicted that excess capacity would, under baseline conditions, continue to be between 11% and 14% through 2025. In examining various alternative scenarios, they also predicted that excess capacity could exceed this if veterinarians began to delay retirement or work additional hours or if the growth in the number of veterinary graduates was higher than expected.

While I appreciate the effort dedicated to this issue, I continue to be dismayed by one aspect of the AVMA response. According to the accompanying article from the AVMA Workforce Advisory Group,² which helped oversee the workforce study, it is “the marketplace, not the AVMA, [that] determines the supply of and demand for [veterinary] services, and as a professional association, the AVMA must not and will not interfere with market forces.” Certainly, I would not expect the AVMA to interfere with market forces. However, I would expect the AVMA to adopt a clear position statement on behalf of the AVMA membership that identifies the impact additional growth in the number of veterinary colleges and in the number of students at existing veterinary colleges will have on the veterinary profession. The economic viability of the veterinary profession is clearly at stake, and the AVMA must boldly represent its membership.

Jeffrey N. Peck, dvm, dacvs

Maitland, Fla

As a 2006 graduate, with > $120,000 in educational debt, I appreciate your publishing the results of the AVMA study on workforce capacity.¹ I recently had to look for a new job in small animal practice, and I can attest that the job market is very tight in many locations. Interestingly, in both of my previous locations, although it appeared there was excess capacity, new veterinary clinics were opening regularly nearby. Ultimately, excess capacity is going to drag salaries down below the level that will allow for repayment of loans, let alone saving for retirement. Although the veterinary colleges make individual decisions on class size, they need to look closely at how those decisions affect the students they graduate. Perhaps certain schools should consider accepting more out-of-state students, screening prospective students more closely with an eye toward accepting those interested in research careers, or accepting students interested in pursuing careers in production medicine into a tracked program.

Kristin Vyhnal, dvm

Longmont, Colo

The AVMA responds:

As Dr. Peck indicates, the AVMA workforce study¹ identified an excess capacity of 12.5% in veterinary services and concluded that, under baseline conditions, excess capacity would range from 11% to 14% through 2025. For baseline conditions, the study estimated that the number of new veterinarians entering the US veterinary workforce would increase from 3,457 in 2013 to 3,986 in 2016 and by 2% annually (the current long-term trend) thereafter. Projected numbers of new veterinarians being added to the supply each year were based on estimates of the number of new graduates entering the veterinary workforce from accredited and nonaccredited colleges of veterinary medicine in the United States and internationally. In addition, in alternative supply scenarios, the study examined the effect on supply of the expansions associated with the proposed new veterinary colleges at Utah State University, Lincoln Memorial University, and Midwestern University and the effect of a 4% annual rate of growth in the number of US citizens graduating from veterinary colleges in the United States and other countries and showed the effects these alternative scenarios would have on excess capacity.

Throughout the report, the term excess capacity was purposefully used because it defines a specific economic condition where potential supply exceeds the quantity demanded at a specific price. Importantly, there are three components—potential supply, quantity demanded, and specified price— that determine excess capacity, and the workforce study did not identify the relative importance of the contributions of these three factors to the current excess capacity.

To suggest that the AVMA should “adopt a clear position statement on behalf of the AVMA membership that identifies the impact additional growth in the number of veterinary colleges and in the number of students at existing veterinary colleges will have on the veterinary profession” singles out just one component of excess capacity. There may indeed be too many veterinarians (oversupply), but it is not accurate to state this without actually knowing the number of veterinarians in the United States, the amount of unmet demand that is available, or the level of excess capacity that may occur at different prices.

Michael Dicks, phd

Director, Economics Division AVMA Schaumburg, Ill

The ears have it

I wanted to say that the artwork appearing on the cover of the June 15, 2013, issue is in my opinion one of the most beautiful pieces of art that you have ever published. Margi Hopkin's colored pencil drawing of the cat entitled “Ears” had gorgeous detail and was stunningly realistic, likely a result of her great talent as well as her close observation of the feline form during her work as a veterinary technician. I would love to see more of her work featured in future issues.

Michele Rosenbaum, vmd, dacvd

Webster, NY

Foreign veterinary school accreditation

I was encouraged when I first heard that the AVMA had formed the Task Force on Foreign Veterinary School Accreditation. This task force was established by the AVMA Executive Board in response to a resolution introduced to the AVMA House of Delegates by the Texas Veterinary Medical Association in July 2011. Among other things, the task force was charged with evaluating the impact of foreign veterinary school accreditation on the veterinary profession in the United States and the effect on quality standards for the US veterinary profession. In reading the final report of the task force,¹ however, I could not find where the potential negative impacts of foreign veterinary school accreditation or the possible adverse consequences of foreign veterinary school accreditation were adequately addressed.

The JAVMA News story² about the task force report states that “Once the task force members set to work, they quickly realized that evaluating the impact of foreign school accreditation on the veterinary workforce in the U.S. was not part of their charge, in that the [AVMA Council on Education {COE}] cannot consider workforce or economic issues when making accreditation decisions.” But, I do not understand how the task force could decide that this was not part of their charge, given that, to me at least, evaluating the impact of foreign veterinary school accreditation on the US veterinary profession would clearly involve workforce and economic issues.

I understand that the COE cannot consider workforce issues when making accreditation decisions on individual schools. But, I don't believe that the AVMA is bound by the same restrictions when evaluating the impact of the accreditation program as a whole. Therefore, I suggest that the AVMA place a moratorium on further foreign veterinary school accreditation by the COE until the full impact on the veterinary profession in the United States can be examined.

Greg Nutt, dvm

Canton, Ga

The AVMA responds:

Dr. Nutt makes an important distinction between the role of the AVMA Council on Education (COE) and the role of the Task Force on Foreign Veterinary School Accreditation. As indicated, the COE cannot consider workforce issues when making decisions on accreditation of individual schools, whether foreign or domestic. However, this still leaves open the question of why the task force's report¹ was silent on the possible impact of foreign school accreditation on the veterinary workforce in the United States, especially when so many other considerations were included.

Importantly, professional associations such as the AVMA must avoid activity that hinders access to the workforce. It is not the role of professional associations to reduce the number of practitioners in the profession, and efforts to do so could have serious antitrust implications. In recent decades, when the dental profession faced declining student applications, among other challenges, some dental colleges closed as the result of an attrition process rooted in the individual economic circumstances of each college. These closures were not the result of concerted action by the dental profession or its professional associations.

On the other hand, the AVMA can investigate and disseminate information about the veterinary workforce. In that regard, analysis of the AVMA database of all veterinarians known to the AVMA suggests that graduates of foreign veterinary schools, including US citizens, currently represent only about 10% of the US veterinary workforce.² Of the 99,019 veterinarians known to the AVMA who are living in the United States and are < 70 years old, only 10,434 (10.5%) are graduates of foreign schools, including 3,579 (3.6%) from foreign schools with high proportions of US citizens and 6,855 (6.9%) from other foreign veterinary schools. Of these 6,855 graduates from other foreign veterinary schools, 1,900 graduated from COE-accredited schools and 4,955 graduated from other programs.

Between the 2009–2010 and 2011–2012 school years (during which time, three foreign schools received COE accreditation), the number of students from nonaccredited foreign schools taking the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination (NAVLE) decreased by 322 and the number of students from accredited foreign schools increased by 356. However, this was largely a reclassification of students from Ross University and St. George's University following accreditation of the colleges of veterinary medicine at these schools. Overall, there was only a 1% increase in the number of students taking the NAVLE for the first time and passing between the 2009–2011 and 2011–2012 school years.

An association can be of great assistance in promoting the business of its members and helping its members compete successfully in the marketplace. This is why you see the AVMA engaged in programs and activities such as the MyVeterinarian.com clinic locator tool and advocating on behalf of the profession by supporting legislation such as the Marketplace Fairness Act (S.743/H.R.684) and the Small Business Start-up Savings Accounts Act (H.R.774). Furthermore, the AVMA can engage in initiatives to promote the use of veterinary services and is doing so through its leadership role in the Partners for Healthy Pets, a program designed to ensure pets receive the preventive healthcare they deserve through regular visits to a veterinarian.

Janver D. Krehbiel, dvm, phd, dacvp

AVMA Executive Board Chair Mason, Mich

Editor's note:

Dr. Nutt's letter was received for publication prior to the June meeting of the AVMA Executive Board. During this meeting, the Board further discussed the issue of foreign veterinary school accreditation and agreed to continue accreditation of foreign veterinary schools.

Kurt J. Matushek, dvm, ms, dacvs

Editor-in-Chief