Differences In The Response

170 – September, 2010

by Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia

INTRODUCTION

There is no shortage of stories in the press about bad things that have happened to people. Looking back at some of these events caused me to think about the past. I can recall that there were plenty of moments worth missing. For example I can recall back in high school there were several pranks that could have resulted in injury or at least a severe penalty. Remember how our teachers talked about “thinking out of the box”. The message was clear. It focused on the idea that, “how much we would learn would depend on how well we were able to organize information”. Emphasis was on the need to gather facts and use them to make decisions. They said it would change our lives. The principle message was that good ideas and hard work would pay off. In the end, most of us graduated and moved on with our lives not knowing that our formal education had not prepared us to handle the unexpected and no classes were offered on how to respond when it does. It was assumed that our education would help us learn from our mistakes and carry us through the hard times.

WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN

In the real world, when bad things happen, most of us are caught off guard. Some learn from these experiences and become more cautious. It is a little like avoiding a crash on an icy road or driving too fast on a sharp curve or not checking to be sure the kennel gate was shut before leaving. These experiences can be game changers. In many respects life generally is a good teacher if we benefit from our experiences and learn from our mistakes. Take, for example, the owner who comes home after a day’s work and discovers their dog is gone. We all have a perspective about these things, but think about the owner of a dog called “Mollie”. She is a six month-old black Newfoundland who, after weeks of searching, is still missing. Then imagine the loss of a mixed breed called “Holly”. She is a brown and white, forty pound rescue who belongs to a little five-year old boy. Everyone is understandably upset when the search for these two dogs is unproductive.

Tragedy comes in many forms and sometimes comparisons can shed light on how to do things better. To this end I thought it might prove useful if I compared two situations. The first involved the disappearance of two children, the second the loss of a dog. Not a fair comparison. You’re right, but let’s see what we can learn when things go wrong for dog owners and the parents of a missing child.

The following two examples point out the sad and undeniable fact that not all lost and missing animals and children get the same kind of treatment. The level of effort used to find them and the resources involved can vary considerably. Even though children are valued more than dogs there are large differences in the efforts used to find missing children. The question I pondered is whether it is really a matter of their value or could it be something else that attributes to the differences in the resources expended. Some believe that the amount of effort and resources used can be explained in terms of whether the loss happens in an urban vs. rural environment. Others think that information and technology make the difference. Looking for answers caused me to begin with some preliminary research about the events surrounding a lost child. I started by reading what is reported, who gets involved and why. My small informal study began with children and the public records, newspaper reports and recorded studies. It was not obvious from the beginning that the patterns of behavior by law enforcement officials were not the same nor were they always predictable. Next I learned that the level of effort used in handling each case was not the same for all children. This caused me to study the reported disappearance of two children in Southern California. The first was 14 year-old Amber Dubois. The second was 17 year-old Chelsea King. Chelsea disappeared February 25, 2010. “She was last seen in a park wearing running shoes.” The case sparked a search involving 1,500 law enforcement officials and thousands of volunteers. It ended 5 days later when her body was found in a shallow lakeside grave.

Amber vanished just 10 miles north of the site where Chelsea was last seen. Police leads went nowhere and no media coverage followed her disappearance. It was only after a convicted sex offender was charged in Chelsea’s death did the search for Amber intensify. The difference in response that followed for these two girls seems to follow a pattern of behavior. What appears to cause the biggest difference in a search and recovery effort seems to depend on getting the full attention of law enforcement and the press. For example, when there are signs or evidence of foul play that could put others at risk, particularly children, the needle moves. The other denominator that makes a difference is the skill of the victim’s family “to work with the media and mobilize supporters”. These facts all contribute to other decisions that put resources to work. Sad, but true, when a story captures public interest more effort is expended by law enforcement and the media. In the United States there are about 115 non-family child abductions each year according to the Justice Department but only a mere handful that ever get anywhere near the attention that followed the disappearance of Chelsea King. In her case, the FBI used dive teams and the Marines dispatched a C-130 and an unmanned aerial vehicle. Local police from Santa Barbara, 200 miles away also were dispatched to San Diego. While the level of effort and the resources applied to Chelsea’s disappearance is  unusual, one must wonder why it is that other families like Amber’s do not get that same level of response. Again, a close look at police records show that when signs of foul play surface early after a disappearance the system shifts forward, the pace changes and the intensity quickens, especially when there is someone available to discuss the facts and circumstances surrounding the victims. In Chelsea’s case, her parents patiently and skillfully worked the media with the help of a volunteer public relations professional.

David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire’s Crime Against Children Research center says, “if there’s a homicidal maniac in the community and there’s a threat to you or your kid, that always increases the fever about the case”. But these are not the only important variables. The social status of the family also seems to make a difference. The more affluent and better educated families have an advantage. They generally are able to get more attention because they are more adept at working the media and building networks.

Because of the number of children who run away or disappear each year, not all of them will get the same level of effort. The attention each case will receive always increases when there is evidence that the child did not have a history of questionable or troubled behavior. When there is clear and convincing evidence that foul play has occurred, the police, the media and the public generally will show more interest and give the case more attention. These two cases demonstrate that the level of effort by the police, the media and others will rise if the parents and their friends provide information, work with the press and continue to pressure the system.  The difference between the resources directed at the disappearance of Amber and Chelsea also made me wonder about the differences in the level of effort used when dogs are lost or missing.

THE CASE FOR PETS

When a dog is lost or missing the typical response begins with the owner who walks the nearby areas of their home, makes calls to neighbors and friends and posts the “Lost Pet” signs with a picture. The police and media are not involved unless a theft is reported. The facts surrounding missing and lost pets also seem to follow a pattern, and the level of effort used to find them also varies but for different reasons. This made me pursue the obvious technology question. Was the pet microchipped? One cannot help but wonder why so many owners leave their pets unprotected and vulnerable. Microchips are inexpensive and they come with a built-in network of shelters, veterinarians and dog clubs that function like an Amber alert system. If the microchip number and the owner’s information is enrolled in a recovery database, the odds for a recovery increase.  Experts contend that the microchip is the single best and most practical way to identify and recover pets when they are lost or stolen. Knowing this, I began a two year study that involved interviews with 85 owners who lost their dogs. All admitted they had not microchipped their dog. Reasons given varied, but most said they never expected their dog would be lost or stolen. Yet each year many articles are written about the thousands of pets that are lost as a result of natural disasters such as  floods, fires and hurricanes. Although there is no hard data that shows the actual number of pets lost and not recovered, one can extrapolate from the information taken from the Katrina and Rita hurricanes. In both hurricanes most of the pets lost were not returned to their owners and most were not microchipped.

In a study of lost pets by Lord (2006), 156 pet owners were surveyed. The results showed that fifty-nine of the 156 (38%) were reunited with their owners; the median time to reunification was two days. In that same survey, only 3% of the cat owners recovered their pet compared with 46% of the dog owners. The reasons given for a recovery were: information provided by an animal agency (25%), placement of a newspaper advertisement (24%), walking the neighborhood (19%), signs in the neighborhood (15%), and information on a collar tag (10%). In this same study most of the finders (87%) considered it extremely important to find the owner, yet only 8% initially surrendered the found pet to an animal agency. The primary reason people did not surrender a lost pet was fear of euthanasia (57%). Of the 156 people included in this study, 72% of the lost pets were found less than one mile from the owner’s home, 19% were found between 1 and 5 miles from the owner’s home, and 9 % were found more than 5 miles from the owner’s home. Of the 156 pets found, 51% were male and 49% were female. Only 17% of the cats were wearing collars at the time they were found compared with 45% of the dogs. These proportions were significant (P = 0.006). When asked whether the pet appeared to be well cared for, 81% of the finders answered yes.

Microchips are all about the same size. They are the single best form of identification because they do not fall off nor do they fade with age. They are slightly larger than a grain of rice and are placed under the skin above the shoulder blades. Microchips are encoded with a unique number that is activated by a scanner.  All microchips work, so owners should shop for cost. Tattoos are not as popular today as they were in the past for several reasons. Lost pets are usually frightened and reluctant to let strangers search their bodies for the location of a tattoo. Most are difficult to find and over time they stretch, fade and blur. To be effective, owners must identify their pet with a microchip or a collar tag and, most importantly, they must enroll their contact information in a reliable recovery database.

Collar tags and microchips have always been the best method to protect pets from theft and loss.  Both can be used with any species at any age. Data from recovery centers show that microchipped pets and those wearing a collar tag have the advantage since a large percentage of lost pets are found by neighbors or are taken to a shelter or a vet’s office where they are scanned for a microchip. Those with a chip have a 90% better chance of being returned to their owners. The difference between who gets their pet back and who doesn’t seems to be related to how information is used and if others get involved. For example, the level of effort used to recover a lost pet can be related to the database where the owner’s contact information is stored.  In this regard there are two kinds of recovery centers. Most are in business to make a profit which means that some will have an annual renewal recovery fee. The one notable exception is the American Kennel Club’s Companion Animal Recovery program (CAR). It is the largest not-for-profit recovery center in North and South America. It offers 24/7 service, 365 days a year. CAR enrolls tattoos, collar tags, and microchips and unlike many of their competitors, they do not charge an annual enrollment fee. CAR charges a one-time small fee for the life of the animal. Their 800-number functions in English and Spanish. CAR has enrolled more than 3 million dogs and cats and has recovered over 300, 000 lost pets. Owners can enter their contact information online http://www.akccar.org/enroll/. Click on “Enroll Your Pet”.

CONCLUSION

Tragedy comes when it is least expected. But when that awful day comes, it becomes your worst nightmare. Think back to the number of “LOST PET” signs you have seen. Now remember the TV alerts announcing a missing child. The unfortunate part of these stories is that children and pets fall victim to bad things. All of these incidents are tragic and they are all moments in life worth missing.

But having a plan and being prepared can make a difference. The plan should include who will be called first, a description of the lost or missing child or pet, their size, weight, clothing, hair length, color, etc. Next you should know who you can count on. This means getting others involved. These are the known ingredients that can make a difference regardless of whether it involved children or pets that go missing or are lost.

References:

Lord L., Wittum T., Ferketich A., et al. 2006. Demographic trends

for animal care and control agencies in Ohio from 1996 to 2004.

J Am Vet Med Assoc; 229:48–54.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=1457

Posted by admin on Oct 13 2010. Filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.