Defending the Indefensible - Are You Enabling Animal Shelter Killing?
My very first job for a newspaper was in advertising sales in a tiny little town in northern Alberta. There were three staff - an editor/reporter, a typesetter/secretary and myself. We published a weekly paper that was absolutely horrible, not worthy of lining a birdcage. Back before the days of desktop publishing; everything was typed, sight unseen into a huge blue machine that I have since forgotten the name of. There were many typos and factual errors, the pictures were blurry, and the stories were poorly written.
But I beat the streets day after day, defending the newspaper and trying to convince the local businesses to advertise. We needed the advertising revenue to keep our jobs and keep the doors open. I had no control over the content of the paper (I was the newbie on staff) and I was embarrassed by the whole thing. But you do what you gotta do to put food on the table.
Luckily, after about six months, I relocated to another town and got a job at an award-winning weekly newspaper that I was extremely proud to work for.
Now that I've become involved with animal welfare, I often see staff at shelters defending bad practices. I honestly think these staff took a job in animal sheltering because they love animals. They probably started the job with enthusiasm, thinking they were going to be able to make a difference, saving the lives of homeless animals.
But then something went wrong. All of a sudden those enthusiastic employees begin to see the cracks in the system. Instead of saving lives, the shelter is cutting corners or killing healthy animals or making costly mistakes. It becomes an embarrassment to work there. But you gotta do what you gotta do. Staff need their jobs and they need for the shelter to keep it's doors open. So instead of speaking up for the animals they love, they defend the shelter's bad practices. Even when the shelter is killing pets when better life-saving methods are available.
Somebody has to bear the blame. So it's much easier for the staff and management to point the finger at the "irresponsible public" than to criticize shelter management, potentially losing their job. It's much easier to blame lack of donations, or lack of public support, or the No Kill advocates that are rallying for change. It's much easier to try to discredit the better methods than to embrace change and learn new things. It's much easier to call the advocates "bashers and trouble makers" and reject their good ideas. Because it's hard to not defend your employer. Until one day, you realize that killing healthy or treatable animals is just plain wrong.
I know. I was there. Defending something that I didn't believe in. But killing healthy or treatable animals is wrong. Just plain wrong. And it's indefensible.
Leadership that makes a difference includes a personal willingness to do the right thing. It makes tough choices - moral choices, spiritual choices, ethical choices, right choices.
- Stan Toler
Mr Lundt
6:26 pm on Monday, February 11, 2013
The reality is that there is a shortage of money, health care treatment, and space for needy pets.
While people understand you call for no killing...you provide NO roadmap for making it a reality. It is easy to complain and so far all you have presented is a moral superior attitude without anything of real value---like a solution.
Come out of your ivory tower and help solve the problem. There are many animal shelters that would love to see your vision become a reality.
Kathy Pobloskie
7:34 pm on Monday, February 11, 2013
Mr. Lundt,Thank you for your comment. I blog in several different places and I apologize if I have been remiss at this website about the solution to shelter killing. It is really quite simple. It is not easy, but it is simple and cities like Reno, NV and Austin, TX are currently doing it (saving over 90% of the animals in their care). Jacksonville and Kansas City are not far behind. And over 80 other American communities are also following the roadmap to success. The roadmap involves using all eleven steps of an Equation that result in cost-saving, life-saving animal control. These include: 1. trap, neuter, return for feral cats 2. proactively returning lost pets to owners 3. low cost spay neuter 4. comprehensive adoptions 5. volunteer programs 6. pet retention 7. community involvement 8. medical and behavior prevention and rehabilitation 9. foster care 10. rescue partnerships and 11. a compassionate, hard-working director that can lead the way.
It costs less to transfer or adopt out an animal that it does to impound, house, kill and dispose of it's body, which is what MADACC currently does. MADACC is currently totally missing #1, 6, 7, 8 and 11. They are woefully lacking in #2,3,4,5, 9 and 10.
Thankfully, a new compassionate director has recently been hired and will begin on February 18th. But she will require the support of the entire community to achieve her goals.
For more information visit the following website: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/.
Mr Lundt
9:20 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Thanks Kathy
One of the reasons that the kill rate is so low is that when the Reno site gets filled---they transfer animals to a variety of other "shelters". However I could see no information regarding THEIR kill rates. Could you address that? And how you verified that?
The Reno facilities and the staff are top notch--in both quality and pay/benefits. Are you suggesting that our local budgets can remain flat and the same results achieved?
J. Carter
12:02 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Mr. Lundt,
The increased costs of no-kill is also documented for other NK communities. There are links directly to county budgets and shelter 990's.
Reno - http://delawarecapa.blogspot.com/2012/04/millions-of-dollars-common-sense.html
Austin - http://delawarecapa.blogspot.com/2012/05/hillsborough-animal-services-director.html
It seems to me the no-kill agenda is placing shelters in financial jeopardy and that is something to be concerned about. Shelters can't help animals if they financially bankrupt themselves.
Nevada Humane
Deficits Since No-Kill Effort Began 2006
2004 403,343.00
2005 2,168,793.00
2006 (1,000,367.00)
2007 (855,614.00)
2008 (237,365.00)
2009 (1,000,164.00)
2010 (293,971.00)
Austin TX
2008-2009 Budget $5,397,428.
2012-2013 Budget $8,200.000
Delaware SPCA
Deficits since No-Kill Effort Began 2008
Losses going down by taking less animals each year.
2008 (814,100)
2009 (573,154)
2010 (361,163)
$$andSense
9:41 pm on Monday, February 11, 2013
I will digress here. Why is some cat, dog, horse, cow, etc. worth more to you than a human? I have not read or heard of your name mentioned towards any sentiment for the disabled or elderly withering in their homes or government care facilities that gave us our generation, our lives and our families. Educate me, please. Is this animal thing just a hobby of yours and true societal issues of humans a distraction?
carrie holmes
2:06 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
as much as the elderly need help they do get it im sorry..they arnt breed for wealth..they arnt forced to be in the world..i willl be elderly one day and i have no retirement right now ..but yet i will still live off of your taxpaying dollar..thats our system..it may not be much but yet im poor always have been and always survived...u can take 10 dollars to a dollar tree or discount market and eat for a month ..so screw your mindset on the whole starving elderly .. isnt it your duty to hel them? are u helping them??at least i go and visit the elderly and take them packages...i also donate food to animal shelters from food i get from the dollar stores and dicount markets ..tell me again how animals that us as humans let go to fend for themselves
Kathy Pobloskie
9:34 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
I have written numerous times about the link between compassion for animals and compassion for people. The two are intertwined. A truly humane society cares for people AND animals. But since my blog on the Patch is under the Pets heading. I write about pets (companion animals). $$andSense, if you want to raise awareness about human concerns, I suggest you write a blog about that.
Craig
10:51 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
$10 and eat for a month?
If that were true, then you could feed that crap to the animals....or would that be cruelty?
You have to accept that some animals are not adoptable, for different reasons.
Why would I adopt a ten year old dog to spend thousands at the vet only to find out his life is near its end?
What about the dog who is a fear biter? Should I assume the risk an adopt one who may eat the face off my neighbor's kid?
What about those animals who destroy your home when left alone? Is it worth spending hundreds to have an animal therapist try to correct the problem?
Some animals are better off euthanized.
As soon as you accept that you can't save them all, you can start doing good for those who can be saved.
Carrie, you need to face reality. Might I suggest some therapy as well. Start with the dollar store, see if the got headshrinkers in a box for .99
carrie holmes
1:58 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
if people could stop being assholes we wouldnt need shelters..untill people stop breeding for wealth until people acctually do research before buying that cute puppy(wich turns into a dog) for ratty children who lose intrest ..until the world recognizes that they are the reason theese poor animals are beaten..neglected..thrown out like trash..until the world the so calle humans can stop being assholes this will never be solved this problem of shelters this problem of who can help theese poor animals..the homeless animals out weigh the homeless people..the thing is people have a choice to better themselves they have shelters that help them better themselves they have resources that can help them..what do animaLS HAVE?? AS OUR TAXPAYING DOLLARS ARE SPENT TO HARBOR NASTY CRIMINALS WHOM HAVE RAPED OUR CHILDREN..OUR WOMEN..THEESE CRIMINALS WHO HAVE KILLED OUR FAMILIES KILLED THE INNOCENCE..we find the money to let them live..i feel screw them.. i want my dollars to go to the defenceless animals whom did not ask to be thrown out like trash..whom did not ask to be born who just want a loving home by the humans that decided they should exist...
Mr Lundt
9:17 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Carrie
You are not helping the cause you claim to support. A more reasoned approach without vulgar words would be a nice place to start.
Jack
9:23 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
I am doing my part, I own 2 dogs and 3 cats, my wife volunteers at the Human Society as a dog walker, but I don't think there is ever going to be a perfect situation when animals aren't put down. There are simply too many and not enough pet owners, heck, look at how easy some folks leave their children and older parents.
Kathy Pobloskie
9:43 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
In fact Jack, there are enough homes. Twenty four million people in America acquire a new pet each year. About 8 million animals enter shelters each year. About 3 - 4 million are kiled (many of those are feral cats that cannot be adopted out as pets). So, we don't have an "overpopulation" problem. We have a marketing problem. And a management problem. Shelters that are killing animals are failing to follow the eleven steps that I outlined above. 40 to 60% of animals in shelters are lost pets. Simply using volunteer efforts to help reunite these animals with their families would go a long way to reduce shelter crowding. Yet many shelters don't take the simplest steps to do this. Some shelters have poor sanitation practices that cause animals to become sick. Good sanitation does not cost more. It actually costs less because animals that are sick require longer stays, more medication and then if they need to be killed there are costs associated with killing them and disposing of their body. In a taxpayer funded shelter, like MADACC, this is YOUR money that is being wasted. When an animal is transferred out or adopted instead - the costs are transferred to private philanthropy. Plus there are spin off effects in the community. Veternarians, dog groomers, pet sitters, pet supply stores, all benefit.
Evelyn Black
1:11 pm on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
There is a better way - where shelter animals AREN'T killed!! Please look into the solution that many shelters around the country are implementing - specific programs which result in an over 90% SAVE ratio!! These programs are explained in REDEMPTION by Nathan Winograd and at www.NoKillAdvocacyCenter.org.
Kathy Pobloskie
9:51 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Mr. Lundt, to answer your questions about Reno (Washoe County, Nevada). The animals are transferred to Nevada Humane Society which also has a greater than 90% save rate. If you go to their website at this link check out the bottom left hand corner under Statistics that not only shows their numbers but also how they achieved them. http://www.nevadahumanesociety.org/index.htm
You can also read this booklet called Dollars and Sense that explains the cost benefits of effective animal sheltering: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/econbenefits.pdf
Randy1949
11:56 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Kathy, I have seven cats I have kept out of shelters -- five directly, because their owners were planning to take them there if i didn't step up, and two who showed up as strays. They are all spayed, at my expense, and cared for.
I tend to stay away from shelters, mostly because I'd be tempted to adopt, and I know fate will send another needy animal my way soon enough.
How do we solve the problem of pet overpopulation? Better owner education and more low-cost spay/neuter programs. That about all we can do.
Evelyn Black
1:05 pm on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
SHELTER KILLING is the #1 cause of death for healthy dogs & cats in Americ. However, there's a lot that can be done instead of the "save some and kill the rest" mentality that the majority of animal "shelters" are stuck in. Close to one hundred open admission shelters around the country are SAVING over 90% of all the animals coming into their doors, by a variety of programs outlined in the book REDEMPTION, by Nathan Winograd. These shelters (and many others striving toward this achievement) are documented at www.NoKillNews.org. There is a better way; owner education and low-cost spay & neuter availability are a big part of it - as well as the sometimes novel concepts of being open evenings & weekends or working with rescue groups willing to pull animals on the euthanasia list - simple things that most shelters aren't doing!!!!!!
Mr Lundt
1:41 pm on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
At some point Reno will be saturated at the deaths will increase. The HSUS estimates that animal shelters care for 6-8 million dogs and cats every year in the United States, of whom approximately 3-4 million are euthanized.
Do we really think there are 3-4 million homes PER YEAR waiting to adopt pets? DO you think these people are not adopting pets now because they don't know how or where to go?
Do we think that the people the are reckless and careless with animals will change behavior as a result of education? Some yes but 8 million a year?
I'm telling you it does not add up in my head.
Kathy Pobloskie
4:49 pm on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Mr. Lundt. I am attaching a link that will perhaps explain the numbers better for you: http://www.maddiesfund.org/Maddies_Institute/Articles/The_Shelter_Pet_Project_By_the_Numbers.html
Born Free
10:00 pm on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Not a population problem?
Too much inventory = over population!
Pets are maintenance items and depreciating assets. Word on the street has it that people have cut back on expenses and are giving up their pet's. Right now no one needs a vet bill, a groomers bill, animal toy expense and an extra mouth to feed. People are already seeing federal tax increases on their pay checks for you know what and this is only the beginning.
J. Carter
1:24 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Some of us believe that fixing the demand side is not the answer because overpopulation is not a myth. We need to focus on the supply side. Clearly targeted spay neuter works, or we wouldn't see so many transports headed to New Hampshire and other New England states due to their lack of supply of puppies and kittens. It's the more fiscally sound approach since it results in less pets that need animal control services, rather than the costly demand side approach. Here is a recent article that references that huge 39% of pets that come from friends, family, & strays.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ruth-steinberger/spay-neuter-animal-shelters_b_2534069.html
J. Carter
1:25 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Exactly Born Free. There is an image that the various NK sites pass around that shows supply and demand. The issue is they only show shelter pets on the supply side, when it should include pet stores, breeders, family & friends & strays, and others like Craiglist, etc.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=487301907960725&set=pb.159092957448290.-2207520000.1360911524&type=3&theater
The image claims 23.5 million Americans acquire pets each year, so if 23.5 million acquired animals last year and 4 million were euthanized, that is overpopulation.
What's significant about the misrepresentation in that image is the fact that it doesn't address the largest category of 39% of animals are acquired from family and friends. So if the concept is that we can shift market share, then the result is that extra shelter pet that was adopted out will unfortunately be replaced by the one he would have adopted/bought from one of the other sources. If it doesn't work with shifting the market, then the only solution is finding 4 million homes that weren't looking to acquire and animal, and that could explain the increase we've all seen in hoarding and rescues gone bad.
Kathy Pobloskie
9:04 am on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Born Free, you may want to check the statistics before you comment. Pet spending has continued to increase, even in tough economic times. Here is an article from Time Business and Money that shows how much Americans spend on their pets. "last year, consumers spent $51 billion on pets, a record that's expeted to be broken again this year."http://business.time.com/2012/10/04/millions-on-pet-halloween-costumes-why-we-spend-more-and-more-on-pets/
Randy1949
9:12 am on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Golly, I feed, shelter, and provide medical care for my pets. I don't dress them up for Halloween. And in my experience, cats enjoy a crumpled up piece of paper better than a store-bought toy.
I have known people who had to give up pets for economic reasons (foreclosure and move to an apartment that doesn't allow pets) but it's an agonizing decision, not the simple money-saving thing Born Free suggests.
Kathy Pobloskie
9:27 am on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
I don't dress my pets up for Halloween either, Randy! But apparently a lot of people do!
Randy1949
9:42 am on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
I think dogs might enjoy being dressed up for holidays, because dogs are really into being part of the human activities. Cats -- not so much.
My cats and my horses are a part of the family, and I'd do without myself to see that their needs are met. But it's a no-frills kind of love.
DevonTT
2:11 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
The whole "We can adopt our way out of killing" strategy was conceived by Maddie's Fund with research conducted by DraftFCB, an advertising agency.
DFCB approached the problem as they would with any client whose success depends on increasing sales (in this case, adoptions). Their strategy was to steal business from the "competition"--i.e., to convince people who are getting their pets from "other sources" to adopt from a shelter instead.
In the business world, if you're the competitor who sees your sales shrinking because customers have gone elsewhere, you cut back on production. You don't keep flooding the market with products that people aren't buying.
But this doesn't apply to pets. No matter where people may be acquiring them, animals keep reproducing at the same rate, creating a perpetual oversupply.
DraftFCB did not factor in a supply of "product" that self-generates.
The no-kill movement has based its philosophy and approach on this flawed strategy and have deluded too many people into believing it's possible to empty shelters if they only worked harder. By doing so, they have diminished the importance of the only tactics that can actually solve the problem: a sweeping, pervasive emphasis on spay/neuter, tagging/ID'ing pets so they can be returned without ever entering a shelter, programs to help people keep their pets, and other initiatives that reduce intake.
Increasing shelter adoptions is laudable, but it cannot be perceived as The Solution.
Lyle Ruble
6:23 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
I wish that all the attention that is paid to this subject was paid to saving our abused and neglected children who have been placed in the foster care system. I have to seriously question people's priorities.
Bob McBride
6:42 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
That's a false equivalency. The issues are not the same. There's no need to denigrate the priorities of people dedicated to one cause, simply because they aren't the same as yours.
Why not do a blog on that topic yourself? You've got knowledge on the topic, I believe. You generally do a very good job of presenting an issue. There's certainly more than enough room on this site for a variety of issues.
Lyle Ruble
7:13 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
@Bob McBride...OK, you're right, it is a false equivalency. That's why I like you to be around, you keep people like me honest. Thanks for the suggestion about doing a blog about the condition of our "throw away" children.
Randy1949
8:54 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
@Lyle Ruble -- You disappoint me. Concern for animals is not antithetical to concern for other human beings. I used to know someone who insisted that as long as one person was hungry in this world, animals shouldn't be fed. That person kind of lacked a genuine concern for other human beings when you got below the surface.
Children shouldn't be throwaway, any more than puppies, kittens or baby chicks at Easter. The root cause of it all is human irresponsibility.
Lyle Ruble
9:39 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
@Randy1949....I am not advocating that we ignore our animals and let them suffer because of owner irresponsibility. I know from your previous posts that your family is not one that turns their backs on needy children. However, I think that if we should have the same amount of concern for kids that we do for animals, both deserve to be treated with kindness and empathy.
Randy1949
9:54 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
@Lyle -- I can also say with complete authority that a child who is treated with a lack of kindness and empathy will become a much worse problem for society than a dog or cat whose owner has turned it vicious.
Life is life, and if you bring it into the world you are responsible for it. I also belief (and this is merely a personal prejudice) that people who are brought up to have an empathy for animals extend that empathy to human beings.
Craig
9:37 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Randy you make a good point. The other side of the globe doesn't have dog overpopulation problems, perhaps we should ship our extras out there.
If done by Executive order, maybe BHO would get another Nobel prize. This time for feeding the hungry.
Of course if our economy keeps going down the toilet, people may adopt them for the Bar b q .
That is almost as bizarre as the author's two dogs for every home approach.
ann
10:11 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Why can't we be compassionate to kind to all animals and children? Why is this an either/or situation? It's not.
Randy1949
10:28 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Well, you can't just take stray kids home with you, no matter how much you'd like to.
Craig
11:01 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Well, you can but...you might wind up spending time behind alcohol free bars.
Wendy Ruhland
11:17 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
Thank you Ann!
Larry Brink
8:02 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
In my opinion, the number one, biggest problem with pet over population is, Puppy Mills. Those individuals are in the business for the money and nothing else. The almighty dollar.
They could care less how many litters a female dog has, or if that dog is healthy or not. The majority of dog, puppies sold from the pet stores are from puppy mills. A good percentage of those puppies are in fact sick because of the conditions.
My wife and I have Rescued 5 dogs, male and female from puppy mills. these animals have never even stood on grass, some not even on the ground.
Lets maybe think about eliminating or regulating these puppy mills. Why have I not read anything about the main cause, puppy mills, in these comments?
larryb
Wendy Ruhland
11:25 pm on Monday, February 18, 2013
I also think, the small time breeders make a huge impact...and i may be wrong-
add them all up. Good conversation here. It's a major problem: we all have a long way to go.