Kill Shelters: Animals May Not Be the Only Victims!

The failure of any local animal shelter run by a city or county government to effectively embrace and implement no-kill policies and procedures detrimentally affects all the no kill organizations in that region, and places untenable demands on the resources of those organizations.  This effectively limits the ability of the no kill organizations to achieve their adoption goals.  As a brief example, recent events in Jacksonville, Florida, will be described followed by my interpretation of the problems that exist.   

Please note that this is not an attempt to vilify Jacksonville Animal Care and Protective Services (ACPS) in particular.  Rather, it is simply a case of local familiarity on my part.  ACPS has done more than many governmentally-run shelters in reducing its kill rate (and less than some others) but recent events mirror what is happening in cities and counties throughout the country. 

Last week, ACPS once again issued an urgent plea for help from local animal adopters, foster families, and rescue organizations.  With the shelter full and actually over capacity, the plea contained a sympathetically and carefully worded but unmistakable threat to the lives of the animals. Inevitably, in the ensuing scramble to rescue the animals that ACPS now has to kill, the needs of the local no kill organizations become secondary to the needs of ACPS.  Available space is used to pull animals scheduled to be killed at ACPS, space that may have been used to house animals from other sources. Foster resources slated for use by the animals that come through the doors of the no kill shelters are now used to save the animals from one source, ACPS.  Advertising resources such as social media focus on seeking homes for the animals in ACPS rather than seeking homes for the animals already housed in the no kill shelters.  

Frequently, because ACPS is one of the best known shelters in the area and therefore a larger beneficiary of donations, volunteers, etc. (in addition to its admittedly meager government funding) than many others, the organizations being asked to help are smaller, have fewer advertising or public relations outlets, are less financially stable than ACPS, and are already stretched to breaking point, but because of their mission they feel compelled to help.  Not to do so would be hypocritical. Therein sits one problem: In an environment where, ideally, all organizations would be cooperating to achieve maximum benefit for all, the benefits of all but one organization are subsumed.   

Undoubtedly, ACPS has made huge strides in its live release versus kill rate over the last few years.  The work of organizations such as Friends of Jacksonville Animals in fundraising and notifying the public of animals available for adoption through ACPS has played an important part in this.  ACPS and its various partner organizations have made much of their desire to become a no kill facility and the publicity campaign has been so successful that some members of the local community seem to believe that ACPS has achieved no-kill status.  Nothing could be further from the truth but this misconception causes another of the underlying problems.  If the public believes ACPS is no kill then no sense of urgency to act exists until the latest news broadcast informs them of how many animals are about to be killed.  

As has been noted, the public awareness of ACPS, the public profile, means that they receive a large portion of the local charitable “pie”.  Yet their very existence and their kill policies, while reducing the resources available to other organizations, demands that their needs be met even when helping could push the smaller organizations over the edge in terms of financial viability.  It is not unlike allowing the demise of many smaller banks in order to save the big financial institutions during the recent economic crash. 

Additionally, the public profile of ACPS aided by its position as a governmental organization provides easier access to and coverage by local news organizations.  This makes the misconceptions about ACPS and the cyclical urgency to empty the shelter en masse (leading to the stress on other organizations) rather than achieving a steady flow of adoptions to counter the number of intakes all the more mystifying. Arguably, there is no animal rescue organization in Jacksonville that is more widely covered and reported on by the local news media:  regular television spots, blogs on the website of the local newspaper, etc.  This is media access that other shelters or rescue organizations only dream of and if used correctly should minimize the frequency of these “emergencies”. 

There can also be no doubt regarding the support available from the local community when they are given easy access to adoption services. For example, over the last weekend of March 2012, three organizations—including ACPS-- combined in what was known as the “Mega Match-a-Thon”. The goal was to find homes for 250 dogs and cats; the result was 304 animals found homes.  Approximately three and a half months later, during a multi-organization event, again including ACPS,  held at the Jacksonville Fairgrounds a goal of 800 adoptions was smashed when over 900 cats and dogs found new homes. 

Having said all this, it is obvious to anyone familiar with the No Kill Equation as proposed by the No Kill Advocacy Center that all the pieces are in place for ACPS to move fully toward its stated No Kill goals: a high public profile, proven public support, easy media access to increase donations and volunteers, a solid network of partner organizations, etc. The missing element appears to be the element that the No Kill Advocacy Center identifies as one of the most vital: Leadership committed to a No Kill future! This lack of leadership may be within the department itself, or it may be at the level of city government, it is not for me to say where, but there is no doubt of its existence.  A few months ago ACPS experienced budget cuts as part of a citywide budget restructuring.  The most widely publicized result was the demotion of the adoptions and rescue coordinator, June Mason, and her replacement by someone who had been involved in animal rescue related positions for less time than June but had been a governmental employee longer. During her employment in the position, June developed positive relationships with rescue organizations throughout not only the state but also the country.  A huge public outcry including a petition containing well over a thousand signatures failed to overturn a decision that was based on established union and governmental policies rather than on the welfare of the animals.  It is such blind adherence to bureaucracy rather than to proven effectiveness that prevents shelters throughout the nation from moving toward no kill status.  Perhaps no single event demonstrated the negative impact of June’s demotion more than the fact that this most recent plea for help was issued by ACPS’s Division Chief because the adoption and rescue coordinator was “not available”, an occurrence that I never witnessed when June held the position! 

I must reiterate that this is not an indictment of ACPS.  It is a reflection of something that happens on a daily basis in the United States because of the failure of the local “pounds”, for whatever reasons, to do the right thing, to embrace the no kill philosophy, and to use the advantages of their governmental position to bring this into reality. If all locally run shelters became no kill they could then become full members of the animal welfare community with all organizations pooling resources to work toward a common goal. A full partnership would result in the frequent saving of two animals for every one adopted: If the no kills could focus on adopting out their own animals, then every adopted animal creates a space to pull another from a kill shelter. A constant flow of adoptions and rescues could relieve the pressure on the kill shelter and the no kills. Until that occurs, government shelters will continue acting as an entity that all other organizations are expected to compete with, but are still expected to pull from the fire on a regular basis. And when, as they always will, the no kill organizations use their valuable resources to come to the aid of the kill shelters it is worth asking, not only about individual animals but also about smaller rescue groups: How many will not survive this time?