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? 

"Accident", “Bureaucracy Gone Mad”, or “WTF?” The Needless Killing of Healthy Animals!

Think Lucky would surviuve your local shelter? Fortunately, she is in a no-kill shelter!

I believe in a no-kill philosophy when it comes to shelter animals. I follow several animal related blogs, Facebook pages, etc. But I can hardly be accused of obsessively scouring the news each day for stories about shelters needlessly killing animals in their “care”. Yet here we are on only the 19th day of October 2012 and already this month two horrendous stories regarding this particular topic have caught my attention. Some describe the situation leading to this as bureaucracy gone mad but, to me, a more appropriate response would be an acronym that is popular in the modern vernacular: WTF?

The month began with the story of “Toothless”, a cat belonging to eight year old boy in Logan, Utah, being “accidentally” killed by a humane society shelter when the family had informed the shelter that the cat would be picked up the following day. 

Yesterday, through a Facebook post by the No-Kill AdvocacyCenter, I learned of a dog being “accidentally” killed by the Central California SPCA when the family had already informed the shelter that they would be there to pick up the 11-month old Pit Bull named Scar. Apparently, after getting out of the yard, Scar was taken to the shelter by a neighbor who made various accusations against the dog, none of which were substantiated during an investigation by the SPCA.

In my opinion, there are two issues here. One is the culture of these shelters where killing healthy animals is not only accepted but even expected and often encouraged. The rush to kill animals is, in its own right, abhorrent!

The second issue is the apparent lack of checks and balances to ensure that such “accidents” do not occur. It is not difficult to disseminate information throughout a shelter stating that a family is coming to pick up an animal or that a rescue, be it adoption or fostering, is imminent. As a nurse I have worked in many hospitals and know that, although mistakes happen, the policies and procedures in place to keep these mistakes to a minimum are numerous: two licensed nurses checking medication orders, the five “rights” of medication administration (right medication, right dose, right patient, right route, etc.), the physical marking of limbs to be operated on, etc. to name just a couple of examples. So why aren’t there similar policies and procedures in place where animals’ lives are at stake? Or, if there are, why is nothing being done about incompetent workers? A nurse found guilty of such incompetence would be fired and their license revoked in a heartbeat. 

Think I’m exaggerating the problem by just naming two incidents? According to the No-Kill Advocacy Center, “‘Accidental’ killings of beloved pets happen every day in shelters in this country. Google ‘shelter mistakenly euthanized pet’ and you’ll get ‘About 205,000 results (0.34 seconds).’” Try it. I did and got 226, 000 (0.40 seconds). Now, admittedly, some of these results may be reported in more than one place. Some may be reported in more places than in others but, to pick an arbitrary number, let’s say that each incident is reported in an average of ten places . . . that is still 22, 600 incidents. Before you object, I know that this is not a scientific assessment of the number of individual incidents, but I hope you get my drift.


While hospital-like checks and balances may help—they don’t solve the problem, but they may reduce these “mistakes”--the only true way to end these tragedies, to stop healthy animals dying needlessly, is for the pet-loving public to pressure their local shelters into adopting a no-kill philosophy. Find out how you can achieve this at the No-Kill Advocacy Center’s website. Some of the rescue groups in your area may already be no-kill, but it is likely that the local government-run facilities—even if run by a “humane society” or a “society for the protection of animals”—are not! 

Unfortunately, until this happens, it seems that I am destined to say frequently, “WTF?” followed closely by, “Not again!”

SHOULD I FOSTER OR ADOPT?

My admiration for those who foster recued animals is enormous, but I frequently wonder how they can give up those animals in their care when a forever home is found.  My personal preference has always tended towards adoption rather than fostering, but that may be changing. What follows are my evolving thoughts on why true animal lovers should consider the possibility of fostering rather than adopting. Is it possible that fosters are performing a more valuable service to their animals than they would by adopting them?  

My wife, Val, and I have adopted several dogs over our lifetime.  But as, yet again, we see the signs of the impending loss of a beloved family member—the greying of the muzzle, the increasing number of days when sleeping seems more important than playing—a loss perhaps not imminent but undeniably inevitable, our thoughts increasingly turn to what we will do when our canine family is reduced by one. And with increasing frequency Val’s conversation veers toward fostering rather than adopting. 

I openly acknowledge that I possess a selfish streak. I adore the relationships that I build with my dogs over the years, and I dread the loss of each one of those relationships. The death of previous dogs left holes which never filled completely, even when a new dog entered the family.  Our only encounter with fostering seemed to reinforce my belief that I could never willingly give up a dog once they had entered our home. 



Lulu

This happened when a gorgeous young stray we named Lulu followed Val and Shadow home during their morning walk. We knew we could not care for another dog on a long-term basis and as we tried to locate Lulu’s owners, we thought that we had found a potential home with one of the techs at a local vet’s office.  This was not to be.  Through no fault of Lulu’s, the new owner found she was unable to keep Lulu and we had to take her back.   

 

It was then that we sought the help of our friends at PetRescue North (PRN) to find a forever home for Lulu. In the intervening weeks I quickly fell in love.  Lulu’s infectious smile and incessant playfulness not only brightened the lives of Val and me, but also of our other dogs. It was not long before a potential adopter was found, but I kept secretly hoping that something would render the application unsuitable.  There was no such problem, so we took Lulu to meet her potential new family.  Like us they were instantly smitten!  And, with mixed emotions, we left Lulu with her new family.  It turned out to be a perfect match: Lulu is loved and is given even more in the way of fun and care than possibly even we could provide.  Yet there is not a day goes by when I do not think of her. So how could I put myself through this on a regular basis?  

I discovered some possible answers to this question while planning the creation of materials aimed at increasing the number of foster available to PRN, materials which are still in the planning stage. As part of the process I posted a request on the PRN Facebook page for input from fosters regarding why they did what they did.  The response was immediate and passionate, and I have included some of those responses here.  I have had to edit some of the content because of space and repetition of ideas but note that in those edited portions several themes such as the number of dogs rescued by fostering rather than adopting appeared time and again! 

 

 

Catrina Harris said,  I always look at it like this . . . when you foster and let them go, you are giving them a chance at life, for a great home . . . letting go of one always means saving another life . . . if you keep them all, you are limited . . . .You may only be able to keep 5 dogs/cats in your home permanently . . . that is 5 dogs you have saved during the course of his/her life . . . which could be 15 years. Great, you saved 5 dogs in 15 years . . . but if you foster 5 dogs a year and find them homes . . . in 15 years you have saved 75 dogs. 

Sarah Speicher responded to my request by saying, Each time you let go, that's another happy family you helped create . . . It's not easy to let go, but that's when you get yourself another foster and pour all that loving onto them. 

Stephanie Hardee-Gant wrote . . . I love being a foster. The first time . . .  I won't lie. I cried like a baby when Rupper was adopted. But it always make me feel like I'm able to help and give love to so many more dogs this way. 

Catrina Harris again: There is no feeling like handing over your foster to their forever home . . . it is bitter sweet, but I keep in touch with a lot of my adopters years later . . . and they are some of my best friends now . . . I not only found these pets awesome homes, I gained friends all over the U.S. 

Cindi Depriest Van Vleck: I fostered to save lives because I know w/o foster homes none can be saved. Was it hard to let them go . . . yes some . . .  but each time the dog let me know that they knew the new family was theirs so it made letting them go easy .The pain of losing one foster was always replaced by the new face that needed a home for a while. 

Tanya Francisco Nelson: Another thing about fostering . . . it can work our great for people who travel a lot. This way you can have all the enjoyment of a pet when it is convenient for YOU without a full time commitment when it isn't. And you're saving lives. 

Alicia Merlino: A fostered dog may be more desirable because a potential family will know more about how the dog acts in that environment. 

Debra Williams: You may want to touch on the fact that by fostering dogs you give them a much higher chance of remaining in a forever home. Because they were fostered, they generally have been housetrained & learned some basic commands---which makes fostered dogs very appealing to those looking to adopt. Also, because a dog is living in a home versus a shelter--the foster family is able to get to know the dog & therefore pass on accurate information about how the dog behaves in a home setting. A foster family is more apt to know if the dog has any special behavioral needs. I think that the more info available to prospective adopters the better---kinda helps eliminate any surprises---and therefore should reduce the chance of a dog being returned.

 

In addition to the math showing how many more animals can be saved by fostering rather than adopting, an important--and often under-emphasized--role of the animal foster is found in the last two comments: the socialization, training, and preparation of the animals for a forever home.  Frequently, foster animals are placed in foster homes with other animals and with children.  The animals become used to living an environment as part of a family, they learn the rules and expectations in such environments, lessons they can often not learn in shelters. Successful adoptions involve the correct placement of particular animal temperaments in homes suited to those temperaments.  Shelter life is an abnormal environment for an animal and behavioral or temperamental tendencies may be masked in these situations.  Foster homes provide valuable opportunities to learn the true nature of an animal and match them to suitable adopters. 

While the staff and the volunteers of recue organizations provide the heart and the compassion of an animal rescue organization, the backbone, the ribs, the skeleton on which everything else hangs, the structure that makes everything else possible is a strong network of foster homes.  Some organizations do not have a physical shelter and rely entirely on their foster families.  In those organizations that do have a shelter, every dog placed in foster care leaves a space open in the shelter which can be used to save another animal. 

However, please don’t think of fostering as a cheap or easy way of receiving the benefits of a pet without the responsibility.  Fosters must play an active role in the placement of their charges by transporting them to adoption events, by ensuring the animal is ready for adoption, by providing appropriate medical care (although this is frequently paid for by the rescue organization) and by training.  It is a huge task, but if the response to my request for input from fosters is any indication it is also hugely rewarding!

 

To all fosters out there, our gratitude cannot be expressed loudly enough. Without you there would be no animal rescue movement! To those thinking of adopting, would you be more suited to fostering?  If you have room for two animals why not adopt one and use the other space to foster? With the nationwide pressure on available shelter space, foster homes may be even more valuable than adoptive homes at this time in attempts to move towards becoming a no-kill country. 







Shadow







Am I ready to become a foster rather than an adopter?  I’m not sure yet, but I’m certainly a lot closer than I was a couple of years ago, and the valiant heroes quoted above played a massive role in this change.  I still dread the day when I have to make the decision because it means one of my family members—probably Shadow, simply because he is the oldest—is gone. Hopefully, it is still a few years away but perhaps that will be his legacy . . . that the love he brought into our lives will be shared with more than one dog in the future.  I think he will be happy with that idea! 

 

CONSIDER BECOMING A FOSTER HOME FOR A RESCUED ANIMAL! 

 

As a final aside, to all fosters who responded to my request for information, thank you so much.  The materials your input was originally intended for will be forthcoming!



A SHELTER DOG DREAMS: A Poem

Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare: Confused? You Will Be . . .

“As I grow older I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.” ~Andrew Carnegie 

 

The original idea behind this essay was to try and clarify some of the differences between animal rights activists and animal welfare supporters. However, as I delved into researching the topic I developed a freakin’ headache. It's not so much the topic itself as the hypocrisy shown by supporters of one position or the other. Hence the opening quotation. 

Animal rights advocacy is based in the supposition that all sentient species deserve equal rights with humans, especially as this pertains to the right to avoid suffering. Various terms are thrown around such as sentience (the ability to feel sensation), and speciesism (prejudice against another species). Many philosophers and scholars of ethics, from Immanuel Kant to John Stuart Mill, have thrown their hat into the ring regarding the subject, the latter adopting his utilitarian approach which is essentially a mathematical calculation of the harm caused subtracted from the amount of overall happiness gained. If you're familiar with the recent arguments known as personhood being proposed by the pro-life faction of the abortion debate and extend that argument to nonhuman species you may have an idea of what the extreme end of the animal-rights spectrum believe and advocate. At this extreme end advocates propose that all human use of animals ends, up to and including the ownership of companion animals. Vegan lifestyles are pushed and often extreme actions are taken. 

On the other hand, animal welfare advocates adopt a position that is, arguably, more one of stewardship. The use of animals for food, clothing, and companionship, for example, is accepted but the infliction of unnecessary suffering in the fulfillment of these uses is unethical and should be outlawed. 

That all seems clear, doesn't it? So where does the confusion arise? Well, to go back to the opening quotation, the words and actions do not always match. Supposed animal-rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) actually advocate, support, and encourage the killing of animals in rescue shelters. The theory behind this appears to be that killing the animals prevents the suffering imposed by a potential lifetime of confinement with limited exercise and interaction. I see several problems with this position…not least of which is the fact that the workers in most rescue shelters are kind caring people who interact as much as possible with those in their care and provide as much exercise as is possible, while seeking to find permanent homes. Perhaps more importantly, by an extension of this logic, if the rights of animals and humans are equal then those people confined to nursing homes or other forms of long-term care should also be killed? Ridiculous? Then consider this… In some of the more famous incidents involving PETA, activists threw fake blood on people for wearing fur coats. One has to presume that the thinking behind this action is, "if the animal suffered in making your coat, then we will make you suffer for wearing it." If that is the case then these people believe in equal suffering. Therefore, why are the remedies for supposed suffering not also the same? 

Also, consider the position of the abolitionists, the really extreme end of the animal-rights spectrum. If, in the interest of equal rights, we should not be killing animals and we should not own them then what happens? If we provide animals with an unfettered right to life but are not prepared to care for them then presumably they will all be running wild. I don't necessarily have a problem with that thought but it will inevitably create a situation where animals and humans are competing for resources such as food and shelter. We all know what happens in that situation! 

On the other hand, one would think that animal welfare advocates would be in favor of euthanasia in overcrowded rescue shelters, thinking that it would be in the best interests of the animals. Yet, animal welfare advocates comprise the majority of the no-kill movement. Animal welfare advocates unfailingly tend to be optimists. They see the best in human nature despite experiencing the worst, and believe that there is a compassionate side to human nature which, if appealed to, will result in the compassionate treatment of animals.  

I personally believe in an animal welfare philosophy. I believe we were intended, as the supposedly superior species (although that is debatable), to care for those sharing this planet with us while taking into account biological and evolutionary needs. We were designed to be omnivores not herbivores, but there is no need in farming to inflict unnecessary suffering upon the animals that we will eat. We do not have to be cruel to raise animals for food. We could at least have the common decency and empathy to ensure that their lives are comfortable and pain-free. Some animal uses are unacceptable, for example, the testing of cosmetics on animals. Also, we must preserve endangered species… The extinction of an entire species purely because of our own needs is proof of our own fallibility. It reduces the human species to nothing more than the locusts stripping their environment; it is, in terms of stewardship, a scorched earth policy! 

I have no doubt that some of you reading this rambling stream-of-consciousness essay will happily point out the flaws in my own logic. But that is exactly my point: attitudes towards animals must be considered at the emotional level, not the logical level. At the logical level I have more in common with the animal-rights faction but at the practical level I can be considered an animal welfare advocate. What hasn't been mentioned is whether we are discussing companion animals such as cats and dogs or we are talking about all animals. My own answers might vary depending upon the scope of the discussion, hence the confusion caused by the terms animal-rights versus animal welfare. There is an incredible lack of agreement on basic definitions.

 

If I have managed to confuse you then my purpose has been achieved. Are you for animal-rights or are you for animal welfare? Or does it depend on what animal we are talking about? This is why I opened with the Carnegie quotation… Don't listen to what someone tells you, watch what they do!