KC DOG BLOG

The "Why Imperative" Of Animal Rescue/Sheltering

Marketing guru and author Seth Godin had a great blog posting yesterday entitled "The Why Imperative". Here's a clip:

That's not what we do," is the backbone of strategy, it determines who you are and where you're going.

Except in times of change. Except when opportunities come along. Except when people in the organization forget to ask, "why?"

If the only reason you don't do something is because you never did, that's not a good reason. If the environment has changed dramatically and you are feeling pain because of it, this is a great reason to question yourself, to ask why.

The correlation with animal rescue and sheltering really struck me. It seems that many places do a lot of things (and don't do others) largely because that's how they've always done things -- or because they just don't do it that way.

And by and large, people are so busy to stop and ask "Why?" or "Why not"?

Does your rescue/shelter organization have blanket rules that prevent more animals from being dopted? 

Fencing requirements?

Not going to a home with an altered dog?

Not going to homes because they have a same-sex dog?

The dog is going to be a "farm dog"?

The dog owner lives in an apartment?

The potential adopter may not have "enough money" to afford the worst case scenerio for veterinary care -- even if that is likely to never come up?

Have you asked yourself why these exist even though there are many perfectly good homes that would be denied for one or more of these criteria?

Or how about things your organization doesn't do?

Adopt dogs out close to the holidays?

Adopt out black cats close to Halloween?

Hold off-site adoptions in high-traffic locations?  Every Day?

Remain open in the evenings, weekends and holidays when people with "day jobs" can easily visit?

Why not?

In the business world, strong businesses are constantly challenging the status quo, looking at what works for other organizations, and changing to take advantage of new opportunities.

In the animal welfare world, we're in the "business" of finding homes for adoptable animals.  Are there opportunities out there that we are not taking advantage of that are causing animals to die in our care?  Why is your organization not taking advantage of those opportunities?

Great Friday Reads

I usually try to add this as part of the weekly roundup, but there have been some great posts from around the internet the past 10 days or so and I just really want to put them out there for some excellent reading.  I really do encourage you to click through -- some great stuff out there.

Sam theDog Trainer has a very good new article on some of the causes for dogs biting young children. The keys are supervision children and dogs, providing proper training and exercise for your dog, and not creating a stressful environment for your dog.

Great news from Austin Pets Alive -- the Austin city council unanimously passed the resolution to make the necessary steps to make Austin a no-kill city. Here's a link to the shelter recommendations on how they plan to achieve no kill.

The folks at Animal Ark Foundation in Minneapolis have a great You Tube video they put together on how the animal welfare industry lost their way -- based on the book Redemption. It's very much worth watching -- it's 20 minutes long but goes very quickly.

Fred at One Bark at a Time has a really great article about dog bites.  The reality is that most dog bites happen for a reason -- and it is usually caused by something the human did wrong. The more we understand dog behavior, the more we can properly assess whether a biting dog is truly aggressive or not. Fred shares a couple of personal stories that provide great examples for discussion.  I'm a fan of Fred's writing (and photography), but I think his telling of personal stories like this are him at his best.

Christie had a great article in the San Franscisco Chronicle about why dog advocates aren't moving on when it comes to Michael Vick's unpaid dues.  Vick's actions went far beyond dog fighting and into nearly unspeakable animal cruelty...for which Vick has never shown even the slightest bit of remorse.

This one is seemingly a bit random, but this is an article by John Stossel one what he feels like is a double-standard that journalists seem to have about bias. When Stossel first started as a journalist, he mostly reported about companies that were trying to screw over consumers (he has some interesting thoughts on this), and when he was doing it, other journalist liked him. But now that he has turned his focus onto the government and media and its constant fear mongering.  I think it's a pretty good read following my series on the Science of Fear a few weeks ago.  For what it's worth, I did a write-up about Stossel's Series: Fear Mongering in America back in 2007 - -you can read those installments here, here, here and here.

PBRC has launched a new blog called Pitter Patter. The site is mostly really cute pictures of 'pit bulls' in really funny moments and with funny headlines. Think of it as the LOLcats for 'pit bulls'.  Nearly guaranteed to bring a smile to your face.

YesBiscuit has a good commentary on "What if we all neutered our pets today?" in response to the push for mandatory spay/neuter in Northeast Georgia.

County Leaders to Tom Skeldon, the Status Quo is Unacceptable

A week after acommittee provided recommendations for how Lucas County Dog Warden tom Skeldon should perform his duties, County leaders in Lucas County have made it very clear that the status quo was no longer acceptable.

Skeldon has vowed to "redouble" his efforts to adopt out more animals -- curbing the shelter's abysmal 80% euthanasia rate - but provided no specifics on how he would do it.  Upon learning about Skeldon's response to the committee's recommendations, Lucas County Commission Presdident Pete Gerken said he would call a face to face meeting "to make sure he knows what he needs to do. If he needs some creative thinking, I'll be happy to give some."

Ouch.

Last November, under the same pressure, promised to get the shelter's adoption rate, which was then at 13%, up to 24% by the end of 2009, and up to 34% at the end of 2010.  However, as of August 22, the shelter adoption rate was still at an abysmal 16.1%.

As of October 23, 62% of the dogs in the shelter had been euthanized this year -- to which, Skeldon responded "We are a success story. We are to be emulated."   Meanwhile, Skeldon spent most of the article blaming everyone except himself for the problems in the shelter.

With a reaction like that, I sincerely doubt Skeldon has any desire or ability to make the changes possible to meet the demands of the public.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've written about this before, but society's views on the roles of animal control are changing. No longer is animal control seen as just a department that is designed to protect people from dogs -- a notion that came out of the fear of rabies decades ago. But it is also now seen as an important for animal control to protect animals from people - -including our very own shelters.

Skeldon, and many others who are of the "old school" mindset fail to recognize this and continue to kill animals in an effort to improve "public safety" -- with no regard whatsoever for animal welfare.

It is no longer an acceptable form of animal control (if it ever, indeed was).

What may be worse is that in 2008, Toledo saw a 23% increase in dog bites -- so they're not really working on the public safety angle either. It is a failure all around.

I'll talk more about this next week, but the ideas surrounding no-kill and public safety are NOT mutually exclusive. It is possible -- and being done - that cities are both promoting public safety AND improving the welfare of animals. They can, and do, work hand in hand.

And the sooner we put good managment in charge of our animal control divisions -- that see that there are two sides of animal control -- protection of people from animals, and protection of animals from people - the sooner we will make true progress toward becoming a no-kill nation -- one that is truly animal-friendly.

The world is changing - -and our views on animals are changing. And the sooner those who are in charge recognize that, the better.

Feline Claw Snipping Law works against No Kill Goals

Ok, so this is a topic I often don't discuss here at the KC Dog Blog -- but this particular case I think is very disturbing, and I want to call some attention to it.

It appears that there are several groups in California that are frantically trying to push for laws that ban the practice of declawing cats.

Now, I admit, the practice of declawing cats is somewhat controversial. I personally don't like the idea of declawing cats any more than I would like the idea of my own fingernails being cut out of my fingers. 

However, as an owner of two cats, I can say, in spite of our best efforts, the tricky little buggers do claw at things -- and often they're things I don't want them clawing on. It's sort of hard to keep really nice carpet, rugs and couches around when you have a couple of cats.  And so while I am not a fan of the practice of declawing cats -- I do understand how frustrating it is to have your stuff torn up from time to time.  I do get it.

Now, some proponets of a ban on declawing would say, well, then you just shouldn't own a cat then if you want to declaw it.  I guess that's one way to look at it. But here's a reality.  Every year, some 2.5 million cats are killed in shelters every year - -most of them very lovable -- simply because it is difficult to find homes for all of the available cats.  As far as I'm concerned, as long as we're STILL killing homeable cats in shelters because we can't find good homes for them, then we shouldn't be in the practice of eliminating perfectly good homes because someone prefers to have nice carpet. 

And while I personally wouldn't love the idea of having my own finger nails cut out of my fingers, if give the choice between that, and being killed, I'm 100% sure which one I would choose for myself.  And that's the route I would choose for the cats too.

While all of this is a bit crazy enough, there is one other thing that really strikes me here -- and I'm going to post Gina's opening statement on the topic word-for-word because she succinctly handled the this issue for me:

"I am struck by the disconnect between the legislative agendas of some very vocal animal advocates: They want to force EVERYONE to surgically remove he reproductive organs of all dogs and cats, and at the same time, they want to allow NO ONE to surgically remove the claws of cats."

My hope is that many of these people -- most of whom I think are well-meaning -- will really look at these issues closely and determine to do what is in the greater good of the animals.  And while I don't love the practice of declawing, I love it a lot more than the practice of killing animals in shelters because we cannot find homes for them -- and denying potential new homes because they choose to declaw a cat. Talk to them. Reason with them. But if it's the difference between the cat having a home and ending up in a shelter where death is a likely option -- then by all means, we should not prevent that cat from having a home.

This decision, like so many others, should be left to a pet owner and their licensed veterinarian.

Communities support successful organizations, but we need city support

Over the past 8 months, Kansas City, KS has ceased being a death trap for animals. In 2008, the KCK shelter killed roughly 4300 animals, but new leadership within animal control in KCK has at least led them to the decision to begin working with the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City to begin adopting out animals from the shelter -- instead of allowing the shelter to remain a death trap.  And adopt out animals they have done.

Since the first part of the year, the HSGKC has taken an abysmal kill rate of 56% to where only less than 4% of the adoptable dogs and cats in the shelter are being killed.  The success has been amazing -- and a true testimate that it IS possible to adopt your way to no kill.

However, two weeks ago, the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City sent out  a plea for money.  The costs of running the off-site adoptions, and for the staffing, and for the care of all the animals they were adopting out were starting to mount.

And the citizens in Kansas City responded in a big way -- as of Friday, the HSGKC had received nearly $100,000 in donations.

If you do things the right way, and work your butt off to save the lives of animals, the communities you serve will recognize it and step up to help you do it.  In Kansas City, they just did.

This is all great for the animals in KCK and for HSGKC.  But my fear is that unless the city government gets involved, their success will not be sustainable. The city animal control is still confiscating too many animals from home good homes because of laws that are on the books. They are still pulling every dog out of homes that even remotely looks like a 'pit bull' -- dogs like Brutus, Roscoe and Nikko  -- because of the city's breed ban. They are still confiscating animals from homes because they are unalterd due to the city's ordinance mandating spay/neuter -- instead of just encouraging them to use HSGKC's low-cost spay/neuter options and leaving the animals in the home.  They're still confiscating too many animals because of the city's overly restrictive pet limit law.

The city could really ease the burden on HSGKC by repealing some of the laws that are a) taking well-cared for, well behaved animals out of people's homes unnecessarily and b) removing some of the restrictions that make adopting animals into homes more difficult.

If the city government could get on board, the work they and HSGKC are doing will not only continue success -- but will be completely sustainable.

The citizens and taxpayers are clearly supportive. 

And the citizens throughout the

KCMO Incenting ACO's to Seize Pets

Some of our folks over at KC Dog Advocates just released some news last night about some very disturbing news coming out of Kansas City, MO animal control. While some progress is being made in adopting out animals with the newly privatized KCMO shelter, some new animal control policies are going to make things even harder.

Here's the scoop:

On August 1st, the animal control department in Kansas City, MO implemented a new policy when it comes to evaluating their field officers. Effective now, animal control officers in KCMO will be required to issue a minimum of 15 summonses and impound a minimum of 20 animals per month.   

These minimum standards are being used as a management tool to address Animal Control Officers (ACOs) who are not performing their duties.  Getting GPS devices installed in the trucks was also considered but there was no room in the budget. 

With 18 full time field officers, 20 animals per month is a minimum of 360 animals per month (4,320 per year) that will be brought into the shelter.

Through July 21^st of 2009, Animal Control had impounded 4,137 animals – of those 1,636 of them were killed in the shelter.  With 1 out of every 3 animals that enters the shelter being killed, any increase in pets coming into the shelter – along with the new shelter management’s decision to increase fees for recovering an animal from the shelter during the biggest economic crisis of our lives -- will undoubtedly lead to an increase in kill rates in KCMO. 

We’re making too much progress to allow this to happen.

While yes, animal control needs to pick up stray animals, and animals that are suffering from cruelty/neglect, 384 animals (most marked as healthy, normal seeming animals) were confiscated in the first ½ of this year for basic (non-aggressive) animal control ordinance violations – nearly 3x the number (134) that were prosecuted for cruelty/neglect. We at KCDA keep hearing stories of animals getting confiscated from owners due to inadequate housing (even though Spay/Neuter Kansas City’s outreach program has free dog houses available to needy families), animals confiscated from owners because they are not altered under the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit bulls, and others that are confiscated because they cannot afford the fine associated with having not licensed their dog.

The new evaluation criteria will further increase the number of animals needlessly taken from homes for minor animal control violations.  Just this weekend numerous well fed, up-to-date on shots, altered cats were seized for nothing more than being over the city’s pet limit of four animals. For each of these cats that entered the shelter this past weekend, others in the shelter died to make room for them. This isn’t an acceptable option.

Instead of rewarding animal control officers for creating good outcomes for the owners and animals by offering assistance when needed or for scanning for microchips in the field so animals can get back home, the rewards system is now put in place to encourage animal control officers to bring animals back to the shelter where a large percentage of them end up dying.

If we are to seriously decrease the number of animals killed in our shelters, we must not only work on adoptions on the back end, but also on lowering the amount of dogs coming into the shelter whenever possible on the front end. This evaluation system runs counter to that goal.

Instead of evaluating officers on how many animals they bring in, how about these for better options for evaluating the quality of work for ACOs:

-- The number of low cost spay/neuter vouchers they have redeemed at Spay/Neuter Kansas City

-- The number of unvaccinated animals that get updated shots at low-cost shot clinics

-- The number of cruelty/neglect cases prosecuted

-- The number of animals without proper shelter that they were able to get proper shelter for using already-existing relationships with Spay/Neuter Kansas City’s Outreach program

-- The number of pet owners they got to license currently unlicensed animals

All would be far better alternatives to the current program...

We cannot continue incentivize animal control officer actions that unnecessarily lead to the increase in killing in our shelters. While animal control has a role and responsibility to get animals out of abusive and neglectful situations, and needs to do work to pick up truly stray dogs, there must be an emphasis on getting pets back into their rightful homes, and to keep them in their homes when possible. ACOs that have already proven themselves inept should be fired.  They should not be encouraged to go out and pick the low hanging fruit in order to meet some arbitrary quota.  Being rewarded for behavior that leads to more killing is a completely unacceptable form of ‘management”.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So how about it?  What other incentive/performance goals make sense to monitor ACO activity without encouraging them to take pets and bring them into the shelter? Please post some of your best ideas.

Understanding prejudice

Last week, a local Kansas City Blogger wrote an excellent post on the incident involving Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr, an African American man who was arrested when he "broke into" his own home because he had been locked out.

While the post is well done in its own right, the incident and article wouldn't normally apply to a blog about dogs.

But it does.

The article has a nice little segment on prejudice.  Not racism (I think all too often people wrongly interchange these words.  But prejudice. The actual prejudging of a person or situation without any real knowledge of the facts.

We all do it. In many ways, it's what keeps us alive. It's what keeps us from walking down a dark allyway late at night when strangers lurk there. We don't know the strangers, but we prejudge the situation based on past experiences or on the stories we've heard from others.

Often our past experiences cause us to prejudge. We've seen a situation over and over, and thus, we perceive all future situations will similar.  They're not, but we will enter the situation with the negative outcome we've experienced in the past in mind. 

Here's an example from the blog entry:

I used to work in a credit office for a high end (heh heh) retailer at Crown Center. I started in collections and later graduated to processing credit apps.

Not an optimal career path.

Because the only customers I encountered in the beginning were the deadbeats, I came to view all customers as deadbeats. I never had any contact with good customers. So when I started processing credit apps, I was predisposed to view them all as evil doers trying to rip us off. I routinely turned down potential customers who had better credit scores than me!

Luckily, I didn't have the final say and my credit manager vetoed many of my recommendations. She reminded me that our job wasn't to turn away villains, but to find ways to open accounts for people so they could buy our overpriced Russian Lacquer Boxes because that's what paid our salaries!

Cops are the same way. The only people they come into contact with are criminals or people suspected of being criminals. After a while, they start assuming that everyone is a criminal. The only delineation they acknowledge is between criminals who are getting away with it and criminals brought to justice.

So despite the antiseptic spin presented in the official police report, I have no doubt that Officer Crowley walked into the incident with certain preconceptions and assumptions. It's inevitable.

He was responding to a report of black men attempting to break into a house only to find black men inside the house. What was he supposed to think?

And I think this plays itself out every day, countless times, in a variety of industries -- including animal welfare.

It's why it seems police officers shoot dogs for little to no reason -- because so many of the dogs they come in contact with are dogs owned by criminals (otherwise the police would not be there) and thus, often protective.

It's why many people cross the road when they see me walking my 'pit bulls' -- because they have seen images portrayed by the media of the dogs being aggressive, and too few images of the dogs just being dogs (this is changing some, as images of the rehabilitated dogs from Mike Vick's kennels have become so prevelent in the past year).

And this happens in animal shelters too.  Imagine someone (this shouldn't be hard for most of you) who has worked in an animal shelter for years -- doing intake, dealing with dogs that were neglected by their owners, left at the shelter, or were returned for some BS reason. The person does this for several years and before long, every dog owner they seem to come in contact with is irresponsible in some way. 

Eventually, this person moves their way into adoptions and processing adoption applications. Like the blog-writer who began denying all credit applications because he had decided that all people were too irresponsible to have credit, the shelter worker begins denying good potentially -adoptable homes because she has determined that most people are not responsible dog owners, and should be declined.

Every day, in many shelters, this plays out as shelter workers look for reasons why the person is too irresponsible to own a pet, vs looking for ways to get pets into homes.  It's probably a pretty natural reaction for anyone who is working in a shelter or rescue, but it's one that we need to be careful to fall prey to. 

Experiences shape our prejudices. And understanding how your prejudices are shaped is an important key to setting the prejudices aside and doing what is best for the animals.

This and that

It's been a really busy week so blog posting has been down a little. But there have been several things this week that I wanted to get out there -- interesting, fun, and just downright wrong:

Yes Biscuit! has a great post about HSUS's document from their website on "Selecting Animals for Euthanasia." It's a really detailed report that specifically recommends how animals should be selected for euthanasia.  She does a great job of breaking down the document and what is wrong with the rationale in it.  Meanwhile, apparently someone from HSUS contacted her and noted that the document was "outdated" and would be taken down (which it has). My hope is that they replace it with a document that is equally thorough and helps provide guidance on how to SAVE animals, not kill them.  Meanwhile, I think this might be a good note for all of us that have organizations that have websites to look at all of the old material on there and ask the question -- is that information still current in the mindset of a nation that is quickly moving toward no kill?  We should really take a hard look at the information we are making available to the public and be sure the information we have out there is current, accurate, and helpful in moving us toward a no kill, no BSL nation.

According to most reports, it looks like NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is likely to conditionally reinstate Michael Vick into the NFL with a 4-6 game suspension to start the season. I know many in the animal welfare community are (rightfully) upset at this development. I am not sure why Goodell would think that the NFL -- which right now is the most successful sports league in the world -- needs or wants Vick who will only be a distraction from their on-field product. So keep sending letters to the commissioners office. But with that said, even if Vick is reinstated, and signs with a team, you can still make your voices heard. Money is a powerful motivator, and we need to continue to speak with our pocketbooks. If an NFL team signs Vick, wouldn't it send a powerful message if all of the pet owners who have season tickets cancelled them. Sixty percent of the US owns pets, and if a team signed Vick and the next day had 60% of their fan base call and cancel tickets it would send a very powerful message.  If he signs with your team, don't go to games. Don't watch them on TV. Don't buy jerseys. Money can be a very powerful motivator.

Meanwhile, I still can't help but think of the irony that could come out of all of this. One team that is notorious for bringing in players with troubled pasts is the Oakland Raiders -- and its a team that has struggled at the QB spot for several years. I can't help but think of the irony if he begins playing in the same city as the organization that is probably most responsible for giving his dogs a new and better life.

The stories of two of my three dogs are now up at the National Canine Research Council. Stella and SweetP both came to us under pretty horrible circumstances -- SweetP had nearly been starved to death and Stella had been hit by a car and left for dead along the side of the road in downtown Kansas City.  Both are doing great now -- are best buds and Canine Good Citizens. Thanks to Karen for posting their info.

And finally, over the weekend I was watching Kansas City native Tom Watson nearly making history at the British open, and got to see a new TV commercial from Traveler's Insurance. This is a great spot that really takes a neat twist on protecting your most prized possessions. It also is nice to give a nice nod to the large percentage of the population that loves their pets and can really associate with the spot.

It's really unfortunate that while Traveler's Insurance hit a home run with their advertising campaign, that they don't with pet owners. Traveler's does discriminate against owners of certain types of dogs. So A+ for your commercial...Fail for your internal insurance policies.

The Yin and Yang of No Kill over the 4th of July Weekend

The three day holiday weekend gave me a chance to spend some time with family and friends and it's always interesting talking to my "non-rescue" friends and getting their thoughts on animal welfare issues.  The view of the animal welfare world is often very different with those who are looking in on us from the outside.

Between the conversations with friends, and upon catching up on my reading last night, I couldn't help but notice the significant ying and yang of what is going on in "no kill" right now.

First, the good.

As Winograd posted this morning, Indianapolis Animal Care and Control was open on Saturday. While the vast majority of shelters around the country were off celebrating our nation's birthday, IACC decided that with so many people spending time with family over the long weekend, that they might take that family time and use it as an opportunity to gain some adoptions.  The thinking woudl be, with people actually having time during the holiday to come visit the shelter, they just might.  The net result was the adoption of 150 dogs and cats from the shelter on Saturday -- with several other people who didn't find their family's match at the shelter -- but vowed to return when the shelter got more animals.  As Winograd quotes someone from an area group:

There was not only a sense of excitement with the IACC staff today, but also a sense of hope… that the agency is beginning to turn the corner for better helping the animals get out alive. The long, winding drive from Harding St to the IACC parking lot was cars parked bumper-to-bumper on both sides of the drive. People were at the facility who had never been there before, and if they didn’t find who they were looking for, they were planning on returning in the future.  There were more people than animals available.

One of the major tennents of the no-kill model is that shelters actually need to be open when people can come vist them. Being open from 10-5 on weekdays doesn't exactly make a shelter easily accessible to the majority of potential adopters. This is an extreme example of how making the time when potential adopters have the time can reap huge rewards for animals needing to find home.

Now the bad.

Over the weekend, we spent some quality time with my wife's family and friends. During the course of conversations, it came to light that no fewer than three  of her immediate family and friends (in a group of no more than 30 people) had recently been declined by a local shelter when they tried to adopt a dog.

Her uncle was declined because he had an unaltered dog at home. He actually has a great line of working Beagles that he occassionally breeds for working hunting dogs. He was looking to adopt a dog (and he wanted one that was altered) to be a pet dog. But because he was "a breeder" he was declined from adopting a pet.

Another relative was declined because the shelter didn't want to adopt to him because he wanted the dog as an "outside" dog. He has two dogs already, both "outside" dogs, that live a pretty nice life. They each have dog houses in a well insulated horse barn that is filled with straw and other warm bedding. They have heated water dishes.  When the temperatures get too extreme (either cold or hot), they get to stay in the basement of the family home.  They live on 50 acres and have free rein to roam on the farm (but really, never get to far away).  They spend almost all of their time outdoors caring for their horses and playing with the dogs -- however the rescue told him that they would not adopt an "outside dog" to him.

A third person, a family friend, contacted a shelter about adopting a dog and filled out their online application. For the past couple of months he's been thinking about getting a new dog. His dog Sophie, died a few months ago at the age of 17. Even months later, his eyes welled up talking about Sophie, and how much he loved their dog.  This person was declined because he admitted on his application that he didn't consistently keep Sophie on heartworm medication.*  The rescue ruled that because of this, in spite of Sophie living a long, healthy life, he was not "good enough" to adopt one of their animals.

* I know some people may be appalled by the not consistently using heartworm medication. However, in this area of the country, we have very cold winters, and there are a least 4-6 months out of the year in which fleas, knats, mosquitos and other pesky bugs don't survive. My own veterinarian even advises us not to use heartworm medication during the winter because with indoor dogs, the damage done by the heartworm medication (which is, after all, a poison) is far worse than the scant likelihood of the dog actually getting heartworms during the winter months. This is actually a common recommendation from many vets in the area that improves the dog's overall health.

So on the one hand, we have a shelter in Indianapolis that stayed open for the holiday and adopted out 150 pets.

On another, I have 3 families (out of no more than 15 total families) at a family and friends gathering that had been denied from adopting a dog even though they either currently owned healthy dogs or had recently owned a healthy dog until it died of very old age -- all for very trivial reasons. What may even be more disturbing here is that all three were denied by different shelters -- so we have multiple shelters in our area denying people for trivial reasons. One of the shelters even calls themselves a 'no-kill' shelter -- even though they are not open admission and apparently aren't adopting many dogs out to free up space for more dogs to come in.

If we are going to ever reduce the number of homeless pets in our community, we must follow Indianapolis' example and find ways and reasons to adopt pets INTO loving homes, and not continually look for reason why NOT to adopt home animals. Many of these same shelters that are denying adopters are then complaining that "overpopulation" is the problem-- when it's not. It's their own lack of willingness to adopt animals into homes for trivial reasons that is causing a large part of the problem.

If we are going solve the problem, we must adopt pets into homes...we cannot continue to find reasons to deny them and push them to other places (puppy mills, breeders, etc) when their first choice is to go get a rescued dog. We need to encourage people to adopt...not continually make the process harder (or impossible). And we cannot continue to push people away from our animals if our larger goal is to save them.  It's time to make placing animals a priority for our local animal shelters.

Should shelter operations and animal control always be separate?

While I'm talking about the going's on in Kansas City....

At the SNKC open house last week, the topic of Kansas City's new animal shelter came up.  Three months ago, Kansas City, MO made a decision to privatize the Kansas City animal shelter. While animal control will still be run by the city, the shelter operations after the 5 day state mandatory holding period have been turned over to a group that is calling themselves Half Way Home Animal Adoptions.

The initial results have been pretty dramatic.

Prior to privatizing the shelter operations, KCMO was killing about 65% of the animals that came into the shelter system -- which amounted to about 7,000 killed dogs and cats each year in the shelter (which is roughly 1/3 of the total kills in the metro).

I won't make excuses for the KCMO shelter that was under the city control. It was a poorly run shelter situation, in a crappy location, with poor support from their managment. The animal control department's primary concern was having officers on the streets, and everything that went on in the shelter was an afterthought by the management -- at best.*

*I do want to note that there were a couple of people in the shelter that actually did work really hard, and cared, but had so little support that it made things very difficult.

Since the privatization, everything has changed. While I don't have official numbers (and when I do, I'll make them public), from the feedback I'm getting and the outreach I've seen, I have no reason to doubt the rounded numbers.  Since the privatization, the total number of adoptions from the KCMO shelter has gone from about 60 per month, to about 250 per month. Over the course of a year, this will account for 2280 more animals adopted from the shelter than before. I am also hearing a lot of positive reviews from rescue groups that are saying that getting dogs from Half Way Home is much easier -- which will also help reduce the city kill rates.

Animals that are up for adoption are readily available to be viewed via petfinder, and a "new arrivals" section is helping rescue groups and owners who may still be trying to reconnect with their dogs.  They are also actively seeking volunteer support, and groups are doing fundraisers to help them off-set costs.

Interestingly, the city is SAVING nearly $200,000 a year by privatizing the shelter instead of managing the shelter themselves...in part because of the ability of the new group to raise money through fundraisers, but also because the new group is reportly saving nearly $8000 a month in euthanasia costs.

I think the dramatic difference is that once the shelter privatized, the mission changed. The city always funneled resources toward the enforcement issues with their job, at the expense of the shelter.

With the new, privatized shelter, every single dollar of their resources goes directly toward helping the animals.   And the early results are sounding great. While spay/neuter is an important part of creating a more humane community, it will be impossible for us to achieve anywhere close to No Kill status without aggressive adoption programs -- as 7 of the top 10 reasons animals end up in shelters have nothing to do with spay/neuter. So while aggressive spay/neuter programs definitely help, aggressive adoption programs are imperative to eliminating killing in our shelters.

And all of this leads me to the question, is should animal control and shelter operations always be kept separate?  It sure seems like each group doing their own job and working together as much as possible is a much better practice than trying to role two often competing functions under the same group. 

In KCMO, separating the two appears to be working.  More to come I'm sure.