Helping low-income pet owners (& why pet retention should not be overlooked)

Spay/Neuter Kansas City is one of our local low-cost spay/neuter facilities that also does outreach into the low-income areas of Kansas City helping people get their pets altered and helps provide other assistance for low-income pet owners.

Last week, they posted a story about a woman who owned three dogs and was having trouble feeding them and called SNKC for assistance. Upon evaluation, the SNKC staff found three skinny dogs, a pit bull, a Rotweiler and a terrier mix.  The owner had no money for food and the dogs were living solely off of table scraps. The dogs were primarily outdoor dogs (although welcome indoors any time they wanted), their dog bowls were dirty and chewed up, but they all had fresh water. They had doghouses in the yard -- that was mostly knee-high grass. However the dogs were happy and loved by their owners.

So SNKC asks the question, "what would you do?"

Your answer is something that is often overlooked, but a major difference between communities that are high-kill communities and low or no kill communities. 

*************

In the nine tenets of the no kill equation -- sitting at #7 is pet retention. Pet retention takes many forms:

1) Helping low-income people take care of medical costs that they cannot afford

2) Helping people to overcome training obstacles that would otherwise lead them to relinquish the dog (things like house training, nipping, walking poorly on a leash, being too "high energy", separation anxiety, etc)

3) Or often just basic care things that people cannot (or do not) afford on their own.

With the current economic recession, many people have found themselves without work for a very extended amount of time.  The current unemployement rate is just under 10% (and over 10% in 124 metropolitan areas) -- and has been for over a year now. Many people are struggling to make house payments, rent payments, pay heating/cooling bills or even feed themselves. Obviously this has made for trying times for many pet owners.

All too often, the solution for animal control, and for members of the animal welfare community, is to seize the dogs into the shelter and make it a part of the homeless pet population.  Or, when the owner sadly brings their dogs to the shelter because they could no longer afford to keep them, the animal shelter would take the dogs, decide this owner was "irresponsible" -- and all too often, the dogs would end up being 'euthanized' in the shelter.  And this has often been accepted as the only option....when, in reality, these dogs could have been kept in the home for at least another 3 weeks for the cost of a 40 lb bag of dog food (at a cost of $23 at Costco - the same cost as one day of boarding the 3 dogs at the shelter).

And yet, all too often we haveall-to-often failed at this form of pet retention -- and been quick to condemn the owners for being irresponsible, or decided that if they were too poor to afford food, they shouldn't own the dogs anyway. And the dogs, or the dogs they replaced in the shelter died because of it. 

Being poor, or down on their luck, doesn't make someone irresponsible. 

*******

Shirley over at YesBiscuit! had a brilliant post today entitled Being Held Accountable.  There are many great parts of the blog post -- please make the time to go read it -- but there are a couple of pieces that I want pull out.

If I had a shelter and I noticed the same woman coming in with a box full of puppies every six months, I’d ask myself – Do we offer low/no cost spay-neuter?  Have I made her aware of this service?  Do I know if she has any means of transporting her 90 pound mama dog to and from the clinic?  What can I do to make it possible for this owner to get her dog spayed?

Unfortunately some shelters would simply wag their fingers and guilt trip the owner, ultimately discouraging her from returning.  The result of which is a mama dog who still isn’t spayed and the next litter of puppies being taken somewhere probably far less desirable than a shelter.  I would much rather hold this person “accountable” by helping her achieve a solution.

And then there is this gem:

A shelter should be a place people can feel good about bringing a pet they find who needs treatment.  Shelters should be continually reaching out to the public to send the message:  If you know of a pet who has no one to responsibly care for her, we are here.  We will take care of her.  She’ll be safe with us.

Instead, we have many shelters doing the opposite – making the public feel that they are irresponsible and unwelcome at the shelter.  We have shelters telling the local paper, “We kill our friend every day”.  Does that sound like a place you’d take a dog in need of care?

While I certainly appreciate that many shelters are doing their part to help (and to them, thank you) - it seems like the default in many of these cases is not to help the pet owner. And instead of a happy ending for the dogs -- granted by giving the pet owner the gift of dog food and being a help to the dog owner keep their loved pets, many shelters and animal control divisions have driven a wedge between themselves and people in need -- leaving no place for needy people to turn for help. And the end result is that dogs end up dead in the shelter.  Even if a shelter can only afford to help 5 people per week with some type of retention program, they would still prevent 250 animals from coming into the shelter each year. That's a lot of saved lives. 

Meanwhile, when an organization earns a reputation of helping people in times of need, people begin to seek them out for help, instead of just dumping a dog or dropping it off at a shelter because they feel like there are no other alternatives.

**********

I'm pleased to finish this post with a happy ending. Spay/Neuter Kansas City works very hard on their pet retention programs. They realized that if these dogs were seized, they would end up at the city shelter which still kills about 50% of the animals impounded.  They helped the dog owner out with the gift of some dog food. The dog owner smiled, invited the SNKC outreach crew into their home and the dogs greeted them with wagging tails and sloppy kisses.

Helping with pet retention is an incredible way to help people achieve the happy solution for both themselves, and the dogs - -and it is a fabulous way to help prevent pets from ever entering the shelter system. If you have an orgization in your comunity that provides pet retention services, please consider helping them with your time and financial help - -and if you live in Kansas City, SNKC is a great organization to donate to.  If your community doesn't have a group that focuses on retention services, maybe it's time to start one within your own organization.  Keeping pets in homes is the best way to keep them from dying in the shelters.

Comments

[RInalia]

That was a lovely, uplifting story.

I'm fine playing the blame game. Sometimes it serves a good purpose in highlighting the wrongs committed.

I love it, though, when groups and individuals go above that and figure out solutions that are pro-active and positive.

Yes, people should be held accountable. But mostly, people should be helped in such a way that they can provide long-term assistance to themselves and those in their care.

[Anna]

I have always thought people like that needed HELP not condemnation. If a person loves their pets and their pets love them, what is the point of taking them away, usually killing them, and getting the person in trouble like a criminal? HELP THEM keep the animals! There are so many people who won't have pets, or can't because of where they live (another thing that needs to change) that if someone is willing to take in and love 3 dogs LET THEM but help them if needed. That is money much better spent than prosecuting them in court, killing the dogs and dumping the bodies in the landfill, don't you think?

[Nokillhouston]

Excellent article. It not only makes sense from a compassionate standpoint, but a financial standpoint as well.

[Rosemary]

There's a genuine problem, though, about letting people get the idea they'll always be bailed out by someone else and I don't know how we can solve it.

Over here we have a very nearly universal safety net for veterinary treatment, provided by a combination of the PDSA, RSPCA and Blue Cross. This varies from a basic contribution that at least gets the animal seen by a vet in normal office hours to comprehensive clinics in some major cities.

The trouble is that many pet owners simply assume everything will be covered and I also strongly suspect that in some cases they acquire more (or larger) animals than they would if they knew they'd have to pay everything.

It also creates a vicious circle by which any failure to do as much as callers think we ought leads to campaigns to reduce donations to whichever charity was involved.

Maybe the answer is generosity with help at the point of need but firmness about recovering at least some of the cost further down the line.

[WethePeoplePets]

Truth be told, a helping hand should ALWAYS be the 1st protocol, not the exception and that is why shelters need revamping from the ground up.
As for some theoretical " the same woman coming in with a box full of puppies every six months"... have you gone to a shelter to find a puppy? Fat chance you will find one! Many shelters clamor to get pups, even shipping in from out of area, and when they do arrive, there is a long waiting list of those wanting puppies. Many do not want dogs surrendered because of behavior problems or unknowns that can be risky for families. No-kill strategies help owners retain their dogs and cats by offering re-training and behavioral advice and support for owners having such problems. Stand outside a shelter and just try to see anyone bring a litter of puppies. And if they do, the price set will be quite high for them at the shelter. Writing about nearly non-existent scenarios and stereotypes does not help educate, it only takes away from real issues and real solutions. Stop daydreaming and start writing about REALITY.

[Brandiw]

Wow, I'd love to live where you live, WethePeoplePets. Here in mid-Missouri, there are puppies at the shelter all the time. In fact, they often get put down because they have been there too long. They also get sick with parvo fairly often because of the inadequate facility which also leads them to be put down. The woman with the box of puppies may not be your reality, but it certainly is mine.

[lyn kash]

do not condemn.so many people got their pets years ago,never dreaming that our economy would tank and our jobs would be lost.i know of many people who had decent incomes and full time jobs.these people had pets and children before the recesssion.now,a lot of these people have job loss,new jobs with much lowewr wages and hours are being cut at work.it can happen to ANYONE AT ANY TIME.u dont give away ur spouse,pets and children if times get hard.who has the right to take away pets because u lost a job?the situation it tough,but temporary.our local shelter has a monthly pet food pantry for those in need.once these recipients situations improve,they become donors and helpers at the same pantry.helping each other and not judging is the way to go.many of people have love,but not a lot of money,or have had some bad luck.extend a hand,not a fist.

[lyn kash]

sorry about the typos.i always hit the wrong keys.

[lyn kash]

is there any way to correct my typos once my messege has posted?

[Brent]

Lyn, just copy and paste into a new comment and make your edits -- and then I'll go delete the others for you.

[Cynthia Anderson]

I really like this blog...much different than most items on shelters, dog ownership and assistance that I have read up until now.

[kelly]

WeThePeoplePets... where are you from?? The shelters in the Kc metro have puppies constantly... they may not be "designer" yorkie/min pin/poos, or whatever is cool at the moment, but the are PUPPIES. Lots of boxer mixes, lab mixes, shepherds, pitties, puggles, etc..... Brent always speaks REALITY, and that is why I respect his blog. There should not be any reason to attack a post on pet retention, and helping those who are down on their luck. If Kcs city shelter reached out to those giving up their pets for financial reasons, many animals would be alive today.

[alice in LALA land]

there are indeed many shelters without puppies.or even dogs. many in the Northeast who "import" from other places.. North Shore Animal League imports dogs all day long and still manages to keep a budget of 30 million ( cough cough) but on to the actual topic
YES pet retention is the answer.. all of the time.. or at least most of the time.. a handout now may be a person who helps later. some of course will be laggards and always want the "freebies' but other will not. if a pet can be kept at home isn't that worth a bag of food? or even six bags of food?
The "blame game' is just that.. a chance to take peoples pets from them and call them irresponsible while lifting your own ego up.. so no blame game here..
good post and this is an idea that is coming to fruition IF people stop blaming others..and start helping to keep pets in their homes..
Good job as always Brent

[michelle]

It is worth every penny we invest in spaying and neutering to help ensure the pets we fix remain in their homes even if that is helping the pet owners with a few resources and assistance. We consider our Outreach Program as an "intervention" program and hope that we can help all pet owners when they are faced with the situation of not being able to care for their pet. Our targeted areas are all low income pet owners, but most of these pet owners have taken animals off the street, took in an unwanted litter mate. In all reality we need more people to take in pets so they don't end up in our shelters... and we (SNKC) help promote responsible pet ownership to deter any unnecessary impounding of a pet.
Michelle, President
Spay & Neuter Kansas City

[mary maynard]

my pit bull christian maynard got hit by a car and he has a broken jaw in two places. and i need help. he is very loveing and careing dog who loves everyone and my 7 year old is vey heart broken over this.

[FairyDogParent]

We assist dog "parents" who have fallen on tough times so that they can keep their pets rather than surrendering them to shelters. The need is great, even in Massachusetts where we are despite having few kill shelters, etc. This is a great article. We are so happy to see Pet Retention gaining traction across the country.

[Michael Walden]

I am Soo glad I found your great information site. All doggie lovers should read ya post. I respect your opinions. I believe we are in great trouble now, in the recession, but PLEASE keep our animals in mind..They depend on US.