From July 2007, to December 2010, the city of Derby, CT took in 94 dogs. Of those dogs, they killed 43 of them (48%). Derby, Connecticut's second smallest city, has a population of 12,536 people.... and was taking in roughly 1 dog ever two weeks into the shelter. In spite of extremely low intake rates, they were still killing half of the dogs.
Meanwhile, nearby Ansonio took in 522 animals during that time period -- and yet, killed just 20 (3.8%). Even though Ansonia has a population of only about 18,744, (so roughly 50% larger than Derby), they took in 5x as many animals. And yet, saved all but 3.8% -- that, from the records, seem like they were the seriously injured that were truly euthanized (in the true definition of the word).
Meanwhile, other area comunities, Oxford, (12,272) Seymour (population 16,144), and Shelton (38,101) all have saved between 92 -97% of the animals they've brought into the shelter. The Connecticut state averags is about 88%.
Part of Derby's problems are that in a cost-cutting move, the city insituted a 16 day policy on how long they would hold animals (regardless of the amount of shelter space they had available). The move saved the city around $4700 a year in food and veterinary costs.
The other area cities have overcome budget deficiencies by having volunteers do fundraisers -- such as themed cocktail parties and events -- to raise money for food and veterinary care. Many of these smaller shelters are also helping larger cities like Waterbury and New Haven by taking in some of those city's dogs in order to help those cities out.
"We do that so they don't have to euthanize that many animals," said Sandy Merry, Oxford's Animal Control Officer.
The other communities regularly use the internet and Petfinder to advertise their dogs to get them adopted out - but Derby does not.
"I never put anything down," said Seymour ACO Deborah Ice. "Only if it's a vicious biting dog. Or if it's sick. The good shelters don't really put them down. They put more effort into advertising them (to get them adopted)." Ice says that killing adoptable dogs is an old-school mindset. "That's 1960. This is 2011".
People in the community have offered to help Derby ACO Joe Klapcik, but he has always refused their help.
Cathy DeMarco, founder of the Coalition for Change, said that euthanasia should not be used for population control, only for dogs that are sick, injured or vicious. "How do you know nobody wants the dog? The pound has been closed and you haven't posted it on Petfinder. That's not euthanasia. That's killing," said DeMarco.
"All that has to happen is you get a bad animal control officer that gets into that position, then the animals are dead," said Charlotte Meade of Meade Canine Rescue.
Changes are underway in Derby -- and the police chief has put an end to the 16 day hold policy in January. In the first 3 months of the year, no animals have been killed. The city is also revamping the animal control officer's position (and apparently removing Mr. Klapcik).
This is great news for the city of Derby - and for all of these small communities who appear to "get it" when it comes to 2011 animal sheltering. It's also a testiment to the value of embracing volunteers and help at your local shelter, and the importance of good management in achieving no kill. Yay.
H/T on all of this to the Valley Independent Sentinel -- which did a great job of doing the research on this story and doing a great job of putting together this article.
I can't help believing that ACO's in high kill shelters really enjoy killing just as much as Ingrid Newkirk does. There is no other reason for the continued killing in the face of all the evidence that it is not necessary.
Posted by: jan | March 28, 2011 at 10:53 PM
Brent, were you able to find a source for the average state save rate? I have heard numbers tossed around for Wisconsin but I've never been able to verify them.
Posted by: Kathy Pobloskie | March 29, 2011 at 06:58 AM
Kathy, I confess that I didn't follow up on any of the numbers from the article nor get a source for the state save rate...which is a number, frankly, I'm surprised even exists.
Posted by: Brent | March 29, 2011 at 08:30 AM
I've very curious about the lack of data on cats in this article. They get a throw away line saying that very few cats are admitted to the shelter- in my experience, most shelters have far more cats than dogs at any given time. So is this shelter just turning away cats because this is a more rural area, and homeless cats are left to roam instead of being rehomed?
I'm noticing more and more than shelters that speak about no kill focus mostly on what is being done for the dogs, but typically not as much information is given for the cats. Is this particular case, I find the idea that no cats are coming into the shelter a rather bad thing, as it means there are cats in that community that are not being helped.
Posted by: Parallel | March 29, 2011 at 09:37 PM
P - Yeah, i agree on the cats...but frankly, all of Derby's numbers are disturbing. To take in one dog every two weeks and not be able to find them a home is amazingly bad. The cats, well, I wouldn't expect them to get that right either.
I think it's weird that the article didn't include cats for Derby, but seemingly did for the other cities. It may have been because Derby didn't keep very good records??? They talk about that in the article. I'm not sure. But agree that doing nothing at all about the cat population there is not good.
Posted by: Brent | March 29, 2011 at 09:50 PM
Based on the article...if they remove Mr. Klapcik, I'm wondering if he will notice. It doesn't appear that it would change his daily routine too much.
Posted by: Joel | March 29, 2011 at 11:05 PM