Good intentions, but the wrong focus

Last monht, the Genesee County, MI Animal Control Department Shelter made the declaration that they were going to "end routine euthanasia" at the shelter. In fact, they were so serious about the 'no kill' declaration that euthanasia there cannot take place without a court order or written instruction from a veterinarian. 

However, a month into their directive, the shelter is overwhelmed with animals, turning away pets, and suffering from over-crowding.

This isn't the first time I've seen something like this happen, and no doubt won't be the last. And while I applaud the intentions of the shelter in ending the killing of animals at the shelter, their focus is wrong.

The focus should not be on ending euthanasia -- it should be on saving them all.

It's a subtle difference, but important. From my experience, the focus of "ending euthanasia" sets up a mindset of looking for space at the shelter to put more animals when they come in. "We can't kill them, so we have to find somewhere to put them". Inevitably, the result is overcrowding, lack of space, etc. Exactly what Genessee County is experiencing here.

However, when the focus in on saving them it, changes the mindset entirely. Instead of focusing on where to put the animals, the focus becomes: How do I get more adopted?  How do I move more to rescue?  How do I get them treated? What foster home can they stay in while they get better? How do we get more out humanely and alive?

It's a subtle difference, but an important one. And in my experience, focusing on saving a lot of lives is far more effective as a strategy than focusing on how to just not euthanize them. 

Comments

[Randy]

Excellent point! What I have never understood is that if you work hard to "save them all" then the EU rate takes care of itself! These are not independent variables. Yet somehow some communities feel the need to "mandate" no EU overnight and then the inevitable happens with the shelter over crowded etc, etc. While it may "feel good" to mandate it the problem is not addressed. Unfortuantely that gives the whole concept of trying to save them a bad name! That is the biggest tragedy of all.

[MichelleD]

There was a time period where the no kill movement was pushing "no kill overnight". And for orgs that did not have the life saving programs in place, implementing the "overnight" model would result in this situation. Thankfully the overnight model seems to have lost favor but obviously some people are trying it.

Although, I do think most orgs could substantially increase life-saving literally over-night with a thorough analysis of their current policies that are detrimental to getting animals out the front door. Adoption policies are the biggest one...then start a fb page and reach out to the media. They don't even HAVE a fb page.

[Friends of Newark NJ Animal Shelter]

We truly need some sort of accreditation or certification process for no-kill shelters. Too many shelters are self-proclaimed "no-kill" shelters where they are not following the no-kill equation (or even know what it is). As a result, these shelters provide ammunition to regressive kill shelters to say no-kill is not possible because they only accomplish no kill by very highly selective admission processes.

We also need some sort of peer review or auditing process to validate shelter statistics. Too many shelters have an incentive to make the numbers look better. Additionally, shelters need to implement segment reporting, such as providing intake and outcome data for subcategories of animals like pit bull type dogs and feral cats, so we can compare different types of shelters.

I think these things would help increase efficiency of operations and save more animals.

[Brent]

Agree Friends. I completely think there needs to be some emphasis on the difference between open-admission and closed admission shelters -- and for closed admission, some type of criteria for $$ vs animals saved. Many could, and should be doing more.

If you set it up, I'll promote it :)

[Christine]

Does that animal control accept help from anyone? Has anyone tried to email them and what has been their response, if any?

[Joel]

The community where I used to live has a very good municipal shelter where I spent a good deal of time volunteering.

In late 2012, a new shelter was opened to replace the old building, which was horribly out of date.

The new shelter had about 25% fewer dog kennels than the old shelter. Some expressed concern that less capacity meant that more dogs would have to be put down. I told people that while there would definitely need to be some added networking to place a few dogs when the move from the old to the new shelter took place, the live release rate would not change. Intakes and placements would happen at the same rate.

The new shelter is almost a year old, and the live release rate is the same as it always was (92-93%).

Why? Because the staff and volunteers do not think of the shelter as a warehouse.

[db]

I took it upon myself to send an email to this place after they voted to resume killing. The response was about what you'd expect, and they have no intention of making any changes because they don't think they are doing anything wrong. It's the usual "irresponsible public", spay/neuter, "we don't have any choice" nonsense that killing apologists like to use as an excuse for killing. I think you are absolutely right that the biggest change has to be in the attitude of those in charge. Not holding out much hope for Genesee County because they refuse to change their attitudes.