KC DOG BLOG

Garland County, AR struggles with the after effects of breed specific law

Well, this didn't take long.

In June, a 5 year old boy was tragically killed by a Bull Mastiff in Garland County when the dog apparently reacted to the boy "acting out"  in a tantrum.

In response to the tragedy, Garland County's Quorum Court passed a law that specifically targeted several breeds of dogs (not including Bull Mastiffs) as nuissance/vicious dogs. The law went into effect in October of this year.

Not surprisingly, the results of the ill-advised, and poorly-thoughout-out ordinance have been a negative and causing significant over-crowding at the Hot Springs animal shelter. (BTW, I do think it's interesting that the article here never mentions that the law targets specific breeds of dogs).

Now, dogs that are deemed to be one of the targeted breeds of dogs are taken to the animal shelter -- and now must be held until a trial can be held so a judge can decide if the dog is considered a nuissance or not. Right now, the trial dockets are being set at about 90 days out, which means dogs being held for trial are being held for at least 90 days at the shelter.

The result is that the shelter is being over-run with dogs awaiting trial, while other adoptable dogs are being killed at the shelter. So now, not only are the dogs that resemble targeted breeds dying at the shelter, but while those dogs await trial and death, dogs of other breeds are also dying due to lack of space. 

This is the result of laws targeting specific breeds. The laws do nothing to improve public safety and the net result is just a lot of dead dogs.

In response to the problems that it took the ordinance only about a month to create, the Garland County Quorum Court passed a bond system to help them "fix" their problem. 

Now, owners of the "high risk" breeds can pay a $500 fee so they can keep their dogs until the court date. This allows them to take the dog home which saves animal control the responsibility of caring for the animal, feeding the animal and taking up shelter space while the dog and owners await trial.

It seems unlikely to me that many owners will choose to pay such a  high fee but at least it's a start.

Justice of the Peace for District 11 Larry Griffin notes that it's the best solution to the problem.

Well, no, not really. The best solution would be to go back and rethink the law in the first place. It would be get rid of the law targeting certain breeds of dogs -- which inevitably leads to dogs dying in shelters unnecessarily and no increase in public safety -- and instead, focus the laws on responsible pet ownership, and targeting aggressive dogs based on their BEHAVIOR, not breeds.

That would be the best solution. Everything else is just trying to cover up for the problem of a poorly thought-out law that is focused on the wrong "problem". 

Updated: Dog attack fatality in Arizona

Updated 12/30:

As expected, there is a little more to the story. According to a report from the Las Vegas Review Journal, the fight originally broke out between the family's 40 pound 'shepherd' and a 14 lbs Cocker Spaniel. When the fight began, four other dogs owned by the Vicks -- a Boxer named Dempsy and three "boxer mixes" between 45-60 lbs joined the skirmish culminating into a major dog fight.

Vick was in the middle of trying to break up the dog fight when he suffered a bite that cut through his femoral artery. It is believed that Dempsy is the dog that bit him. Vick died from blood loss due to the major artery being cut. 

I mentioned this in my facebook page earlier today, that often the difference between a major dog bite, and a fatal one, is the 'unlucky' location of the bite. It appears that that is the case here as well.

It also helps us understand how both Vick and his wife Denise were so badly injured with there being 6 dogs involved instead of just the two.

All 5 dogs will be euthanized. The Cocker Spaniel apparently died due to injuries sustaining in the attack.

My heart goes out to the Vick family. This sounds like a really horrible situation to have been a part of.

 

Original Post:

Over the weekend, there was another dog-bite related fatality.

Before I get into the event, and the causal factors for the event, I do want to remind everyone that dogs are incredibly safe. There are around 75 million owned dogs in this country, and every year only around 30 are involved in a fatal incident. These incidents almost always involve a perfect storm of problems that led up to the attack. This case is no different.

In the incident, Thomas Vick Sr., 64, died from wounds caused by his own dog. Vick's wife, Diane, is a former mayor of Bullhead City, AZ.

According to the reports, Vick's dog, described as a Boxer, got into a fight with his other dog, a Cocker Spaniel.  Both Thomas and Diane tried to break up the fight between the two dogs when the Boxer redirected toward the owners -- biting both of them. Thomas died due to his injuries.

Diane is recovering from her injuries at a medical center in Las Vegas.

While this type of occurrance isn't typical of how the majority of fatal dog attacks occur, I see how this happens. Sibling rivalry among dogs isn't terribly uncommon -- particularly in cases where resource guardng may occur (over food, toys, bones). If people are not familiar with how to stop a bite like this (ie, try to never get our body between the dogs, but try to use another oblect like a trash can lid, or something in between them) it can be pretty easy to put oneself in harm's way.

This story has been picked up by the Associated Press and is being fairly widely distributed already. Hopefully more information will be made available once Diane is healthy enough to talk about the incident.

Bullhead City is not a rich community, with more than 25% of its residents living below the poverty line. However, it is probably unlike that the Vick's, who held a prominent place in the community were among the high percentage of the population that was poor.

My heart goes out to the Vick family in this attack.

 

Three dog bite related fatalities from the past couple of weeks

Earlier this month, a new study came out that highlighted some of the many factors that were common themes among dog-bite-related fatalities over a 10 year stretch. As expected, the results included the reality that there were a lot of environment factors that were common themes in these attacks, and that in most cases, it was multiple environmental factors at once that were in play  to help create the circumstances for a fatal dog attack.

It's important to to note that dogs are exceptionally safe -- with only around 30 of the nation's 80 million dogs being involved in a fatal dog bite incident each year. So when tragic events happen, it's important to look at the incidents in a full-circle look to determine what factors were most likely causal factors of such an incident. In the three most recent cases, you'll note many of the common elements from the study come into account -- including very young children who's interactions with dogs were not supervised, a situation involving criminal child neglect, and a situation where dogs were kept in near-isolation from human interacting and left chained and neglected.

Jah'niyah White -- 2 years old, Chicago, IL

Based on the media reports, it certainly sounds like there is a LOT about this incident that we aren't being told that will undoubtedly come out in future reports. But based on what is currently being noted, is that 2 year old Jah'niyah was left wto stay at her grandfather's house while her mother was at work.

However, due to circumstances that have yet to be reported, the young girl was tragically attacked and killed by two dogs (described as 'pit bulls' by the family) that were owned by her grandfather.

While autopsy results confirmed involvement by the dogs, the Cook County Medical Examiner's office offially ruled that the young girl had been neglected and died as a result of injuries suffered during a dog attack. Neglect has officially declared as a "contributing factor". The examiner's office has ruled the girl's death to be a homicide.

As of the most recent media reports, the grandfather has yet to be charged in the girl's death, but it sounds like that may be coming soon -- at which point more evidence about the circumstances of the neglect will be available. Young toddlers left unsupervised with dogs are among the most vulnerable to major dog attacks such as this. 

The news story was widely reported in the media. The incident also happened in the 60617 zip code, where more than 25% of the population (nearly double the national average) lives below the poverty line.

Mia Gibson, 3 months Old - Columbus, OH

According to the media reports, 3 month old Mia Gibson was asleep with her father on the sofa and at some point rolled off of the sofa and fell onto the floor. The infant was then apparently fatally injured by the family's two "Shiba Inus" where were said have been playing roughly with her causing fatal injuries. Authorities definitely made attempts to clarify this as not an "attack". 

The girl's father says that he slept through the incident.

One other point that I think is important here is that I've now read from multiple different sources that the infant was actually born very premature -- and at three months old, was actually at about the point where her mother would have been full term. So while a 3 month old infant is definitely fragile, it appears that young Mia may have been exceptionally fragile for her age.

The incident has been ruled a "tragic accident". While much of the reporting on this one was local, and fairly reasonable, one news station ran a story with the ridiculous headline "How dangerous is a Shibu Inu?" Of course, it's easy to laugh at the headline when a Shibu Inu is involved, but it's equally ridiculous if the headline would have been replaced with any other breed of dog following an incident such as this. 

Michal Nelson - 41 - Jarales, NM

Based on the media reports, 41 year old Michal Nelson was attacked and killed by one of 12 dogs that belonged to the woman.

I'm posting a visual here to help set the scene. But according to reports, Nelson went into this pen where all 12 dogs were chained up and was breaking ice out of the dogs' water bowls. Based on other visuals, this pen seems to be pretty far away from any type of residence.

As Nelson was breaking up the ice from the water bowls, that one of the dogs attacked her, and wounded her fatally. All 12 dogs were described as "pit bulls" that were apparently being used for breeding.

In the study on fatalities launched earlier this month, there is a very detailed part of the report that talks about "resident" dogs vs "family dogs" -- whereas family dogs reside in homes, with families, "resident" dogs are kept separate from the family. According to the researchers, one explanation for the reason why a disproportionate number of "resident dogs" are involved in attacks like this is because they lack the proper human socialization to properly cue off of unusual circumstances.

In this case, the dogs are all clearly kept as resident dogs. All were chained, and the living conditions would definitely be described as poor. 

The keeping of dogs in this type of manner would definitely be a contributing factor to a major dog attack incident.

The community of Belen, NM, where the incident occurred, has 35% of its residents living below the poverty line -- which is more than double the national average -- and it appears that it was definitely a factor in the attack.

My heart goes out to the families in all of these cases as these tragedies are all so often tragically avoidable.

 

Good intentions, wrong focus -- redux

The folks at Pinal County (AZ) Animal Care and Control are working on a "5-year plan" to become no kill. As a part of the plan, they decided they wanted to do a test drive on the idea by declaring it "No Kill December". Shelter Director Kaye Dickson noted that December was the lowest intake month and thus, they'd try to be no kill in December to see what the struggles would be.

Unfortunately, 19 days into the month, the shelter was 120 animals above capacity. Dickson noted that "if any more dogs come in tonight, or cats, at this point, I don't know where I'm going to put them."

So now, at least 50 animals are on the euthanasia list. 

The situation Pinal County is facing here is not an uncommon one -- and I continue to read about similar situations in the news reports. I wrote about a similar situation in Genesee County, MI last August.  And the problems seems to be extremely consistent, and extremely avoidable.

The problem is not the intent of the organization, which is good, but in its focus. The focus in most of these cases is that the organization wants to make the decision to stop killing animals. But, after a few weeks, they start running out of places to put them, and quickly become over-crowded. 

If no-kill is to work, the focus needs to shift -- away from preventing the negative and "not killing' animals --  to creating positive outcomes for them. The focus needs to be on SAVING them.

If you are an open-admission shelter, in order to go from a kill shelter to a no-kill shelter you MUST increase positive outcomes. Regardless of your shelter's capacity, if you don't increase your positive outcomes, you will eventually run out of space to warehouse them. 

Any attempt to go no kill, even for a "no kill December" must be accompanied by an aggressive attempt to move more animals SAFELY OUT of the building. This can be done through adoption specials, events at the shelter, increasing off-site adoption events, increasing hours of operation, aggressive advertising for adoptions in media, social media and PR, working to move more animals into rescue groups, returning more to their original owners or calling out for foster homes. 

A look at Pinal County's Facebook page, they did finally extend hours of operation this weekend, but that is really the only thing I can tell that they've done differently other than simply not killing. But without the life-saving measures, the inevitable overcrowding has happened.

How about this for an approach for a kill shelter that decides it wants to do a 'no kill December'?

- Before entering the month, have a series of  off-site adoption events in high-trafficked areas set up for, at the minimum, every weekend day for the entire month.

- Each day, have a "pet of the day" that is a free, or deeply discounted adoptable

- Hold a different-themed adoption special at the shelter multiple times throughout the month: The 12 dogs Christmas, name the cats after reigndeer, Home for the Holidays -- there are dozens of ideas for this. Pick multiple ideas. Plan them out. Make flyers in advance. 

- Organize a transport with a major national rescue, or, find a rescue partner that will agree to take 10 dogs and/or 10 cats per week from you. Charge no pull fee.

- Encourage the public to foster a dog or cat for the week of Christmas so it won't have to spend Christmas at the shelter. It will relieve time and stress on the staff at the shelter because there are fewer animals to care for, and, about 20% of the fosters will fall in love with the animal and adopt them from you and the animal will never come back.

-- Determine your estimated intake for the month. If that number is, say, 200, then make it your publicly stated goal to find homes for 225 pets for the holidays, and then, every single day, try to come up with something clever that will help you move at least 8 pets safely out of the shelter. 

-- If you find yourself short of meeting your goals -- go to the media and ask the public to come HELP you meet your goal of 225 pets finding homes for the holidays. The public will want to support you with this.

Then, when the month is over, and you and your staff are feeling great about a successful "no kill December", decide you're going to repeat it in January, and every month thereafter. It's not easy. It's really, really hard work. 

But if your shelter is going to get to "no kill", it needs to shift its focus. The focus should not be "not killing." The focus needs to be on SAVING them. Without that shift in focus, the shelter's quest will certainly fail.

 

 

The link between ignorance and irrational fear

"We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them." - Chrisitan Nestell Bovee

A couple of weeks ago, the University of Lincoln (UK) introduced results from some interesting research.

In their report entitled, Acculturation - Perceptions of breed differences in dog behavior, note that the level and quality of contact between dogs and humans is a major influence on the tendency to believe popular breed stereotypes.

According to the results of their survey, more than half of the respondents that labeled themselves "experienced or knowledgable" of dogs disagreed with the statement that some breeds are more aggressive than others.  Similarly, more than half of this group responded that they felt there was no valid reason for legislation targeting specific breeds.

However, only 15% of people with little or no experience with dogs disagreed with the statement that some breeds were more aggressive than others and less than 10% disagreed with laws targeting specific breeds.

The study noted that the variability in behavior within a breed is nearly always greater than the variability between breeds.  It was also noted that visible characteristics such as short hair, or being well-muscled, were also stigmatizd more often as dangerous by people with less experience with dogs.

While the study is somewhat small in scope, I do think the difference in the numbers is significant and worth noting.

People with experience with dogs do not fear them, and do not buy into breed stereotypes.

However, people without much knowledge or experience with dogs tend to be fearful of them based on certain attributes. While the study doesn't dive into the origin of these negative breed stereotypes, one would presume that media influence would be a pretty major driver -- especially in the UK where the media has spent a solid 25 years stigmitizing certain types of dogs. 

Meanwhile, I also think this has some important information for policy-makers. I feel that it's important to note that some people are fearful of certain things, and as such, we need to be aware of those fears. However, it's also important that we don't base our policies on fears that are generated out of lack of knowledge and experience.

If generations of bigotry and hate over other types of prejudice have taught us nothing, it should be that such bigotry and hate are almost always rooted in irrational fear based on lack of contact and understanding.

With dogs it's reall no different.

Let's let the people who are knowledgable drive the decision-making here. Laws based on ignorance are destined to fail. 

New study points to many factors related to dog bite fatalities

Last week, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) the released an in-depth study of 10 years worth of dog bite fatalities -- and the results are extremely interesting (if not altogether suprising).

This study is the first long-range study of factors involved in dog bite fatalities in nearly 2 decades. The study relied on more than just media reports (as other reports on this have done), and dived deep by looking at police reports, interviewing investigators, etc to analyze the entirety of contribruting factors in these fatal incidents. 

According to the report, much of this study was necessary because of the lack of solid data, and misleading data, that exists:

"The undue emphasis on breed has contributed to a lack of appreciation of the ownership and husbandry factors that more directly impact dogs and the complex genetic factors that work in combination with husbandry to influence a dog's behavior and responses to a given set of stimuli."

The report notes that it has been long-recommended that dog bite prevention strategies not be focused on a singlular factor in isolation (such as breed) -- but that strategies focused on multiple key factors of animal husbandry be used.

The results of the study continue to reinforce this position -- with a lot of information about factors involving fatal incident. Let's get to some key points from the study.

The study

The study analyzed 256 dog bite related fatalities from 2000 to 2009. The study again notes that dog bite fatalities are exceptionally rare -- with only an average of 25 per year over the course of the 10 year study in a country with a human population of 300 million and a dog population of about 70 million.

The writers of the study focused on police reports, talked to homicide investigators, coroner reports, animal control reports, photographs and studied previously unreported behaviorally relevant factors.

The Victims

 -- 45% of victims were less than 5 years of age.

-- Only 7% of victims (17) were the established owners of the dog(s). In only 6% of cases (16) did the owner have a familiar relationship with the dog(s).  In 85% of cases, the victim had only an incidental relationship with the dog, or no relationship with the dog.

-- In 143 (56%) of the incidents, the victim was deemed unable to interact appropriately with the dog. In 116 of these cases (81%) it was because they were too young (less than 5). The rest were older individuals, compromised because of drug and alcohol use or suffered from alzheimers, demential or uncontrollable seizure disorder.

 -- In 223 (87%) of the cases, there was no able-bodied person close enough to the victim to be able to intervene

-- In 148 (58%) involved a single dogs. Most of the deaths among infants (26 of 30) were attributed to a single dog, whereas over half of the deaths (63 of 96, 66%) involving victims over 15 involved multiple dogs.

-- In 74% of cases, the deaths occurred on the dog owner's property. Only 20% of cases (51, 5 per year) occurred entirely off of the owner's property.

-- In 84% of cases, inolved dogs had not been spayed or neutered. 

Husbandry-Related Factors

-- in 78% of cases, the dog(s) involved in the incident was owned.

-- In 76% of cases, dogs were kept by their owners as resident dogs vs family dogs

-- of the incidents involving resident dogs, the dogs were usually kept in ways that isolated them from the humans in the family.  38% were chained. 35% were in an isolated fenced area, outdoor pen or isolated indoor area. 15% were allowed to roam free. 

-- In 38% of cases, there is evidence that the owner or caretaker had knowledge of either prior dangerous actions by the dog or had previously allowed the dogs to run loose.

-- In 21% of cases, there was evidence of prior abuse or neglect of the dogs

-- Past mismanagement of the dogs was far more prevelent (56%) in cases involving multiple dogs.

-- Very interestingly, co-occurance of multiple variables were present in 81% of cases. This is significant.

The role of breed

The report really struggled with determination of breeds involved in the attacks. While previous (and other) studies have relied solely on media reports, this proved to be problematic.

For single dog incidents, in 22% of cases, media reports actualy conflicted as to the breed of dog involved. In 35% of cases, law enforcement assessment of breed differed from media reports.

For multiple dog incidents, breed descriptors in media reports conflicted in 36% of cases, and law enforcement assessment differed from media reports in 43% of cases.  

In 91% of cases, dogs were characterized by at least one media outlet as a single breed descriptor even though more than 50% of US dogs are mixed breed dogs.

Overall, they were only able to accuratedly assign breed status in 45 of the 256 (18%) of the caes. These 45 cases represented 20 recognized dog breeds including 2 dogs of known mixed breed ancestory.

Discussion

From the paper:

"The most striking finding was the co-occurrence of multiple factors potentially under the control of the dog owners: isolation of dogs from positive family interaction and other human contact; mismanagement of dogs by owners; abuse or neglect of dogs by owners, dogs left unsupervised with a child or vulnerable adult who may be unfamiliar to the dog; maintenance of dogs in an enviornment where they are trapped, neglected and isolated and have little control over the environment or choice of behavior. These conditions potentially predispose dogs to enhanced territorial, protective, and defensive behaviors toward stimuli that occur commonly in every day life."

"The most preventable incidents involved very young children left alone with dogs to whom they were unfamiliar or toddlers were allowed to wander off and encounter unfamiliar dogs. In at least 19 fatalities, authorities considered the lack of supervision so negligent that crimminal charges were filed against the parent or caretaker."

The article also goes into some pretty significant discussion about how husbandry practices influence a dog's bahavior:

"Dogs that have not developed a close relationship or bond with humans (ie resident dogs) generally act without relying on input from a human. Topal et al reported that dogs living in homes (in contrast to dogs living outdoors) developed bonds with people and were more dependent on their owners when solving tasks. Appropriate humane and clear interactions with people provide dogs with information about how to interact with humans in ways that are neither scary nor injurous to the dogs or humans.....discouraging maintenance of dogs in isolation from farmily; stressing the importance of a secure, stable, predictable environment and encouraging positive relationships with people may have considerable benefits."

The article is interesting throughout -- with some other interesting notes on ways that may benefit in dog bite prevention.

One unaltered dogs -- the article notes that the majority of dogs involved were unaltered dogs. While research shows that sexually intact male dogs react more intensely, more quickly and for longer periods of time, it also suggests that owner failure to have dogs spayed or neutred may co-occur with other factors that more directly influence a dog's social behavior.

It also notes that most children do not receive any type of dog bite prevention education. This combined with the overall lack of of supervision as a role in dog attack fatalities is especially problematic. It is also worth noting that research suggests that children cannot be expected to show good judgment in their interactions with dogs until they are 6 years of age.

The paper concludes:

"Experts on the subject of dog bite related injuries, including the AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression and Humane Interaction and the CDC, who have consistently stressed the complex and multiple approaches to address this complexity. The present study findings also support recommendations of the AVMA and Others regarding the inadvisability of single-factor solutions such as BSL, which may actually divert resources from effective measures and regulations."

As noted above, the results from this paper are terribly new. If you have been following this blog and other expert resources for the past 20 years, they have all consistently pointed to responsible husbandry practices as being crucial to the prevention of dog bites in this country. This study however provides a very comprehensive look at these dog bite fatality factors in a statistically reliable form. This study represents the first such reliable study in nearly 20 years. I also goes into far more depth than all previous studies by going deeper than just media reports in its analysis. All previous reports have relied solely on media reports that (as this study has shown) are often unreliable, contradicting, and lack the depth of information needed to make knowledgable husbandry recommendations.

I'm excited for this report, and hope that the information is spread far and wide so that communities will focus on responsible ownership education and practices as a method of dealing with the problem of dog bites vs a singular failed approach of targeting breeds (or looks) of dogs.

For more from the National Canine Research Council.

If you want to hear more, check out Pit Bulletin Legal News tomorrow night, when Donald Cleary and Anthony Barnett will be on talking more about the results from this study.

Thoughts (& practical solutions) to the idea of reducing & eliminating holding periods at shelters

A couple of months ago, a group of shelter directors and advocates in California released a very detailed whitepaper on recommendations for shelters across the state. Many of the ideas were logical, and while some were controversial, they were for the most part well-thought out, data-based recommendations.  

One of the recommendations of the whitepaper that has sparked a lot of  good conversation is the over the topic of "hold times" for shelter animals. "Hold times" are the period for which shelters are required to hold stray dogs and cats before they can offer them for adoption, transfer to resues or for death at a shelter -- giving owners a certain amound of time to reclaim their lost pets. Many states have mandatory hold periods, some do not. I think, for the most part, the debate had been healthy, and good -- as I think it's important for us to look at effective policies, analyze different opinions and trade-outs of different options. And no solution is perfect, including my own which I'll get to below.

The shelter group, supported by people from the ASPCA, Maddies Fund, HSUS and others contained two primary recommendations when it comes to shelter hold periods:

1) For dogs, make hold times no longer than 4 days unless the dog is wearing some type of identification such as a tag or microchip. Based on the shelter data in Caifornia, 80% of all dog RTOs (returned to owner) occur within the first 4 days and there is not much net gain in increasing time beyond that as animals become unlikely to be reclaimed after 4 days, and holding them longer just ties up shelter space for animals that are unlikely to be reclaimed, but unable to be adopted out or transfered -- which ties up shelter capacity and increases shelter costs.

2) The report goes on to suggest eliminating hold periods for cats unless they have identification (a collar, tags, microchips, etc. Nationwide, only about 2% of shelter cats are ever reclaimed, and most of those are because the cat has identification. Without the identification, a cat's likelihood of getting reunited with its owner becomes statistically, almost zero. 

At the time of the white paper report, and now, I support the reccommendations made in the California committee -- hold times for 4 days for dogs unless they have identification and eliminating hold times for cats unless the cat have identification. Many others support the recommendations, in whole or in part.

Of the recommecndations, the elimination of hold times for cats without identification has been by far the most controversial.

Not everyone is on board, and last week Nathan Winograd wrote a very detailed critique of the idea of eliminating or reducing hold periods based on the false notion that the only reason people support the measures is because they want to allow  shelters to kill them more quickly.  

While everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this, what Winograd has done is create a false debate. He's framed anyone who supports the idea of eliminating hold times as someone who supports "instant killing" of cats in shelters. He even went so far as to place advocate statements out of context to make it seem more dramatic. Such tactics are divisive, and do nothing to add to the positive dialogue that is taking place about solutions to saving more lives in shelters.

Below is my opinion on the hold times for cats (and to a lesser degree dogs), based on data and experience. It also contains my proposed solution that, while not perfect, eliminates the concern over cats risking instant death in shelters (at least, any more so than they do now), but also maximizes the opportunity for their safe exit from the shelter. 

One Shelter's Experience

In 2012, our group, the KC Pet Project, took over our city animal shelter. We took over a shelter that was killing 40% of the animals that came in. In 2012, KC Pet Project saved more than 86% of the dogs and cats in our care. In 2013, with only a few weeks to go, we are on pace to save 91% of the dogs and cats that come into our shelter. 

The idea that I (and many others) would support an idea so shelters could kill animals faster is a false premise. But I do support fact-based decision-making.

In Missouri, the state-required hold time for shelters is 5 days. For our shelter, 80% of all dogs that ever get returned are returned in the first 3 days. After day 3, they become significantly less likely to ever be reunited with their owner.

For cats, the situation is much more challenging. Through the first 11 months of 2013, KC Pet Project has reunited exactly 21 cats with their owners. Given a total intake of 2,568 cats, this represents less than 1% of all cats being reunited with their owners. Nearly all of the cats that were reunited were reunited because of some form of identification. 

In 2012, we returned 16 cats to owner -- again, less than 1%.

So cats entering our shelter have a less than 1% likelihood of being reunited with their owners even with a mandaotry 5 day hold). When the cat comes in without identification, its likelihood is nearly 0%. The idea that we are holding cats without identification based on the statistically zero percent chance that they will be reunited with owners does not create a net increase in lifesaving. 

Our situation is not unique. When looking at other successful shelters around the country, in 2012, the Nevada Humane Society (Washoe County/No Kill since 2008) returned 99 of the 5,234 cats (1.8%) that came into their shelter. The Charlottesville -Albermarle SPCA returned 68 out of 1744 cats at their shelter -- which is 3.8%. 

The reality is that in American shelters, the data indicates that cats coming into shelters without identification and being reunited with owners is a statistical anomaly. While it is great when it happens, it cannot be relied upon for life-saving, and even model shelters aren't all that successful in doing it.

Much of this is because, unlike dogs, most cats that find their way into shelters do not have owners. The number of owned cats in the US is estimated at about 80 million. Meanwhile, the estimated number of unowned/free-roaming/feral/community cats in the US is estimated to be around 60 million (although, projections on this vary wildly). So unlike dogs, where nearly all are owned, roughly 1/2 of the entire cat population in this country is unowned. So when unowned cats come to a shelter, there is no one who will come looking for them - whether the hold time is 10 days, 5 days, or zero days. It's also why the total number of reclaimed cats is so low.

Even with owned cats, because most are indoor, people usually opt to not license/microchip them because they are indoors, and will never get away, so why bother? Except sometimes they do. Which is the problem. 

The importance of length of stay for shelters

Time and space are the two biggest factors for every shelter in America. No shelter has unlimited capacity. If a shelter is to be successful, it is essential that animals get moved out of the shelter at the same rate as they come in. Smart shelters are always looking for ways to minimize length of stay.  It's a major way to increase capacity.

To put it simply, let's say you run a shelter, and you have 1 kennel. Your capacity is determined by one out, one in. If your average length of stay is 28 days, then every 28 days a dog gets out, and  new one comes in. At at a 28 day length of stay, your shelter has the capacity for 13 dogs throughout the course of the year.

However, if you decrease your lenght of stay to 14 days, you've doubled the capacity of your one kennel -- so now you can hold 26 dogs each year. If you decrease your length of stay to 10 days, you can now hold 35 for the year. It's math. The faster you get them out, the more room you have in your shelter.

But when you run a large shelter, this magnifies very quickly. If you have 100 kennels, and your a average length of stay is 28 days, then you can safely house 1300 dogs through the course of the year. But if your average length of stay is 10 days, these same 100 kennels can now house 3,500 on the year. 

Sure, there are other things you can do to increase capacity (like foster homes), but minimizing the length of time for animals at shelters is essential to maintaining capacity (and the health of the animals). The goal this is to make the exit from the building safe -- into either a loving adopted family, to a rescue group or safe shelter facility, or back to their owners - as quickly as possible.

Holding cats on "stray hold" so that they are unable to be adopted or transferred, and whose odds of being reclaimed by its owners are statistically zero, are unecesssarily driving up the amount of time they are in the shelter, increasing length of stay, taking up capacity, and thus the ability to save lives.

An example

Let's say Animal Control brings in a momma cat and a litter of six, eight-week old kittens to the shelter. None of the cats has identification, and a neighbor says the momma has been living in the neighborhood for years but thought the kittens could be socialized and wanted them to go to the shelter. A solid plan.

Under current rules in the state of Missouri (will vary from state to state), all of the cats would have to be held for 5 days. Because of the age of the kittens, we would have to divide them up into pairs and now this group is taking up 4 kennels -- one for momma, three containing two kittens each. This is 20 kennel days being taken up when statistically there is less than a 1% chance someone is looking for them. And because we highly suspect (based on neighbor reports) that the kittens are community cats, the likelihood that these cats will be claimed by an owner are essentially ZERO.

If we eliminated hold times, the shelter could quickly alter the momma cat and send it to a barn home (or return her to her current "home", the neighborhood) and send the 6 kittens to an awaiting rescue immediately, or adopt out these cute, adorable kittens. Instead, under the current mandatory hold times, they must occupy 4 kennels for 5 days each while we were waiting "on hold" for an owner (that doesn't exist) to possibly reclaim them. Meanwhile, the kittens risk being exposed to disease that may exist in the shelter that their fragile immune systems may not be able to handle.

This type of policy doesn't increase life-saving.

Hillsborough County

Last week, the Shelter in Hillsborough County, FL became the poster child shelter for the discussion on mandatory hold times. In August, Maddie's Fund's Shelter Medicine program recommended that the shelter eliminate "unnecessary hold times". Florida doesn't have required hold times (shelters set their own), and Maddies was no doubt referring to the hold time for cats.

Let's make no mistake, the Hillsboro County shelter has its share of issues. In 2012, the live release rate for cats was 19%. But even there, eliminating the hold times makes sense.

Contrary to the statements that in such a VERY high kill shelter, the only way for cats to make it out alive is not for them to serve their required hold time so they might possibly be returned home. Their most likely route of the shelter alive is still through adoption or rescue.

Even in the Hilsborough County shelter, which saves less than 20% of its cats, 1200 cats were adopted in 2012 and 700 went to rescue. Only 101 cats were reunited with to their owners. So in a shelter that statistically represents the worst of the worst, a cat is 20x more likely to leave alive via adoption/rescue than by being reclaimed by its owner.

In Reno, NV, they are 43x more likely to leave by adoption than by RTO.

At Kansas City Pet Project, they are 86x more likely to leave by adoption or rescue than by RTO.

Mandatory hold times take adoption, and transfer to rescue groups, off the table for the required period in the HOPE that someone wil come in and reclaim their cat. However, statisically, a cat's most likely safe exit from the building is through rescue or adoption. Taking adoption/rescue off the table for any amount of time only decreases the cat's opportunities of getting out of the shelter safely.

If the goal is to save more lives, getting the cats onto the adoption floor faster (not slower) is the best way to maximize success. And mandatory hold times (and certainly increasing mandatory hold times) actually slow down the process of getting cats onto the adoption floor -- which is their most likely safe exit from the shelter whether the shelter is a high kill shelter or a no kill shelter.

To me, this is the most fundamental difference between a focus on "not killing" vs the focus on "saving them all" -- is that one is attempting to institute policies to prevent shelter deaths, while the other is trying to focus on maximizing positive outcomes.  These are often congruent goals but not always, as sometimes efforts to eliminate killing, also hinder the ability to save lives.

A Common Sense Solution

There is of course legitimate concern that while the desire to save lives in public shelters is growing, there are still FAR too many shelters in the U.S. that would use the absence of hold times for cats as a reason/excuse/opportunity to immediately kill cats as they come through the doors. This is reasonable and sadly, even likely in many cases.

However, there is a practical option for this. My idea would be to create a "mandatory safe time" for which a cat has to be at the shelter before it can be killed (except for when it should be immediately euthanized - in the true sense of the word -for health reasons). However, instead of mandating that cats without identification be held only for owner reclaim during this time (which will happen for less than 1% of all cats), make them available for owner reclaim, adoption, or to transfer to rescue. Cats with some form of identification would be held for that period for reclaim by its owners.

The ability to move an animal to safety quickly will help shelters that are seeking to save lives by increasing their ability to lower length of stay (and thus, maximizing shelter capacity), while also maximizing the opportunities for cats in high kill shelters to find homes (through adoption or rescue) before their lives are terminated.

Advocates might argue that in these rare cases where an owner comes to reclaim their cat  and the cat has already been adopted is a danger to the human/animal bond. It's a valid concern. While these cases would be very rare -- as not only do statistically zero percent of cats without ID get reunited with owners -- there is also the likelihood that if owners came looking for their cat, it would still be at the shelter, even if made instantly available for adoption.  

While these very rare cases would be unfortunate, at least the owner would know their pet was in another loving home (or other rescue group) and at least not killed at the shelter. And the number of lives saved by maximizing the likelihood of likely positive outcomes may very well outweigh the unfortunate few, rare, and avoidable cases.

Meanwhile, I support the no kill movement's desire to not "blame" the public for animals coming into the shelter, and "overpopulation", etc. I believe in the public because for the most part, the public is good and are the adopters and volunteers who make life-saving possible. They have certainly shown this in our community.

However, how have we gotten to the point where every ounce of responsibility for people's lost pets is put squarely on the shoulders of the shelters? How is it that asking the public to do something so basic as to put tags, a collar or microchips on their cats so they can be reunited isn't a part of the discussion? This simple act would be their insurance policy for getting their pet back (as it is now) vs rehomed should it end up at the shelter. This would be a fairly easy educational campaign and would likely drive up the number of cats in compliance.

By having a time period where the animal cannot be killed, but can be saved (through adoption and rescue), you have not only offered the same protection from death in high kill shelters as current hold times, but also actually INCREASED its likelihood of being saved- - in both high kill and low kill shelters.

And isn't that the goal? 

And this idea isn't based on only avoiding worst case scenerios, it's based on statistically consistent data from shelters of all types around the country. And if owners want to protect themselves from the possibility that their lost cat will be rehomed, then they can simply place tag and/or microchip their cat. 

In spite of the best efforts, I'm convinced that we are not going to be able to legislate shelters into saving lives. In fact, in every single one of the 200+ communities that are saving 90% of the animals in their care, ALL of them got there not through legislating compassion, but by actually having the shelter run by smart, compassionate leaders. 

Meanwhile, laws that are intended to stop heartless, incompetent shelters from killing animals quickly, are the same laws that also keep compassionate, caring shelter leaders from saving lives quickly.

And we don't have to sacrifice one to help the other when reasonable compromises exist.