Toellner Tells it

KC Pet Project Opens Northland Location for the Holidays

Last year, Kansas City, MO initiated a search for a new organization to run the Kansas City, MO animal shelter that resides just south of the Sports Complex at 4400 Raytown Road.

In October, they chose a new organization, the Kansas City Pet Project, to run that shelter --- and this new group began running the shelter on January 1 of this year.

Since taking over the shelter in January, the new organization has been sprucing the place up, building new play yards for the dogs, and overall improving the image and the lives for the animals at the shelter.

Since taking over in January, the KC Pet Project has saved the lives of 85% of all the dogs and cats that have entered the shelter.

The group is now embarking on its newest project: expanding its presence North of the River.

Starting November 13, the group will be doing adoptions, and selling pet retail items at 7351 NW 87th Terrace -- in Zona Rosa Shopping Center. The retail location will remain open throughout the holidays and until Mid-January. The new space will not intake any animals, but will be housing 25-30 dogs and cats daily for adoptions.

KC Pet Project is the highest volume animal shelter in the metro, serving about 8,000 homeless animals a year. The new shelter location north of the river will help them expand their footprint and save more animals during the holidays.

So if you live North of the River (or even if you don't), be sure to check out the new KC Pet Project location at Zona Rosa and meet a new family friend, or buy some goodies for an existing one.

Disclosure: In the interest of full disclosure, I am a co-founder, and member of the Board of Directors for the KC Pet Project.

KCMO Shelter is back up and running, while RFP has gone out for new leadership

I've been out of town, and jammed at work - -so posting has been non-existent of late. I'm getting back on track though -- and want to start off with the latest and greatest at the KCMO shelter. 

1) The shelter is back open for adoptions -- a few weeks ago, the city relocated all of the animals at the shelter to Hale Arena while they did a thorough cleaning of the entire shelter.  The animals were moved back to the shelter, and the shelter is now open for business.  The shelter hours are pretty minimal and are from 12-6 pm on Monday - Thursday, 12-4 pm Friday and Saturday and closed on Sunday. I know the folks at the shelter are badly in need of volunteers to help with potential adopters, getting petfinder profiles updated and getting dogs walked -- so if you can help, please, please, please donate your time.

2) The Pet Connection -- a good no kill rescue fascility in Mission, has opened up a fairly large section of their space for many of the urgent dogs from the KCMO Shelter. They too badly need help for volunteers to help out with these dogs -- so again, thanks to them for providing the space -- but also, help is needed in that location too.  If you are interested in helping here -- please contact me -- and I will get you in contact with the volunteer who is organizing volunteers (or, I know she reads here -- if she wants to post her contact info in the comments, that's fine too).

3) The RFP for the new shelter contract is now available.  There are a lot of good questions on the RFP -- including questions about how the new shelter director will manage transfers to other rescue groups, how foster homes will be handled, how adoptions will be handled, how volunteers will be managed, how they will go about promoting spay/neuters, getting dogs returned to owners, deal with aggressive animals, owner surrenders, etc. There are also some good questions on helping deal with cases of minor neglect thatI think are interesting because our animal control has typically dealt with these cases through confiscation and may now be looking for solutions that involve keeping the animal in its home, but helping the owners to better care for the animals.

I'm very hopeful that the city will really take to heart these answers and not make this a solution about the lowest cost providers.  The answers to these questions will make the difference for literally thousands of animal lives in our community in the coming years -- and they're too important to just have on the RFP as window-dressing.  

The RFP process is going to move fairly quickly in the short run:

6/8 -Shelter walk-through for interested parties

6/16 - deadline for question submissions

7/7 -- Due date for proposals

7/20 -- Notification of Short-listed providers

7/25 - Interviews (if necessary)

7/27 - Selection made

August is set aside for negotiations, contract signing and ordinance proposal/acceptance of recommended provider, with the new organizations slated to take over in September.

4)  Separate from the RFP - the city also appears to be giving serious consideration to building a new animal shelter.  City Councilman John Sharp, along with former council member Teresa Lohr are leading the charge to put a measure on the ballot for a tax increase to raise $10 million build a new shelter. The city's current shelter was built in 1973 -- and was basically created as a catch and kill facility. The shelter is very small for a city this size, has horrible ventilation and no isolation area that make animals very succeptible to diseases,  is in a remote location that is very difficult for potential adopters or people with lost pets to get to. Potential adopters also get the pleasure of having the crematorium attached to the shelter that is often running when people are at the shelter.

City Manager Troy Schulte acknowledges that the shelter was never designe for modern day animal care needs. And Schulte notes that for every 1 person sho says we shouldn't spend the money he would expect 1,000 emails saying that the city isn't being nearly compassionate enough about the care of animals.

It sounds like there is a very real possibility for the tax to appear on the ballot in November -- or possibly spring of 2012.  There is also a chance that it would be grouped with other tax needs -- such as a tax needed to repair our crumbling sewer system. It is still disappointing that the new shelter was removed from last year's public safety tax proposal even though it was considered in the early stages.

There seems to be quite a bit of support for the new shelter -- with most rational people recognizing the need for a new facility.  The combination of a new facility, and competent management, could set Kansas City up for success as a no kill community.

5) Separate from the KCMO shelter news, Jackson County, MO has signed off on $5 million to build a new animal shelter serving the non-Kansas City areas of the county. The shelter will be built on 23rd street -- 2 miles East of 291 Highway near Metropolitan Community College - Blue River in Independence. The shelter will replace the 30 year old shelter that is currently being used and will have enough space to house 125 cats and more than 100 dogs. County Legislator Denny Waits has been leading this effort in Jackson County for several years and it will be great to see it come to fruition.

We need a lot of short term help out there folks...but things are certainly looking up if we can make good decisions along the way.

Fact-checking the Star's editorial on Missouri Prop B

Yesterday, the Kansas City Star posted an editorial opinion in reaction to the Missouri Senate's Actions regarding Proposition B. 

However, when I read their editorial, there are no fewer than 3 major factual errors in their 4 paragraphs that actually talke about the law -- which makes me wonder, did they actually read the law they're commenting on?

On Thursday, the Missouri Senate passed SB 113.  You can read the law in its entirety here. The law is meant to replace Proposition B, that was voted in as a citizen's initiative by a 51.6% margin in November. You can read the Star's editorial without my comments here, but below is the editorial, with my comments in Blue.

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

Apparently determined to preserve Missouri’s status as the nation’s “puppy mill capital,” the state Senate has passed legislation dismantling the humane protections approved by voters in November.

The bill gives breeders permission to continue business as usual — stacking dogs in wire cages (This is specifically prohibited in 273.347 Section 1 --beginning the very last paragraph on page 6), subjecting them to extreme heat and cold (prohibited on lines 82 and 83), and depriving them of clean water.

Breeders who repeatedly violate the law would be subject to misdemeanor charges, not felony charges as called for in the voter-approved Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act (The voter approved initiative never called for felony charges either. Lines 106-111 detail the criminal statutes under Prop B (which have been removed) and they only call for Class C misdemeanors for first offenses, and Class A misdemeanors for repeat offenses. These are the same classes of penalties detailed in SB 113 -- the new criminal statutes are in section 273.347 lines 17-21 . Operators also could no longer be limited to 50 breeding dogs at one time.

Passing the bill on a 20-14 vote, senators showed an arrogant disrespect for Missourians who passed Prop B with 51.6 percent of the vote.

Lawmakers preposterously claim that voters didn’t understand the ballot proposition. (It certainly appears that if voters were getting their information about the ballot proposition from the local newspaper of record here in KC, they may not have actually understood what they were voting on).  

Here is what Missourians understood: The state’s dog-breeding industry is riddled with problems. Raids turn up starved, mangy and tormented animals. Pet stores and consumers across the country have complained about problems with Missouri-bred puppies. The state legislature, held hostage to interests that regard dogs as just another form of livestock, has ignored the problems for years. (In fairness to the Senate, along with the other changes to Prop B, some that needed to be done, some that didn't, they also increased the maximum licensing fees for breeding operations, something that was recommended by the Missouri State Auditor and the Better Business Bureau. The increased fees will enable the state to better enforce current regulations, as well as the regulations under SB 113.  It has been well-documented that enforcement has been a huge issue.  Meanwhile, SB 113 also mandates a $25 a year fee for all breeding operations, shelters, rescues and pounds that go to fund Operation Bark Alert -- which has led to the closing down of 360+ breeding operations and led to the rescue of more than 4500 dogs in less than 2 years of operation. The Star excluded this from their commentary).

All senators from Jackson, Clay and Platte counties voted “no” on the bill Thursday, except for Victor Callahan of Independence, who also was the only Democrat to vote against the wishes of the state’s voters. Sen. David Pearce, a Republican who represents Cass County, voted yes.

The move to undo Proposition B could still be halted by the House or by a veto from Gov. Jay Nixon. One or the other needs to stop this affront to dogs and to Missouri voters.

(And the Star needs to stop this affront to its readers. Really, if you're going to call out the Senate for changing a law, at least know what it is the law says). The citizens in this city deserve better than this type of commentary and misinformation. 

For a more detailed breakdown on Prop B, I've broken it down over at the KC Dog Blog. 

KCMO terminates shelter contract opening up greater opportunities for KCMO pets

 Today, the city of Kansas City, MO announced that it was terminating the contract with Veterinary Management Corp (owned by Dr.Wayne Steckelberg) -- who has been running the shelter for the past 2 years.  The city issued a press release today (I can't find it on the city's website, but KC Dog Advocates posted on their facebook page) announcing that they will be seeking proposals for new organizations to run the shelter.  An official RFP is expected to go out in the coming weeks, with proposals likely due back sometime around April 11.

The contract termination comes amid some recent controversy surrounding the shelter.  On January 18th, several high-profile folks in the city, including Britton Hunter, a board member of Halfway Home Pet Adoptions (an organization that oversees the shelter management), Teresa Johnson, the Executive Director at Animal Haven, a successful No Kill shelter in the metro, and Jackson County Legislator Denny Waits, filed a formal complaint against VMC saying that they were in violation of the city contract (you can read the entire complaint here).

The complaint features a series of allegatoins with 12 specific examples of these allegations.  Among the specific allegations:

1) Allowing an animal to die in its cage after being left untreated for 3 days in spite of several notifications by an employee of the dog's deteriorating health

2) Some faulty record keeping in terms of health care provided

3) A three-month old kitten that was listed as "adopted" was actually injured during surgery, left untreated, and then euthanized the next day. The family that was waiting to adopt this particular kitten had a different kitten slipped in its place.

4) A dog that entered the shelter with a large, painful tumor that was left completely untreated for 10 days at the shelter before the dog was euthanized.

All four allegations (as well as the others listed in the complaint), if true, would be in clear violation of VMC's contract with the city.  All of the allegations are currently under review by the state veterinary medical board. 

The city, wisely, has taken the allegations seriously and requested that Dr. Steckelberg take administrative leave (according to quotes by City Councilwoman Cindy Circo in an article written by The Pitch, this would be standard for any similar situation involving another city employee).  Dr. Steckelberg refused to take his leave, so the city announced it would terminate his contract.

Dr. Steckelberg has filed a counter to these allegations; and the group has filed a response to Dr. Steckelberg's response. (I confess that this one is 82 pages long and just filed yesterday, so I have not read it yet).

However, at this point, regardles of how the official review goes, the city has opted to not renew VMC's contract and is seeking more bids.

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

Two years ago, the City Council decided to privatize the city's animal shelter and put the duties of running the shelter into the hands of a private group.  Not only did the move save the city an estimated $175,000 a year in expenses and the hope was that it would help create more positive outcomes for the animals.  And the results have proven that hope to be true.

In 2007 the city shelter, under the city's management, killed 6,769 dogs and cats.  In 2008 the city killed 4,912. 

In 2009, with nearly a year of managing the shelter under their belts, the folks with VMC killed 3,101 dogs and cats -- a 37% decrease in killing.  The number dropped again in 2010, to 2,722 dogs and cats.

In spite of the obvious improvements that came from privatizing the shelter, there has been increasing frustration by many of the shelter volunteers and some of the staff members regarding how the shelter was being managed and quality of care animals were receiving. I think most who have been involved with the shelter, have acknowledged the improvements that have been made, but also note that a change in management was going to be necessary if the shelter were to make the next step in improvements.

--------

In response to the allegations, VMC released the press release to the left.  They're response was to "relieve volunteers of the burden of dog walking".  While they weren't refusing volunteer help, they, in essence are now refusing to let volunteers handle the dogs and cats, which keeps them out of the shelter area, and thus, out of sight of all of the veterinary activities at the shelter. 

I guess the thinking is, if no one sees what is going on, no one can report it.

This type of abrupt policy is in direct opposition to 1983 laws (commonly known as whistle-blower laws) that protect people who speak out from retaliaton.  No longer having access to walking dogs would fall under the protections for these laws and would be seen as retaliation.

So their response to the allegations is to then potentially cause more problems for themselves and the city.

Meanwhile, the volunteers at the shelter have been working very hard over the last 20 months to help save the lives of animals. Without the vols having as much access to the animals, it will take away one of the biggest success stories for the shelter -- which was the hard work of the volunteers to help save the lives of the animals. 

Without that access (and current volunteers will now have to re-apply and be interviewed to be volunteers), many animal lives will inevitably be lost in the next 7 weeks until new shelter management takes over on May 1.

What's next

The great news is that so far, I've not heard any talk from city hall about the city taking over the contract.  Privatization has clearly shown itself to be a superior option to city control -- both in terms of total budget, and in animal lives saved.

Two years ago, none of the major rescue groups in the city stepped forward to bid on the contract (there were only two bids, and Dr. Steckelberg's was easily the right choice between the two) in part because the shelter situation was such a mess under the city management. The task of saving the lives of all the healthy animals at the shelter now seems achievable. 

Given this, I would expect one or more of the accomplished shelter organizations in this city to step up and bid on the contract and for the city to have some good options in front of it.  A well-managed shelter that embraces its volunteers, the community, and the new and innovative sheltering policies that have been used successfully in other cities (including a consistent off-site adoption program),  has every reason to believe that KCMO can achieve No Kill.  There are already generous volunteers and donors in place that are committed to its success.

No extra money needed. Only good leadership.

Our situation here is not much different than the situation that faced Austin, TX only a couple of years ago.  And, after years of high kill rates, that open-admission shelter has now seen 3 consecutive months of 90+% save rates. Th

 As the center of the Animal Health Corridor, Kansas City has an opportunity to be a case study in how a well-run animal-shelter system.  Regardless of whether or not the allegations against VMC are true, expanding the search for new management for the shelter opens up an outstanding opportunity for the animals in KC, and for this city to provide a service to its taxpayers that we all can be proud of.

Politcian Responses for to Animal Welfare Policy Questionaires

The primary elections are Tuesday, and while many organizations publish their political endorsements, it should be no surprise that animal welfare people would post theirs too.

At first glance, posting rankings on animal welfare policy may seem insignificant; after all, there are a wealth of major problems facing Kansas City. But on the flip side, 60% of the residents in Kansas City own pets and legitimately care about animals in this city. Additionally, as the hub of the Animal Health Corridor, being a pet-friendly city could be beneficial for attracting more animal health businesses to the city.

Meanwhile, the city spends more than $2.5 million a year on animal control and is animal shelter -- so everyone should have a vested interest in this not being yet another failing public service. And unlike many of the problems that face the city, solving many of the problems with animal control are actually pretty easy.

So Kansas City Dog Advocates has put together their rankings of the individual politicians in the KCMO election and their views on animal welfare policies. You can go to the link to read them on their page, but because most people don't click on links, I am posted the comments from their page below:

Mayor

*Mark Funkhouser -- Mayor Funkhouser is a former auditor for the city and is inclined to support fiscally responsible ordinances. As auditor, he was very critical of animal control's poor licensing rates. As Mayor, he is responsible for appointing all members of the KCMO Parks Board.  The current parks board prohibited building a dog park in Waldo where a group of private citizens had raised money (and substantial support) to build it.  While Funkhouser has been vocally frustrated with the Parks board on these decisions, they are his appointees nonetheless. Funkhouser is the owner of a toy poodle and a chihuahua. Funkhouser is open to repealing the city's ordinance mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls', and in general opposes breed-specific laws. He also says he is open to making changes at the shelter. In spite of several conversations about the city's door-to-door sweeps, he still insists (wrongly) that they only existed for a single week. He also insisted there were no quotas although the Animal Control Manager said there were.  He is open to allowing Trap/Neuter/Return programs for cats. And he supports a long term plan for a new shelter.

*Deb Hermann -- Is currently a member of the city council and is now running for Mayor. Hermann opposed making pit bulls automatically dangerous dogs at the committee level and at the council level, but did propose and support BSL mandatory spay/neuter (MSN). Hermann actually sponsored this bill (which directly led to the death of more than 2,000 dogs in the community) based on the recommendations of various staff members. This is particularly concernings she has yielded her opinion to "staff recommendations" in other mayoral forums.  If we are to make improvements to the problems in the city we'll need someone who has an opinion and willingness to impact positive change even in spite of staff recommendations. As for Hermann's questionaire, Hermann has two dogs, a Boxer and a Shih Tzu. She says she is open to discussions about the city's MSN law and notes in regards to breed bans that she would like to see a comprehensive plan that will protect dog owners and the dogs.  She says that she is pleased with the financial savings of the privatized shelter so far but is open to discussions about the shelter operations. She notes that with good planning, dog parks can be successful and would like the issue revisited by the parks board.  She notes that she'd like to see animal control "quotas" for spay/neuter certificates distributed vs the ticket and confiscate quota program that is there now, because we won't ticket our ways out of problems. Hermann is supportive of the door-to-door sweeps because she felt like animal control officers were just enforcing the current law. She is open to allowing those involved in licensed rescues to be temporarily over the pet limit. She would be open at looking into TNR programs that have been successful in other cities and would support the long-term plans for building a new shelter.

Sly James  -- James is the owner of a lab mix, a Minature Schnauzer and a Dachshund/Yorkie Mix (Dorkie).  He also used to own an Irish Wofhound that has passed away. James is not supportive of breed specific laws - and would be open to repealing the city's law mandating the spay/neuter of all pit bull type dogs as he believes that ordinances should not unfairly burden low-income families and individuals.  Instead, laws should be targeted toward owners whose animals are raised for violent, unlawful ends. Generally speaking, James is opposed to privatizing the shelter, however, recognizes that the current shelter privatization is working for the city both in financially and in quality of service.  He would consider re-opening the bid (as a note, this all is a bit of a concern as the likely worst case scenerio for the animals in Kansas City is if the city took back over the shelter operations). James does not support quotas as revenue boosters for the city, but is supportive of performance metrics that ensure citizens are getting the needed results. He also is not generally supportive of targeting "selected neighborhoods" in enforcing laws through door-to-door sweeps. James would be open to laws that temporarily allow residents to be over the pet limit in certain situations and would support laws that allow for the proper care of feral cat colonies. He is also supportive of long-term plans to replace the city's current, outdated shelter.

Jim Rowland  -- Rowland owns a German Shepherd and a cat. He is aware of the complex issues facing 'pit bulls' in this community in regards to the city's law mandating the spay/neuter (MSN) of pit bulls - especially with so many area communities have banned them. He does realize that it's wrong to target low-income families (who he notes make great pet owners too) with the MSN law and especially wrong to seize them because they're not altered where they are too often killed at the shelter.  He instead supports collaboration with low-cost spay/neuter clinics in order to help solve the problems. He also notes that he does not support breed-specific laws. Rowland understands the improvements with the privatized shelter (noting the city does not have the resources or expertise to run a shelter) but also understands that there is a lot of opportunity to make improvements.  He is open to making the changes necessary to fix these issues and notes that working within a budget and providing compassionate care for animals is not mutually exclusive. Rowland is supportive of more dog parks in the city as demand warrants.  He thinks the quota system is mismanagement and rewards negative behavior vs positive outcomes - and worse, has not been used to get rid of bad Animal Control Officers as they were intended.  He also thinks the door-to-door sweeps were an ineffective and inaproapriate use of city resources. He is also open to changing the city's pet limit law as long as people are not causing problems with neighbors and supports the city working with animal welfare groups work with feral cat colonies in the city. He also thinks there are ways to partner with the animal welfare community in order to get resources (like a new shelter) that are badly needed.

Mike Burke -- Mr. Burke has contacted KCDA on multiple occassions after receiving the questionaire...yet, has unfortunately yet to return a completed form or have an opportunity for a live conversation. At this point we do not have information on Burke's stances on these issues, but will update this space if we are able to connect with him.

Henry Klein  -- Klein is an animal lover (he owns a mixed breed dog and a couple of cats) and formerly on the board of directors of the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City. Klein is a strong supporter of low cost veterinarian services, including spay/neuter to help low-income families. However, while he is a proponent of spay/neuter, he is open to the discussion of city's law mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls and how to amend it to make it workable. He is opposed to laws targeting specific breeds of dogs because it is the owner's responsibility to provide care and control of their pets. He would be in favor of re-opening the shelter contract. Klein is 'huge proponent" of off leash dog parks and thinks neighborhood involvement in the process is essential to making sure everyone is on-board with the increased usage that will come from off-leash dog parks. He doesn't think good public policy is ever served by quotas and also thinks the door-to-door sweeps are another 'really bad idea" that is not the kind of public policy that builds good will between citizens and servants. He is generally supportive of increases in the pet limit and at the very least making reasonable and meaningful exceptions to the policy - -and would support better solutions that would allow for Trap/Neuter/Return programs for feral cats. He is also supportive of moves to create a new shelter and is confident that the city's citizens are highly in favor of efforts to help animal welfare.

City Council

1st District

Dick Davis  -- Davis is the onwer of one cat. He is comfortable with the city's position to privatize the city shelter and that re-opening the contract for new bids would be in order. He thinks additional dog parks and people in rescue being temporarily over the pet limit are reasonable proposals. He also thinks that good animal control officers should not need performance standards and that door-to-door sweeps are an excessive use of police power. He would support laws that allow for Trap/Neuter/Return. He does not support a move to improve the city animal shelter unless the city's financial position improves. There are several other issues (including Breed-specific legislation and the law mandating spay/neuter of 'pit bulls" in which he says he has no strong feelings and would be open to discussions. Mr. Davis is running unopposed.

1st District At-Large

Scott Wagner  -- Wagner is not currently a pet owner, but has been recently. He recently had his adopted Lab mix escape from his kennel/groomer for the second time and she was never able to be found - -and also recently had an elderly cat that had to be euthanized because of health issues. He does not support the city's law requiring all pit bulls to be spayed or neutered because he thinks laws targeting single breeds are not effective and this law particularly increases the burden on low-income families.  He instead, favors cooperation with the animal welfare community to create a comprehensive plan to help people alter their pets with deferd costs for low-income households. He is generally supportive of allowing a private organization with expertise to run the city shelter and but does not favor immediate changes at the shelter as he thinks shelter contracts should run for 3-5 years so contractors have adequate time to make investments, hire staff etc. He is generally supportive of more dog parks in the city, preferring that new parks be evenly dispersed throughout the city and in larger parks so dog owners and non dog owners may be evenly accomodated. Wagner had his own neighborhood targeted by door-to-door sweeps and doesn't they they solved anything - and thinks the city quotas are 'completely counter-productive'. Wagner is supportive of allowing pet limit variences for pet fosters, and is open to solutions that will help the management and prevention of growth of feral cat colonies...while acknowledging that the current city laws preventing TNR programs are unenforceable. Wagner would support a public/private partnership for building a new shelter - as he realizes that it may be unrealistic for the city to come up with the full amount for the shelter on its own in the short term.

Daina Kennedy -- KCDA has sent questionaires to Ms. Kennedy on two different occassions and have yet to hear back from her. We will update her profile if more information becomes available. 

2nd District

*Russ Johnson -- Mr. Johnson is a very data-driven guy and is set on making decisions based on data, not emotions. This is usually very good for dog people, as bad animal policies are the ones made based on fear, not facts. He sat down with KCDA and went through a lot of information, and asked for even more. He'll make fact-based decisions on most subjects. He is running un-opposed in 2011.

2nd District At-Large

*Ed Ford -- Ford has previously owned two dogs that have passed away after living long, happy lives - both of which were adopted from animal shelters. Ford says he does not support breed specific legislation as he thinks the an animal's aggressiveness is based on how it is treated or trained.  He is aware that Kansas City has formed partnerships with spay/neuter clinics that target low-income households and would be open to the repeal of the city's law mandating that all pit bulls be altered. He says he would be open to re-opening the animal shelter contract up for bids and is a supporter of dog parks. Ford does not favor the door-to-door licensing checks (and notes that in 1994 was given a ticket in such a sweep), and is open to creating a permit for rescue organizaitons to exceed the pet limit. He also would be supportive laws that allow for the proper care of feral cat colonies - noting that when he was growing up, his mother would often feed neighborhood cats. Ford would very much support long-term plans for a new shelter and notes that the city manager has assured the council that the next bond issue in the city would include a new animal shelter and has also been working with NAWS (Northland Animal Welfare Society) to help  them find a location for their no-kill shelter.

Allen Dillingham -- KCDA has sent questionaires to Mr. Dillingham on two different occassions and have yet to receive a response.

3rd District  - We'd like to note that the majority of animal control calls come from the 3rd District.  It is dissappointing that the candidates running for 3rd In District are either unreachable or non-responsive.

Sharon Sanders- Brooks -- KCDA has sent questionaires to Ms. Brooks on two different occassions, and have yet to get a response. KCDA also received no response from her in 2007 when she was running.

Michael Fletcher -- Due to lack of an online presence, KCDA has been unable to get a questionaire to Mr. Fletcher.

Jermaine Reed -- Mr. Reed has a campaign website, but does not have a way of contacting him on the website. So we have yet to get a questionaire to him for this campaign.

3rd District At Large 

 *Melba Curls -- In 2007 when Curls ran for city council, she did not respond to KCDA questionaires on three different occassions. After sending questionaires to her on two different occassions in 2011, she has yet to respond. This lack of response actually is a good representation of the type of response we have gotten from her while she has been in office.

Durwin Rice -- Rice is an animal-lover and a friend of KCDA. He owns two large mixed-breed dogs and one cat. All three were adopted. He strongly thinks that the law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' should be repealed because it targets people and dogs in poor communities, and opposes any form of breed-specific legislation because it promotes ignorance against certain types of dogs and ignorance about the proper care and training of dogs. He supports opening the current shelter contract up for bids. He supports the creation of a large dog park in every district in the city, as well as smaller fenced areas for dogs and dog owners that are appropriately sized for smaller neighborhood parks. Rice does not support the use of quotas for animal control and doesn't think door-to-door licensing sweeps are an appropriate use of city resources. Rice would also support making changes to the city's pet limit law that would allow for a permit system for people to be over the limit if they are fostering animals for rescues.  He supports making it legal to care for properly care for community cats and would support a plan that would  build a new shelter in the city. We feel that Rice would actively advocate for animals if elected to the council.

Brandon Ellington  -- Ellington is the owner of a 'pit bull terrier mix' that he adopted from Wayside Waifs. He is opposed to the city's mandatory spay/neuter law because it not only targets low-income households but also infringes on owners rights to whether or not they would like to breed their pit bulls or not (even though we at KCDA would hope most people would elect to have their pit bulls altered, we do support Ellington's view that mandating that they do so is unnecessary government over-reach). Ellington does not support any type of breed-specific laws because he remembers a time when people used to target Rottweilers and Doberman Pinchers as being aggressive  - noting it is neglected or mishandled dogs that are aggressive, not breeds. He is open to putting the animal control contract up for bids. Ellington supports dog parks because it is good for dogs to be able to run and get exercise, and because they bring dog lovers together. Ellington supports getting rid of the quotas and against the door-to-door sweeps. He would support temporarily lifting pet limits for people rescuing (although he notes that he is supportive of the idea of pet limits) and would favor laws that would allow for Trap/Neuter/Release programs.

4th District

*Jan Marcason  -- What a difference 4 years makes. Four years ago, while running for office, Ms. Marcason sat down with KCDA prior to discuss animal welfare issues. Since that time, her stances have changed pretty dramatically, and not in a favorable way...in fact, many of her answers were quite concerning (thus her current ranking). Jan is not currently a pet owner. She says she does favor breed specific legislation when it can be statistically shown that it is necessary for the safety of all citizens. (We'd like to note that BSL has been proven, irrefutabley to be ineffective and a waste of resources. *See Topeka, KS recent repeal.) Thus, she says she is in favor of the current mandatory spay/neuter law for pit bulls because "in terms of citizen safety, the research showed the need for the legislation". (Never mind that 5 years later there has been no change in the number of dog bites in this city, but literally at least 2,000 dogs are dead directly because of the ordinance). She notes that having a private entity run the municple shelter appears to have been a good decision for the city financially (no comment that it has been better for the animals too), and notes that she is in favor of more dog parks as she believes that they enhance the quality of life for our citizens. She says that without sufficient data, she is withholding an opinion on the city's quota system and the door-to-door sweeps (although she does note that there seems as if there ought to be a less invasive way to encourage compliance with pet registration). She is open to suggestions for allowing people to have more than 4 pets without having to apply for a "Hobby kennel" permit. She says she gets phone calls complaining about feral cats in neighborhoods and is sympathetic toward that problem, and wonders if Trap/Neuter/Release programs would satisfy the concerns of these citizens. She does think it would be a good time to start long-term planning for a new shelter, although notes that financing would be a challenge.

4th District At-Large

John Crawford -- We have spoken to Mr. Crawford during the campaign and he has received our questionaire, but he is yet to respond.  We will update this space if we ever receive a completed questionaire from Mr. Crawford.

Anne McGregor -- We have spoken to Ms McGregor during the campaign, and she has receiver our questionaire, but has yet to responde. We will update this space if we receive a completed questionaire.

Ed Pace -- Pace is the onwer of an American Staffordshire terrier that he calls the 8th addition to the family. Pace rightly calls the city's law mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls "Institutionalized discrimination" that targets predominently Black and Brown communities and low-income families in general. Pace says that he would lead the discussions about repealing these types of laws, not just be a participant. He understands that breed-specific laws are not a viable solution and would not support them in any form. Pace would like to see an organization in charge of the shelter that was not a for-profit organization because he feels that life should come befor profit. He would support the the building of new dog parks in the city because the public obviously wants this kind of amenity and believes the department heads need to be held accountable. Pace opposes both the quotas and the door-to-door sweeps, and also would support a proposal that would allow more than the city limit of pets for people involved in rescue efforts. He would support laws that allow for the care of feral cat colonies and a long-term solution to building a new shelter.

Annie Presley  -- Presely has written a series of children's books about her rescue dog Sam who they had to euthanize a year ago. The first book "Sam Gets Adopted" is due to be published sometime this year. Obviously Presley is a pet lover -- and has two dogs, a Miniature Schnauzer and a mixed breed they recently adopted from Wayside Waifs. While Presley is opposed to breed-specific legislation, she does talk some in her survey about some dogs being "more aggressive than others". This doesn't mean that she supports breed-specific laws, but does seek good education for owners of particular types of dogs to create a safer environment for pet owners and citizens. She supports opening up the shelter contract for bids. She says her dogs love the Penn Valley dog park and has recommended to the Director of the Parks Department that there should be a dog park in every corner of town. She thinks the door-to-door sweeps seem expensive and impractical and thinks that working with non-profits and veterinarians would create opportunities to license pets in a far more practical way. She is open to discussions on raising the city's pet limit law and supports changes to laws that allow for the proper care of feral cat colonies.

Jim Glover  -- Glover was on the Neighborhoods Committe that originally recommended the now-approved mandatory spay/neuter law for 'pit bulls' in 2006. Glover has yet to respond to our questionaire.

5th District

Ken Bacchus - Due to lack of an internet presence, KCDA was never able to get a survey to Mr. Bacchus.

W. Ruth Turner - Due to lack of an internet presence, KCDA was never able to get a survey to Ms. Turner. 

Michael Brooks  -- We don't know know Rev. Brooks stance on any of the issues, but he did send a representative to the Spay Day event before elections in 2007 (the Rev. had to host church on Sunday morning).  Taking an interest in animal welfare issues is important. The more education people have on these matters, the better.  Due to lack of an internet presence, we were unable to get a survey to Mr. Brooks for the 2011 election.

5th District At Large

*Cindy Baker Circo  -- Circo is almost single-handedly to credit for moving the city shelter operations under private control - a move that saved the city money and has saved animal lives. Circo has become a bit "more political" in her views since the previous election. She is a dog owner, and has helped change some policies regarding the city's law mandating the spay/neuter of all 'pit bulls' to where owners are now given warnings for non-compliance and information on free clinics to have the surgery done.  She does not favor breed-specific laws. Circo realizes that the shelter has made a lot of progress but that much more progress is needed and due to massive budget cuts, creativity and collaboration will be needed to make more progress. Circo has funded the priority dog park in Swope Park (although there is still need for a sponsor of it). Circo is supportive of the city's door-to-door sweeps as an effort to increase licensing. She is supportive of possible increases in the pet limit and would be supportive of a badly needed new shelter.

Mahlon Davis Jr  -- (Note: due to some paperwork isssues, Davis' name will not appear on the primary ballot - so will be a write-in candidate. If he gets enough write-in votes, his name will appear on the ballot for the general election).  Davis is a dog owner and the proud owner of a Miniature Pincher. Davis does think that the city law requiring 'pit bulls' to be spayed/neutered should be repealed and does not support breed-specific legislation in any form. He is supportive of the privatized shelter and does think opening the shelter bid would bring out the best of the best in different private organizations. Davis is not a huge fan of dog parks because he doesn't believe everyone is training their dogs properly but is open to more dog parks and citizen's ideas and concerns. He does not support quotas in the city's animal control and thinks it could lead to animal control being a bit "unorthodox" and potentially writing tickets for things that are not there.  He also thinks door-to-door sweeps are "over the top" and could lead to animal control performing unconstitutional acts. He is open to some adjustments to the city's pet limit, but does have some concerns if not done smartly that animals could be harmed. He supports a long-term solution to the city's aging animal shelter and would listen to citizens on the issue of TNR for feral cats.

6th District

* John Sharp  -- Sharp is the owner of a German Sheperd/Norwegian Elk Hound Mix. He notes that he was not on the council when the ordinance requiring the spay/neuter of all pit bulls was enacted, but if he had been, he would have voted against it. While he strongly supports efforts to spay/neuter, he does not support mandatory laws unless the subsidies are available to help low-income households. He also does not support breed-specific legislation. While he does think privatizing the animal shelter has been an improvement, he knows more improvements are necessary and there could be benefits of more city council supervision. He thinks the city's one dog park has been a success and that more are needed in other areas of the city. Sharp thinks the city's performance standards were designed as a "quick fix" to management problems and believes that animal control should devote more time to educating and working with pet owners vs punitive legislation...and also feels that the door-to-door sweeps are counter-productive if not used in this way.  Sharp would support allowing for a special license to be over the city's pet limit and for laws that allow for Trap/Neuter/Return for feral cat colonies. He also would support a long-term approach to replacing the city's outdated animal shelter while acknowledging that budgets are tight.

Terrance Nash -- KCDA sent Mr. Nash surveys on two different occassions but he never responded. It has been our experience that if officials have not been responsive prior to elections, they are seldom more responsive once elected.

6th District At-Large

Chuck Eddy  -- Eddy is no longer a pet owner, but used to own a Peek-A-Poo. He does believe that we need additional dog parks in order to meet current and future needs. He does not believe in the cities quota system and thinks there are better ways to evaluate the performance of staff. As for the rest of the questions, Eddy seems open to discussing them all, but does not seem to have enough information to have an opinion on them at this point.

Tracy Ward  -- Ward is a vocal proponent of less government - and this is usually beneficial when it comes to preventing unwanted laws that target pet owners. Ward has three pets, a Great Dane/Anatolian Shepherd Mix and two cats (one of which turns 20 this summer).  Ward believes that laws such as the city's law mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls are designed to punish a few irresponsible owners and doesn't believe in punishing all dog owners based on the actions of a few. Ward 'absolutely' does not favor breed-specific laws. She, in general, believs that privatizing the shelter opens the door for competition and leads to higher quality services at a fair fee - and thus, would be open to making changes at the shelter if workers/volunteers at the shelter believe that is what would be best. Ward is supportive of more dog parks in the city and would benefit Kansas City by making it more "pet friendly". She is not a fan of quotas because they can lead to unethical practices by law enforcement and thinks the "knock and talk" type of law enforcement violates the Constitution and favors education over punishing and profiting from it. She would support raising the pet limit - particularly for people fostering for rescues, and does not support punishing people for feeding feral cats (although she does see the need for managing colonies to keep them from getting out of control). She also supports long-term plans for a new shelter but realizes that Kansas City is facing tough economic times and that the private sector and charitable money may need to be sought to help build one in a more timely manner.

Scott Taylor - No rating - Taylor is not currently a pet owner, but does note that some of his fondest memories as a child are with his dog, Teppy. Taylor says it is important for homeless pets to have the opportunity to be adopted and likes city partnerships that would help more animals get adopted...and is interested in hearing more about other options for shelter partnerships. Taylor is open to more discussions and exploring additional options with regard to breed specific legislation, the city's mandatory spay/neuter law for pit bulls, dog parks, trap/neuter/release policies for cats, pet limit laws and the city's door-to-door sweeps. Because of the lack of positions on many of the issues, we have elected to give no rating to Mr. Taylor at this time - but do appreciate his time in returning the questionaire.

Michael R. Brown - Due to lack of an internet presence, KCDA was unable to find contact information for Mr. Brown and thus, he never received a survey.

Delmira Quarles - Due to lack of an internet presence, KCDA was unable to find contact infrmation for Ms. Quarles and thus, she never received a survey.

The widening gap between urban and rural Missouri

There has always been a bit of a gap between the wants/needs of people in the different parts of Missouri - -which is a very diverse state.

But yesterday's elections really highlight the different mindsets between rural and urban Missouri.

For Proposition B, the urban areas around Kansas City and St. Louis overwhelmingly voted in favor of Prop B -- an ordinance that has the biggest impact on the rural areas of the state.

For Proposition A, the two cities that were actually impacted by the law were the only two that parts of the state that voted against it.

While I realize this has always been the case in Missouri -- with the struggle between the vastly different needs of the state's two largest cities vs the largely agricultural rural areas - it seems like the gulf between the two has gotten bigger - with each side seeming to be more than willing to pass laws that largely impact the other group.

  If the two groups could work together a bit more it might be a greater benefit to both groups.

Detailed maps of the county-by-county votes can be seen here.

 

Some thoughts on Missouri's Prop B

On Tuesday, the state of Missouri will vote on several state offices and initiatives -- including Proposition B.

Prop B, The "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act" is a bill that would put more strict policies on commercial dog breeders in the state, including:

-- Require food, water, necessary vet care and housing protected from the elements

-- Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely and lie down

-- "Unfettered" access to the outdoors for animals, and minimum and maximum temperature requirements for dogs

-- Regular exercise and rest between breeding cycles

-- And limits ownership to no more than 50 breeding dogs

You can read the proposition in the entirety here.

The initiative seems like a no-brain er when taken on the face-value of the ballot-language -- which is why a recent poll shows that 69% of Missourians support Prop B. But unfortunately, not everything is as simple as it seems. 

To set the record straight, I am writing this as someone who is actively involved in animal welfare issues -- and actively work with rescue groups. I've never bred a dog or made a penny off of breeding dogs. And yes, I acknowledge that many commercial breeders take horrible care of their animals and that the mess does need to be cleaned up. Unfortunately, Prop B is not the solution.

Yes, much of the ballot language (feeding, watering, vet care) are complete no-brainers -- which is why they have been a part of the current state law for nearly 2 decades.  Much of the initiative is already included in the current law that governs commercial breeders, The Animal Care Facilities Act, in fact many of the initiatives in Prop B actually weaken the current law (including requiring feeding only once a day and having the requirement affect only those operations with 10+ breeding animals when the ACFA impacts those facilities with 3+ breeding animals).

The Missouri Vet Medical Association (which has come out opposed to Prop B) has a detailed overview comparing the two proposals so you can see the side by side comparison between the two laws that I think is definitely worth taking a look at.

As you can see, the changes in the actual care for the animals are actually quite minimal.

Prop B appears to be kind of an off-the-shelf approach to solving Missouri's puppy mill issues (the law is amazingly similar to a law that was passed in Washington 2 years ago), yet doesn't seem to solve the real problem with Missouri's commercial breeders.

The real problem stems from a long-term complete lack of enforcement of the current laws that has led us to get into this mess.

According to the ASPCA (who support Prop B), there are 3,000 commercial breeders in the state.  However, according to USDA number, there are only 1525 breeders that are licensed in the state.  With so many unlicensed breeders, and so many breeders altogether for only 13 inspectors, it isn't a huge surprise that enforcement of the current law might be an issue.  And in fact, it is.

According to the most recent state audit of the Missouri Department of Ag, in 2007, only 60% of all licensed breeding facilities were even inspected (even though the state law requires each facility to be inspected). This failure to even do basic services like inspections, was mirrored in a USDA audit  that highlighted their own ineptness.

Fortunately, the recent state audit inspired the start of Operation Bark Alert -- that led to the closing down of 164 breeding facilities and saving 3500 dogs in its first year of operation (2009) -- and 180 breeding facilities being closed down so far in 2010.

The problem in the state of Missouri doesn't appear to be the lack of laws -- clearly under Operation Bark Alert, many of the worst-of-the-worst breeding facilities have been closed down already -- it is the overall lack of enforcement that has been driving the majority of the state's "puppy mill" problem.

Prop B could actually make problems worse. The 50 breeding dog limit creates several scenarios that may make the situation worse. With the limited number of breeding dogs, many of the large breeding facilities will put their "excess" breeding dogs up for auction -- likely leading to one of two scenarios a) many of the dogs ending up at state rescues and shelters where they will likely end up "euthanized" at the area shelters or b) many very large breeding operations being broken into several smaller breeding operations that will make the state's enforcement issues worse, not better.

The end result could be making the enforcement problems worse, or the deaths of thousands of dogs.

Prop. B seems like an off-the-shelf solution to the state's problems that not only are not addressing the state's enforcement issues, but may be making it worse.  This may be why the spokespersons from Prop B are largely out-of-state spokespeople - -Betty White as a part of the robocalls in favor of the bill, Bob Barker doing radio interviews,Tony La Russa (who lives in California in spite of his job as the coach of the St. Louis Cardinals) doing TV commercials, and Wayne Pacelle, of the Humane Society of the United States also on the spokesperson front. 

While on the surface, Prop B seems like a "no brain er" type of law -- it isn't. It actually mirrors a lot of what is in the current laws, has dramatic unintended consequences for some new areas of the law, and doesn't even begin to deal with the primary issue of poor enforcement that has led to this problem in the first place. 

A vote against Prop B is not a vote in favor of Puppy Mills. In no way, shape or form should anyone support the cruel treatment of animals. And Missouri DOES have a problem with puppy mills. But Prop B is not the solution we've all been waiting for.

 

Spay/Neuter Kansas City to Canvass ahead of KCMO Animal Control

First the press release -- and then some comments:

May 13^th, 2010

Contact: Tamara Scharfenkamp, Director of Operations
Spay and Neuter Kansas City
Office 816-353-0940
Cell (for media only) 816-935-8845

Spay Neuter Kansas City Canvassing Ahead of Animal Control on City License Enforcement

Kansas City, Missouri – May 13^th, 2010 Spay & Neuter Kansas City will be canvassing a targeted area just 2 weeks ahead of animal control to promote compliance on rabies vaccinations and city licensing for pet owners in the Northend Neighborhood Association.  The Northend Area is between 13^th Street 20^th Street West Pennway and Broadway.   Rabies vaccinations and city licensing will be offered door to door in this area on May 13^th, 2010 starting around 10:00am. 

The goal is give pet owners a convenient and affordable opportunity to comply with the city ordinances. SNKC will also be offering low cost spay and neuter information for pet owners in need.   All Kansas City, Missouri Pet Owners are encouraged to get their pet’s rabies vaccination and city license and they can do so at the SNKC Clinic.   Call 816-353-0940 for more information or visit their website at www.snkc.net for dates and hours of clinic.

Clinic Location

Spay & Neuter Kansas City
1116 E 59^th     (NE Corner 59^th and Troost)
Kansas City, Missouri 64110

Fees at SNKC Location:

Rabies Vaccinations $10.00

KCMO City License – Altered Pet   $12.00
KCMO City License – Unaltered Pet   $35.00

Spay & Neuter Kansas City currently offers low-cost spay and neuter services for pet owners who qualify. 

SNKC is a nonprofit organization formed to promote spay and neutering as a primary means of decreasing pet overpopulation. Please visit www.snkc.net for more information on various programs, volunteer opportunities and how you can help.  SNKC  PO Box 410303, KCMO 64141.  816-353-0940.

****

I'm really happy to see SNKC step up to help animal owners and get out in front of animal control's door-to-door sweeps. Their ability to go in, provide one-stop-shopping for licensing, rabies vaccines and altering before KCMO does their sweeps will really do a great job of helping animal owners in these targeted neighborhoods to keep their pets. With Animal Control going into these homes and issuing a variety of fines, it will make it difficult for pet owners -- particularly low-income pet owners - to keep their pets. SNKC will be working with the owners to make keeping their pets more likely.

What may be even more frustrating is that again KCMO AC has shown in its policy-making to be more-than willing to isolate themselves from the animal welfare community in this city. While these groups have the resources and desire to actually HELP solve animal welfare problems in the city, the policy-makers for the city continue to try to work against them instead of with them in making things better for the animals, and safer for the public.  The straining of these relationships by the policy-makers force the city to use even more resources than they otherwise would if they just actively worked with these groups.

And it's a wasteful shame.

Door-to-door dog licensing? Wasting resources, wasting time, & KCMO continues to make contentious relations with citizens

Last week, KCMO Animal Control made the startling announcement that on each Wednesday from now until September, Animal Control will be choosing neighborhoods in "targeted areas" and going door-to-door checking on whether people have their pets licensed.

In KCMO, all dogs, cats, and ferrets must be licensed. For each pet that is not licensed, the owner will receive a $75 fine - -so fines could total as much as $300 for someone with four pets in their home (all pets over the maximum of four allowed by the city will be taken from the owner).

KCMO is barely able to provide basic resources for their residents. The schools are suffering. Crime is still high. Our roads don't get plowed when it snows. Public transportation continues to get cut. But somehow we have the the funds to send Animal Control door-to-door to check to see if they're licensed? 

The head of animal control, Patrick Egberuare, says the move isn't about generating revenue (which is laughable) but is "pretty much about public safety."

"Pretty much?"

And "public safety"? I don't want to speak for everyone here, but I can only guess that when 40% of the people in the city said they don't feel safe in their own neighborhoods (and 88% in city parks at night and 72% in downtown KCMO) that most of them didn't answer it that way because they felt threatened by their dog not being licensed. Just a guess on my part.

No, if the city were all that concerned about public safety, there are dozens of other things that would take precedence over dog licensing checks. So why are we wasting money on this?  And why is it that when the city faced a major budget deficit this year, that Animal Control was one budget that remained intact. It appears to me that they must have a lot of excess resources that could have been cut.

Nope, it seems obvious that this is a revenue grab by the city -- and one that could prove to be really costly.

The Constitutionality of doing door-to-door checks to look for people breaking laws is definitely in question. The 4th Amendment protects us (supposedly) from being searched without reasonable cause that we have done something wrong.  We would all instantly see the 4th Amendment being violated if authorities came door-to-door looking for illegal weapons, or to check someone's legal citizenship. And while dog licensing seems innocent enough, it is still a violation of the same Constitutional Law.

The city of Louisville currently has two legal cases (one state, one federal) they are working against for similar activity there. And Two years ago, when a Lucas County, OH (Toledo) dog warden attempted the same type of license checks, and was quickly shut down by the county government because they said it was a waste of time and likely a violation of the 4th Amendment (that particular dog warden resigned under public pressure last fall).  All it's going to take is one ACO crossing the wrong person who knows a lawyer and the city will have yet another lawsuit on their hands -- especially when many of the "targeted areas"happen to be in our lower-income areas (Eastwood Hills, Blue Hills, Ivanhoe Northend, etc). Meanwhile, many of our upscale neighborhoods (Waldo, Brookside, Ward Parkway, Armour Hills, etc) have been miraculously left off the targeted list (even though if you visit these areas on a weekend it seems that everyone there owns a dog).

Not only are these searches an unnecessary money-grab from the city, but they continue to put the city in a contentious relationship with its citizens by needlessly harassing people who are not causing any problems and in many cases, heaping substantial fines on them. At a time when KCMO should be doing whatever it can to try to attract people to want to live here, they continue to make policy decisions that make the citizen's relationship with the city tenuous at best. This is one reason many people I know haven't licensed their dogs already is because they feared by doing so they would become the targets of animal control. Seems like their fears are pretty warranted.

If the city council and the mayor have any sense at all about them they will pressure the Animal Control department to quit wasting our tax dollars on these silly searches. It's a waste of time and money -- and is leaving the city open to another potential lawsuit. There are hundreds of other things we could spend money on besides this.

For those of you who's neighborhood is going to be targeted, here's some good information from Kansas City Dog Advocates on your rights as a citizen when Animal Control comes knocking.

Kansas City Private Shelter Good for City's Animals, still needs better civic support

Last March, KCMO signed an agreement to privatize the city's shelter operation which is now run by a for-profit company owned by Dr Wayne Steckelberg. The adoptions side of the sheltering operation is run by Half Way Home Pet Adoptions. Last week, Dr. Steckelberg was on the news talking about steps that are being taken in Kansas City, MO to move toward becoming a No Kill city.You can watch the video clip here. A second story appeared in the Kansas City Star on Tuesday.

 

Before I go any further, I want to state up front that the privatized shelter for KCMO has been an excellent move by the city. The city is currently paying $175,000 a year less for the privatized shelter vs the cost of running the shelter themselves. As the city faces a lot of tough economic decisions with the budget, this is money well saved.

 

Under the private shelter arrangement, adoptions are up 150% (from 978 adoptions in 2008, to 2498 in 2009) and euthanasia is down significantly (shelter numbers show a decrease of 35% -- which is close to the number in the KC Star article, but not near the 65% mentioned on the KCTV5 newscast).  The privatized shelter has been great for animals in Kansas City. The saved money has been great for taxpayers.

 

While I am excited by the good news, for animal lovers in KC, it is best to temper our enthusiasm. In order for us to truly become a no kill city, we must be honest about where we really are in our quest to become no kill. And in spite of Dr. Steckelberg's claims, we're really not close.  

In 2009, the shelter killed 3,114 dogs and cats (1821 dogs, 1293 cats) - which is way more than the 100 per month they said they need to save in order to get to no kill.  We don't know where this "100 per month" number comes from but KCMO impounded approximately 7500 dogs and cats this year.  The 90% save rate required to reach "No Kill" status would mean we save 6750 of them, needing to increase true adoptions by 200 per month.

There are two different ways to get to no kill -- and both have to work together in order to achieve success.  One, is increase adoptions. Half Way Homes is making good progress in this regard. The second, is minimize the number of animals coming into the shelter. Kansas City is fortunate to have a great low-cost spay/neuter option for low-income people at Spay/Neuter Kansas City. However, the other part of decreasing the number of animals coming into the shelter involves decreasing animal control's ability to take healthy, non-problems from homes and making them part of the shelter problem. 

There are also a couple of city laws and policies that are making it much harder for Kansas City to achieve its no kill goal.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter of all "pit bulls"

Of the dogs that were impounded, 21% (1086) were 'pit bulls'. 25% (270) of the pit bulls that were impounded were impounded for no other reason than because of the law passed in 2006 that mandated that all pit bulls be spayed or neutered. 686 pit bulls were euthanized in the shelter last year. If we could have prevented all of the pit bulls from coming in because of the ordinance we could have brought down the entire pit bull euthanasia rate by at least 25% -- and if you assume that for each 'pit bull' brought into the shelter replaced another dog that was there, you could have cut 'pit bull' euthanasia down 40% just be getting rid of the law.

 

"Performance Standards"

In August of last year, the city instituted a "performance standard" that required animal control officers to meet a quota of impounding a minimum of 20 animals each month. In the first 7 months of the year, animal control officers averaged bringing in 303 dogs each month. In the final 5 months, it was 338 dogs per month. So with the 'new performance standards', city animal control officers brought in 35 more animals per month that Half Way Homes had to handle and adopt out -- that's an additional 420 dogs a year. While some of these additional dogs are a good thing (additional cruelty/neglect charges, strays picked up), a large number of them are a cause for concern.  

It is possible, and even likely, that we could have cut shelter euthanasia by over 500 dogs just by eliminating these two policies.
 
If the shelter is going to have sustained success, it is not going to be enough to just adopt our way out of it -- we're going to have to minimize impounds as well. This means we need to keep up with aggressive low cost spay/neuter programs (Kansas City is fortunate to have a great low cost spay/neuter program in Spay/Neuter Kansas City) AND getting rid of policies and laws that are taking animals out of homes. And with the current 'performance standards" it will be virtually impossible for us to ever see a decrease in impounds.

In order to do this, we need not just the shelter doing its job, we need civic help as well --and we hope that animal control and the city council will work with us to get rid of these policies that are leading to increased shelter killing.

* Repeal the pit bull Mandatory Spay/Neuter

* Increase the pet limit (and don't confiscate healthy animals from homes that are above the pet limit) 

* Increase the hold period of tame cats from 2 to 5 days. 

* Allow people to care for feral cat colonies and actually encourage Trap-Neuter-Return.

* Get rid of the 'performance standards' that require animal control officers to impound a certain number of animals each month. 

 

The city must focus on the true pupose of animal control departments - protecting the public from dangerous animals and then animals from dangerous humans. Using taxpayer dollars to fund animal control officers to confiscate harmless, healthy animals from people is not a good use of city resources.
 
While great strides have been made now is not the time to sit on our laurels.  We're still a long way from no kill and it is important that the city maintain the contract of a privatized shelter so we can build on that success. While it is not imperative that Half Way Homes keep the contract, we cannot allow the city to take control of the shelter back.  Regardless of who runs the shelter, we cannot expect them to solely adopt our way to no kill. It is also important that the city leaders and the public know exactly where we stand in our quest to become a no kill city, so we can take the necessary steps to improve things further.The privatized shelter is a good first step. Improving animal control policies is a necessary next one.