More common ground: Ending the “adoptable” debate
By Christie Keith
July 25, 2007
My SFGate.com column yesterday, about the common ground between those who support and those who oppose mandatory spay/neuter, drew a lot of comments that reminded me of something that happened back in the dawn of time — excuse me, in the early 90s which for many of you is the same thing. That’s when the San Francisco SPCA did something most people considered completely outrageous: They decided to stop doing animal control for the City and County of San Francisco, and to put into place an innovative program whereby they’d stop killing cats and dogs.
Back then, there were no seminars on the “No-kill Nation,” no other towns, communities, and even states that had begun going down that same road, no organizations like Maddie’s Fund financing community programs to work towards a “no-kill” goal, nor any successful implementations of a program like this for SFSPCA to model itself on.
People who ran or worked in many other shelters in the region — and let me remind you I live here; this is all coming from my own personal experience and things said directly to me or in my presence — ranted and raved that SFSPCA wasn’t actually “stopping the killing,” they were just letting someone else do it, by which they meant them — other area shelters, or the newly-built San Francisco Animal Care and Control Center. SFSPCA doesn’t even take in strays or owner surrenders, they’d add. They just cherry pick the best of the best and stand around being proud of not killing. And we get stuck with the “unadoptables” while SFSPCA looks good.
And they were right. They were absolutely right.
And yet today, San Francisco — not the SFSPCA, but the entire county — sends more dogs and cats alive out of the shelter system (86 percent) than all but one other county in the United States (Tompkins County, New York, which releases 91 percent of its dogs and cats).
Again: Not that one shelter. The whole county.
So you’d think everyone would be happy about that, and say wow, why do we need punitive and intrusive breeding bans and mandatory spay/neuter? Why don’t we just do what San Francisco did?
“What worked in San Francisco can’t work anywhere else,” they said gloomily. “San Francisco is special.”
Then when other communities did what San Francisco did — communities in rural areas, in the South, communities with lots of pit bulls and poverty — they said it was just a numbers game. Definitions of “adoptable” and “unadoptable” and “treatable” and “healthy” were being manipulated to make the numbers look good. San Francisco and these other communities, they said, are just lying. They say they don’t kill treatable animals, but they do.
And I know a lot of you, like some of the people who commented on my column, are sitting there now going “GOTCHA!” You’re wondering how I’m going to argue my way out of that one.
But I’m not. Because you’re absolutely right. While there are certainly definitions of “healthy” and “adoptable” that almost everyone will agree on, they are still ultimately subjective terms and thus, subject to interpretation and “spin.” And do they get “spun”? They sure do.
And so I say, let’s not define them, argue over them, or debate their meaning. Let’s stop using them.
See, I don’t give a damn about how the animals in a community are categorized or defined. I just want to know one thing: How many leave your shelter system alive?
Unlike words, numbers tend to be hard to spin. Not impossible, of course, but much more difficult. So if you focus on the live release rate, what happens to the whole argument over definitions of “adoptable” animals? Poof. Gone. Everyone won.
The No Kill Advocacy Center suggests the goal live release rate should be over 90 percent for a “no-kill” community. This basically means that the only animals killed by a shelter system would be those animals that any loving owner would euthanize for reasons of severe illness, injury, or aggression.
Will there still be some treatable animals, those who with some care could have their illness, injury, or aggression resolved, wrongly put to sleep? Yes. But I see loving pet owners wrongly putting pets to sleep every day, because they couldn’t afford their vet bills, or their vets were unaware of possible new treatments, or because the owner had a prejudice against a certain kind of treatment, such as amputation. We might like to daydream about a perfect world in which no mistakes are made, but that’s not the world we live in. Arguing about that ten percent is a tactic meant only to divide, to divert attention from an achievable, meaningful and relatively objective goal.
So how about we stop wasting time, and diverting attention and energy, with pointless, unresolvable debates over categorizing animals? Let’s focus instead on one more patch of common ground: Sending almost every animal who comes into the shelter system out alive.
AMEN!!!
Comment by catmom5 — July 25, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
GREAT post. Now, can you delve more into SF’s methods and tell us exactly how they achieved this? I’m curious!
Comment by John — July 25, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Excellent post. Find success and replicate it; that’s what it should be all about. You ail it on the head!
P.
Comment by PBurns — July 25, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
here is a link to the latest no-kill newsletter that adresses the 90% rule.
http://www.nokilladvocacycente.....ws_000.pdf
here is a link to the no kill advocacy center
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/
Comment by Jennifer J — July 25, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Thank you Christie, and that’s what i’m going to do. Tomorrow I will call the shelters and ask about the numbers. I’ll get back to you on that. thanks again.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — July 25, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Just went and read the column, which I didn’t realize discusses methods of harm reduction in great detail. Very good reading.
Comment by John — July 25, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Thanks for this important post! With rare exception, it seems that the determination of whether an animal is adoptable or not is purely arbitrary and subjective. The many “animal rescue” series on Animal Planet have provided an interesting look into how various jurisdictions across the country make these determinations. I don’t want to discount knowledge and experience, but it’s amazing the lengths one group will go to “save” one rescued animal while choosing to euthanize others.
In general, I do believe that concerted efforts are made even in very difficult situations. However, I’ve never been able to get out of my mind one episode in which a dog that repeatedly charged, attacked, and seriously bit (several times) an animal control officer (broke the skin and more—it was extensive) was determined to be saved at all cost, while in the same episode a sweet, playful little toy dog with a partially missing jaw was put to sleep because it was alleged that it would be too difficult for the dog to have a good quality of life (mind you, they didn’t indicate that the dog was in pain, and he/she seemed very playful and sweet). That really, really pissed me off. A lot.
Well, my two cents for the moment. Time to check the local numbers (again).
Comment by Sandy — July 26, 2007 @ 12:03 am
Sandy: I have the same issue with the Animal Cop shows.
Houston seems to be the worst, but it may be because they cover such a large area and don’t have space/money for long term rehabilitation. They bring in a starved animal and if he’s food agressive a few days later they put him to sleep. Hey if I were starved, I’d be food agressive too.
New York seems to have the time and money to deal with this type of issue. They appear to have full time behaviorial experts on staff which I haven’t seen pictured at the Houston facility.
It may also be how the organizations see their role. Our community ‘dog catchers’ used to be a one way ticket to euthanasia. Now they work with other shelters and encourage them to take animals with potential for adoption. That’s not a no kill situation, but a lot better than it used to be.
There’s actually a been a lot of progress with various shelters working with each other to find the best place for an animal. Not so long ago, it was a competitive relationship, with the largest humane organization cherry-picking the most adoptable and then euthanizing the rest. I still think they are still too restrictive on what they consider adoptable, but at least they are working with other shelters to find places for animals that may take longer to adopt (older animals, or animals with disabilities).
Many of these other shelters are strictly no kill - no animal is put down due to age or disability, as long as the animal is not in pain and is not suffering. Of course how you define pain and suffering is open to debate.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 26, 2007 @ 8:30 am
Charlottesville/Albemarle is at 92% (open admissions and provides AC services for the community.)
Comment by Sally — July 26, 2007 @ 9:53 am
excellent post. thank you.
Comment by elegy — July 26, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Excellent post! Concentrating on the live release rate helps when I get confused while reading the different, and somewhat opposing, philosophies of the No Kill Advocacy versus Peta and HSUS. While reading thru the NO Kill website and Peta’s website, I was surprised to see Peta and HSUS writing against No Kill shelters - at least the closed admissions which they claim pushes the owner to do something drastic if they cannot admit the animal to the shelter. Counseling would be an important part of the equation if you turn away admissions.
Trying to sift through the opposing viewpoints takes time and energy, but as long as I keep the “live release rate” as the goal, I can work towards deciding which strategies I want to align my time and money towards. I’m happy to see Sally’s post about the shelter at Charlottesville/Albemarle being open admissions AND having a live release rate over 90%. This is a problem that has bothered me since dumped dogs crawled up to me as a child many years ago. I’ve always been “part of the solution” by taking in strays, but I’m sick of hearing about tens of thousands dying yearly in my state and I want to part of a REAL solution — 90% or higher live release.
Comment by shadepuppy — July 26, 2007 @ 10:26 am
It’s also important not to talk only about A SHELTER, but look at communities. I was at first taken aback by Maddie’s Fund’s policy of giving grants only on the community level, but now I understand it perfectly. While one shelter changing can trigger a region-wide transformation (which is what happened in San Francisco), real change happens much more quickly and extensively if the entire community is involved.
A lot of the anti-no-kill rhetoric is aimed at “selective facts,” such as looking at one shelter that doesn’t take in strays or owner surrenders and saying “well, that’s why they don’t have to kill animals,” but you can’t just look at ONE shelter, you have to look at the entire region and what different niches can be filled by different organizations with different resources and philosophies.
The problem is when you get into the trenches, those with a PETA perspective don’t want to give any credibility to groups that, say, work with breed rescue, and breeders don’t want to work with groups who are trying to pass legislation that restrict them, and the best interests of the animals get lost.
I’ve been in shelters that refuse… absolutely refuse… to let breed rescue groups into their kennels. I’ve had a director of a shelter look me in the eye and tell me that feral cats are BETTER OFF DEAD than living as barn cats. “The lucky ones die under the wheels of a car,” she said.
Some shelters won’t even let their own excess pets be taken to shelters that have room and better adoption opportunities, EVEN THOUGH IT MEANS KILLING THOSE ANIMALS, or others to make room for them, all because they are philisophically opposed to “no kill” as a movement.
Every time I come across a shelter where everyone is demoralized and they have high kill rates, and few volunteers, and a hidebound staff who insists they are already trying everything and their area is just too… big, urban, rural, southern, scattered, suburban, mobile, whatever … to change, I also see a shelter director and sometimes board that would rather cling to their failing strategy than try something new, something that challenges their current belief system.
Comment by Christie Keith — July 26, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Christie, I really appreciate your insight, comments, and articles about the problems with Shelters and also your take on solutions.
Comment by Jamie — July 26, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Christie, you nailed it. Instead of working together for the good of the animals, too many shelters spend their time trying to compete with other shelters rather than work cooperatively. I’ve mentioned before how happy I am that several shelters in my town have finally joined together as a coalition to share resources and ideas.
I have a good friend that used to manage a shelter in town. She never had a good word for anyone else in the rescue business. She did a very good job, but you couldn’t say that there weren’t issues at her facility as well. Anytime she’d say something negative about another shelter (generally another pretty good one), I’d reply “everyone is working towards the same goal, so let’s focus on that and not on each of our defects”.
And Christie you are so right about the manipulation of adoption figures. How many placements you have is not, in itself a measure of how good a shelter is. If you take the cute puppies an kitties your job is going to be a lot easier than placing middle aged or special needs animals. There is one true no kill shelter here that finds homes for almost 300 cats a year - the shelter holds only about 100 cats - to me that’s pretty amazing. And they have a fair number of cats who have lived at the shelter for years - some that can’t/won’t be adopted out and some that haven’t found their forever homes.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 26, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Hi Andrea,
Good points, thanks. And promoting collaborative rather than competitive efforts within communities would surely (one would think) help the situation.
By the way, that situation I mentioned was either at the Miami or Houston site … I can still see the second attack by that one dog after he had been through weeks of behavioral training to reduce his aggression: the animal control guy, with bandaged-wrapped arm from the prior attack, met up with the dog in a park. The initial greeting was okay, then the dog lunged at the guy, knocking him down and taking another big bite. ouch! But the guy continued to assert that he was going to make sure that dog would be saved at all costs. It was very strange in the balance.
Sandy
Comment by Sandy — July 26, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
And you *know* someone would have taken in that little dog with part of his/her jaw missing and treated him/her very well, making sure he/she received proper and adequate nutrition as well as play and love.
Comment by Sandy — July 26, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Sandy - its really a shame about the dog with the missing jaw. If the animal wasn’t in pain, someone probably would have adopted him. There are folks (G-d bless them) who are drawn to the more difficult cases and don’t mind extra effort if the dog has a nice temperment. I’m often amazed at how quickly some of the disabled animals do get adopted - there are people in this world with really good hearts.
The biggest problem I see are cats being returned for litter box issues. The no-kill cat shelter I mentioned earlier had a wonderful little 11 year old male cat. He had some pretty bad dental issues but was sweet and as playful as a kitten. He was adopted out three times to experienced adopters and even though they really worked with him, he would not use a litter box. Everytime he was returned to the shelter he’d go back to using a box no problem. The staff finally decided that he wanted to stay with them at the shelter, so he is now one of the official greeter cats (along with another cat with similar issues). He’s as happy as can be and he will have a good home and medical care for the rest of his life.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 26, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Andrea, I’m glad to hear about the happy ending for the cat at the no-kill shelter. Try as we may, we humans are usually not very good (or all too slow) in figuring out what animals need or want. I keep trying, though, as I know many of us do! :-) Sandy
Comment by Sandy — July 26, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
p.s. I don’t know if you saw the episode when the NYC animal cops rescued more than 50 poorly treated, neglected and abandoned terriers … the episode included the story about “Chanel,” a blind dog thought to be about 14 years old with non-functioning hind legs (believed to be a congenital defect) who had been kept in a cage all his life and had probably never been outdoors. The rescue and veterinary team paid him special attention and took extra care of him, even found a ‘walker’ for him …
I still well up when I see that episode—what a great and gentle spirit, and how excited he was at his first outing. He was a little love-bug and cuddler, with no malice whatsoever toward humans or others. In a follow-up episode, he had been adopted by a family with a big backyard and lived another year before passing on.
Comment by Sandy — July 26, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
Sandy - I don’t think I’ve seen that one. Lots of times I start watching an episode, but I get so emotional I have to turn it off.
I meant to add one additional comment about the little male cat - to me that’s what ‘no kill’ means. If you can’t place the animal he has a home at the shelter for the rest of his life.
And don’t worry, its a cageless shelter so he gets to run around all day and play, play, play.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 26, 2007 @ 8:38 pm