Who’s to blame for the mess in the L.A. shelter?
By Gina Spadafori
December 27, 2007
After last week’s court filing over the daily dealings of L.A. Animal Services Los Angeles County’s animal control operations, “business as usual” advocates have been explaining why only animal-control professionals know what’s what, and the Los Angeles city shelter chief Ed Boks has been trashing the “No Kill/no kill” battle of capitalization in his Web log:
The “No-Kill Equation” attempts to claim the moral high ground as a revolutionary formula for achieving “no-kill”. Unfortunately, this claim has proven to be only a divisive tactic that undermines the efforts of many organizations and individuals in the trenches everyday actually saving lives.
Hmmmm. I think we’ve heard that one before, haven’t we? From Wayne Pacelle, HSUS:
If you discern a difference between the words, ‘no kill,’ and the words, “No-Kill,” you understand that I’m about to wade into a quarrel.
If, on the other hand, you don’t see much difference except for capital letters and a hyphen, well good for you. You’re on the right track.
You see, America views those of us in the animal protection movement as being against the needless killing of animals. America happens to be correct. Everyone sincerely committed to the cause of animal protection embraces the concept of animals living complete and quality lives—uninterrupted by torment or cruelty.
In response to Boks, “Redemption” author Nathan Winograd blogs that in his view, pretty words do not a no-kill community make:
Feeling the pressure to change, directors like Boks are implementing token level changes to their operations, some of which include the ones I describe in the No Kill Equation, both to diffuse criticism and to claim they “tried” these programs and they didn’t work as claimed. Activists must be vigilant in demanding that those programs be expanded to the point that they replace killing entirely. These benchmarks, for example, include:
- A fully functioning volunteer program where at least 300 people for every 100,000 human residents actually help at least one time per week at the shelter;
- Offsite adoptions at multiple locations seven days per week;
- Socialization programs so that cats get out of their cages at least two times per day and dogs at least three times for walks and play time;
- Medical & behavior rehabilitation programs that control disease, keep animals healthy, and provide care for those who are savable (the fact that the number of animals dying in kennel is skyrocketing at Los Angeles Animal Services is absolute proof that this is not being comprehensively implemented);
- A fully functioning TNR program that replaces killing through neutering and release (See a model feral cat protocol by clicking here)
- A foster care program for underaged kittens, puppies, as well as injured and traumatized adults, those needing a break from the shelter, and to handle overflow during peak periods;
- Low and no cost spay/neuter opportunities for at risk animals, with a minimum of 1,000 surgeries for every 100,000 human residents (It should be noted that most successful communities around the country achieved success before the spay/neuter effort was in place);
- Adoption programs seven days a week with evening and weekend hours;
- Carte blanche for legitimate rescue groups to save any animal on death row, any time without bureaucratic hurdles and permissions from a select group of animals;
- Programs above and beyond haphazard advice from hurried workers on the telephone to help owners overcome the behavioral, medical and environmental conditions which cause them to surrender their pets (A 1996 JAVMA study found that this reduces the chance of relinquishment by as much as 94%);
- A compassionate, hard working director who holds his or her staff accountable, making sure customer service is good, people are friendly, animals are getting proper care, the shelter is clean, people are doing their jobs, all the cages and kennels are kept full if necessary, and programs and services are being expanded and carried out.
[...]
At the end of the day, the irony here is that if Boks spent his time putting the programs in place, rather than blogging about them without having done so (or attacking me personally), he would really become the hero he pretends to be. Instead, he simply pats himself on the back, while the animals in the shelter slowly die because of improper care and business as usual. That is what makes the whole thing so obscene. And that is why he undermines the movement to save lives—because newspapers like the Daily News falsely think that No Kill by necessity means skyrocketing rates of disease and animals dying because of it, when communities which are succeeding have proven this to be patently false.
Here’s the rest.
I think regular reader Pat (a/k/a The Other Pat) had earlier nailed this nasty little bunch of back and forths (which previously had Winograd getting snarky at shelter medicine pioneer Dr. Kate Hurley) by pointing out that one of the tougher steps on the road to change is backlash.
Watch out for the wave, folks. But after the backlash … change? I hope so.
“Backlash….change?” Yup. We all gotta hang on.
And there is a corollary that I came face to face with some years ago- It became obvious that if I was going to participate in the public arena (as president of an historic preservation non-profit) then I would have to generally choose between being liked by everyone (impossible anyway) and being effective.
Little doubt about Nathan’s choice (and it was mine too) and he’s clearly willing to take the heat and stay in the kitchen.
Hey, Nathan, if you read this, LOTS of us are cheering you on!!!
Comment by Susan Fox — December 27, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
My favorite part is where Boks says that “without … legislation like AB 1634 shelters are doomed to be gathering places for our communities’ lost and unwanted pets.”
I just sat there sputtering… well, ummm… what on earth else are shelters SUPPOSED to be????
Comment by Christie Keith — December 27, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
Here it comes! This is going to get a lot more discombobulated as time passes.
One of the things that confuses many who don’t live in CA is that Los Angeles county contains many cities, some of which are incorporated cities [i.e., Los Angeles] and others which are unincorporated cities [county area]. Each faction has its own group of shelters and management:
LA County Shelters is headed by Marcia Mayeda. Her supervisor is the LA County Board of Supervisors. [She is one of the defendants of Winograd’s recent court filing.]
LA City Shelters is headed by Ed Boks, whose supervisor is LA City Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa.
One of the many discriminating factors in any discussion involving the No-Kill Equation [“NKE”] is that while there is only one true definition of what the program entails [Winograd’s], there are countless misinterpretations of what some THINK NKE is [but isn’t]. Because someone claims s/he’s operating a No-Kill facility under the premises of the NKE it does not mean it is true. Great discernment is required.
Reading Boks’ blog was [ahem] entertaining. Particularly since I just read Winograd’s “Redemption” in one sitting on Sunday, so it’s pretty fresh in my mind. I googled “Ed Boks” and some of the information that came back was enlightening:
http://lavoice.org/index.php?n.....p;sid=2846
[Did you catch the part about New York magazine stating that “workers unanimously point to (Ed Boks)” as the reason they were not able to meet their nokill goal. Or how about how Boks decides to do something and then cancels it and blows it off. There’s plenty of reading.]
http://laanimalwatch.blogspot......m-all.html
[It’s “fun” reading about the opposition between Mayeda and Boks. One wonders if the whole “he said, she said” diatribe is a mutually agreed upon stall tactic to not release numbers.]
http://laanimalwatch.blogspot......-boks.html
[Read about Boks and Arizona and of how happy everyone was when he left NYC.]
I could go on and on, but Gina and Christie will yank my commenting privileges.
For someone so convinced that he’s been practicing true NKE, Boks sure leaves a lot of debris in his wake. There’s an old saying - the words probably aren’t right on, but it’s close enough:
Better to be silent and thought a fool,
Then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Long live Nathan!
Comment by Lynn — December 27, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Yuppers! That was Karen Pryor’s “On Being a Changemaker”. Here it is again:
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/157
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 27, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Here’s another interesting article dating back to the 9th of December:
http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_7679140?source=rss
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 27, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Gina ended her blog with, “But after the backlash … change?”
Gosh, I sure hope so. But I think we’re probably going to have endure much mudslinging and finger-pointing and every other tactic that smacks of an ego that’s been run over with a 18 wheeler. Those who claim they are practicing NKE [No-Kill Equation] had better support it with hard numbers over time. And that means no fudging the numbers!
I’ve got it! Why don’t we have a nation-wide contest to see how many shelters can make the change to tru NKE and reap the rewards? Can’t offer money, but we sure can give them all the glory.
Comment by Lynn — December 27, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Re comment by The OTHER Pat — December 27, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
One wonders exactly why they died. Unsanitary conditions? Lack of veterinarians on the premises? “Overcrowding” isn’t a cause of death.
Seems to me that they didn’t have a sound program for fostering in place to accommodate overflow.
And I wonder what the status is of the spay/neuter clinics today? Operating full speed? Operating at all? You see, not to long ago the City of LA stopped the spay/neuter program and suddenly found themselves in the same boat as today - overcrowded facility.
Comment by Lynn — December 27, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
Something else in that PressTelegram article:
Most recent info says that 3312 non-euthanasia deaths occurred during the recent period studied. If I am to interpret this correctly, of the 3312 deaths, 1984 were animals other than cats, dogs or rabbits. Interestingly, the 1984 figure had tripled in one year, meaning that something significant caused about 1300 animals more than the previous year to die. It is unknown if these animals were in cages or ????
My point is that without knowing the details I don’t see how anyone can assume it was due to overcrowding.
Comment by Lynn — December 27, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
Sorry to be a pest….but I am looking at the LA City Shelter website and I see their operating hours. Those who read Winograd’s “Redemption” know that one of his tenets of NKE is that the animals on the premises be “available” for public display at times when the public can reasonably view them.
Here are there hours:
Shelter Hours: Monday (Closed) Tuesday (8 AM-7PM) Wednesday (8AM-5PM) Thursday (8AM-7PM)
Friday (8AM-5PM) Saturday (8AM-5PM) Sunday (11AM-5PM) Holidays (Closed)
Well, gee, most working people would have a real problem getting down there to see an animal. So no wonder there’s overcrowding!
Comment by Lynn — December 27, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Comment by Lynn — December 27, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
“Most recent info says that 3312 non-euthanasia deaths occurred during the recent period studied. If I am to interpret this correctly, of the 3312 deaths, 1984 were animals other than cats, dogs or rabbits. Interestingly, the 1984 figure had tripled in one year, meaning that something significant caused about 1300 animals more than the previous year to die. It is unknown if these animals were in cages or ????”
Lynn, here’s one quote from the Press-Telegram article:
“Boks attributed the increase to 1,470 illegal slider turtles that died after they were confiscated during a downtown bust.”
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 27, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
Lynn, thanks for the clarification. TOP … thanks again for the observation about the potential for strong (and negative) response to change.
Clarifications and amplifications added to the original post. Thanks, guys.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 27, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
So 3312-1470 = 1842 non-“euth” deaths should be explained in detail. How does this number compare to national averages or data from the previous year?
Some facts:
~ 250 dogs and cats died enroute to hospitals…..if Boks had hired the veterinarians he was funded for, perhaps the animals could have had medical attention sooner. [1842-250 = 1592 deaths/causes unaccounted.]
~ 300 unweaned kittens died. 1592-300=1292 deaths/causes unaccounted.]
And to that, their stats clearly state:
“Despite the increase in the number of dogs and cats dying for reasons other than euthanasia, the overall number of animals dying for any reason while in the care of LA Animal Services (which includes loving foster care givers and private veterinarians) is down 20% compared to the first ten months of 2006 and down 58% compared to the same time frame in 2001.”
See? The number of deaths not due to euthanasia declined from the previous year.
So what are they howling about?
Comment by Lynn — December 27, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
And look what I found - national stats:
Millions of dogs and cats killed in US shelters
1970 23.4
1985 17.8
1997 4.9
1998 4.9
1999 4.5
2000 4.5
2001 4.4
2002 4.2
2003 4.5
2004 4.9
2005 4.4
2006 3.7
Comment by Lynn — December 27, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
“One wonders exactly why they died. Unsanitary conditions? Lack of veterinarians on the premises? “Overcrowding” isn’t a cause of death.
Seems to me that they didn’t have a sound program for fostering in place to accommodate overflow.”
well, quite frankly i would expect pre-ween deaths to go up if LA is anything like NYC was. pre-weens were euthed for lack of resources for care (that would be human resources) many come in in less than great conditions. and if they are mom-less . . . survival chances aren’t great. we now spay/abort and try and use the resources for the ones already here . . .
and yes, overpopulation IS a cause of death. we never had multiple dogs in kennels unless they were puppies. our kennels were too small, for starters. i’m surprised to see how many they have in the LA kennels.
you can’t do no-kill with out community participation. so you can’t put it all on the shelters. you tell the shelters to stop killing and make all the other rescues and shelters step up. guess what, you STILL run out of space. and you may end up with some higher death in shelter numbers the first couple of years. not ideal, but not a fantasy either.
it’s not just the shelters, it’s also legislation. limit laws, size laws, BSL aren’t helping at ALL. Auburn, NY is currently trying to adjust their dog laws to solve problems, which they are calling dangerous dog problems (no attacks or deaths if i remember correctly. just complaints)the proposed law covers leashes etc and seems to focus on the so called dangerous dog problem. *funny* thing is tucked in the law. limit on size and number in apts etc. dog must be under 30lbs and if i remember correctly, the limit is one. HELLO! my 48lb dog and i would be out on the street!and guess what, i bet most folks there don’t know that lil’ tidbit because the news certainly isn’t talking about dog size or numbers . . . .
in many areas the community people that would want to step up to help with fostering, etc, CAN’T. in reality, how many rescues do you all know that can take in multiple new animals every week? cause that’s what’s needed in areas like LA and NYC.
btw, why isn’t Nathan running one of these major city agencies to a no-kill reality?
and before ya’ll beat me down for being negative, not the case. i’ll bust my ass to make sure all survive, but i’ve just been watching some reality the past few years. it needs to be looked at, imo. one major point for me is pet laws. how can we save all these animals as we are passing laws against them and not stopping the flow? (and NO, i’m not MSN!)
Comment by straybaby — December 28, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Straybaby - we know we’re all working towards the same objective. That’s the important thing. And I want you to know that your arguments against the NKE are important because they help us, the believers, make sure that all bases have been covered.
A couple points:
~ As I recall, Ed Boks was running the NYC shelters not too long ago. True? What kind of job did he do?
~ While I said “overcrowding” [i.e., cages] is not a cause of death, Winograd contends that pet overpopulation is NOT a reason why shelters kill nowadays. They kill “because they make the animals sick through sloppy cleaning and poor handling…..they do not want to care for sick animals…..they do not make effective use of media to promote their pets,” Winograd writes in “Redemption.” And I believe this.
~ “Pre-weens,” or “Neonates” as they call them in LA, were indeed euthanized [“to the back” right away] once upon a time. Nowadays the LA City shelters have purportedly utilized more volunteer services to foster these young ones. According to LA City’s data, the number of neonate deaths were:
2001 6641
2002 6477
2003 7732
2004 6589
2005 5616
2006 5298
2007 2384
~ LA City shelters is actually a number of shelters, all of them fairly large.
~ It’s true, you must have public support and volunteer programs in place in order for NKE to truly work. It’s do-able.
~ Space is a problem in the beginning, sure. But if you revise the shelter’s viewing and adoption hours such that people don’t have to take off from work, and if you have a good fostering and volunteer program in place, as well as public support, practice TNR with ferals, and spay/neuter/spay/neuter [can’t stress that enough], you’ve got a good chance at reducing the animals per cage and the intake.
~ One of the problems is that too many shelter managers are too hell-bent on trying to fight the surplus problem by developing and promoting new laws, when that time would be better spent doing other things [i.e., PR].
~ Only Nathan Winograd can answer that question about running one of the shelters. He actually did, you know. This isn’t some pie in the sky concept of his that hasn’t been proved. He implemented his program in its entirety and got astounding results. Go take a looksee up in Tompkins County, NY. He’s been advisor to a number of other shelters, helping them to morph into the NKE. Offhand, I’d say his services are more valuable in training others how to do it.
Straybaby, please, please, please read “Redemption.” Just read it with an open mind - then you can argue all the points. But knowing the history and the results are very important.
Again, we’re really all on the same team here.
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 2:04 am
The neonate deaths that I cited in the previous comment didn’t display correctly. The first four characters are the YYYY, followed by the four-digit number of neonatal deaths.
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 2:06 am
At a HS where I used to volunteer about 8 or so years ago, overcrowding *was* a cause of death. I remember during peak intake periods (the holidays, the start of summer vacation season) that the halls were filled with crates in every nook and corner — and the HS was always begging for more crates, foster homes and volunteers. The HS was simply overwhelmed. How to get all those animals fed, pottied and kept in sanitary conditions? My particular job didn’t involve direct animal care, so I was never told exactly how the problem was solved. But I can guess. (My guess is that there was some kind of triage with those deemed least adoptable euthanized until the numbers were manageable.)
So while I think that the NKE *is* implementable if all the steps outlined are taken (and certainly worthy of being attempted), I also think that it does no good to pretend that the here and now doesn’t exist. It needs to be dealt with while all the steps of NKE are put into place.
I haven’t read Redemption yet, but does the book propose a solution for dealing with the here and now and the overcrowding that occurs? How to get more foster homes and more volunteers when they feel like they are doing all they can?
Comment by Deanna — December 28, 2007 @ 8:03 am
To answer your question:
“How to get more foster homes and more volunteers when they feel like they are doing all they can?”
The first thing that MUST happen is to remove pet limit laws so people such as myself that CAN rehabilitate and foster & feed neonates etc, CAN and remove BSL which only CAUSES the surrendering, confiscation and DEATH of animals. I already HAVE the limit… so I cannot foster, adopt, nothing! These limit laws were forced upon us early on by “do-gooders” who hate animals. We, NOR the animals, do not need laws to prevent people from adopting. GET RID OF THESE BAD LAWS. Then FIRE people like Boks and Mayeda like Saint WInograd says and anyone that does not get with the program needs to find a different line of work. Directors set the bar (goals) and the attitude within their shelter. If they are poor leaders, bad communicators and FALSE in their goals or leadership, the personnel KNOW it and poor performance, bad attitude, apathy, dissension, you name it, results and then the animals suffer. Animals are sensitive and they KNOW if their caretaker cares about them, are happy or sad, etc. and this actually can take a toll on their health and well-being. Implenenting TRUE No-Kill is essential as it will change the attitude of shelter workers (those that CAN care) so that they CAN have compassion for the animals and will therefore take better care of them as their heart will be in the job. This is a job where the heart is essential. Those that do not care, and never will care, need to get another job. I do not believe that overcrowding kills. Poor care kills. Poor assessment of sick animals can infect the shelter population. Therefore EXPERTS (can be vet techs, breeders, etc.) must be used that can quickly ID problems like URI or parvo. Those of us that have this skill must train the new or lesser knowledgeable personnel/volunteers how to ID a sick animal so it can quickly be isolated and treated. I agree with Saint Winograd that the LA shelter animals would be better off with a Director that spends their time hands on with the animals instead of blogging away volumes on why No-Kill is not the solution and dreaming up pretty names for programs that are bogus if not non-existent, aka Fantasy in LaLa Land (aka Boks & Mancuso’s world).
Comment by Diane Amble — December 28, 2007 @ 9:06 am
Im proud to say that Manitowoc went NO KILL a number of years ago thanks to a new director and that I think makes all the difference in the world. This guy is one of the glass half empty types that insists its all about resources and he just doesnt have any and so you have to scrape the bottom with policies like his.
These kind of volunteer resource development practices are not unique to animal “control” services. It is in fact part of a particular type of non-profit management that many organization use to provide services the government is no longer to step in and do and may have done badly in any event.
My daughter works for public TV as the volunteer coordinator and the methods outlines here read like the things she does every day in her job. It definately takes a different kind of mind set and very specific management training. But, the results are pretty impressive.
The problem here I believe is that this guy is simply not the right material for reforming the program. Maybe its time to release him back into the wild where he can get a job in the Giulani campaign.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 28, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Lost my Black Cat Christmas morning (1 am) when no hospitals or shelters were open. But after several days I made myself visit the Capital Area Humane Society (the only shelter that takes cats). The place was pretty filthy. The business hours not work friendly. It was in a remote almost warehouse side of town. I had read Nathans Book a few weeks ago and promised myself I needed to find out what sort of shelter we have here in Columbus Ohio. I just hadn’t gotton around to it yet. We have a long way to go as it is important to set up all of his techniques for NO KILL to work. I made a promise to myself that I would visit the shelter everyday and continue knocking on doors and putting up fliers. It is not an easy facility to visit and I was very happy this morning when my cat showed up on the back step unharmed and no worse for the wear. I can’t unknow what I learned in my short visit to The Capital Area Humane Society. There is not much time if your dog or cat ends up there. Even if the animal has tags the clock is ticking. I saw lots of empty cages. My cat had lost his quick release collar and I was holding out to try to find one not made in China! I will still seek to find such a collar but until I do find one…he will wear one from China as I do not want to speculate as to how a collarless cat would be received here in Columbus. Hurray for Nathan Winnigrad, and I agree that folks that just want to do the Status Quo need to find other work.
Comment by Concha Castaneda — December 28, 2007 @ 9:48 am
well, I hate to say “I told you so” but if the Winograd folks weren’t so stuck on the term “no kill” (or “No Kill”), the Boks/Pacelles of the world wouldn’t be able to try to change the subject from THEIR murderous failings.
It should be about the extremely important mission to save all saveable dogs. Winograd’s vision is spot-on. Except for that one critical failing, holding on to a divisive and yes, misleading, term.
Instead it’s about what the words mean and attacking the words to avoid answering the questions about how shelters (and the LA shelter in particular) fail our animals.
Start calling the vision “high save” or one of the other suggestions previously made here, and Bok et al will have a lot harder time avoiding the issue and defending practices that kill animals unnecessarily.
Comment by EmilyS — December 28, 2007 @ 10:52 am
I’m not sure that “no kill” is the wrong term to use for the NKE. Afterall, the objective is indeed to get to 100% no kill.
Just a reminder: Winograd will be speaking in Los Angeles at a dinner meeting on Jan. 15th. Check out his website for more info. Reservations required if you want to attend.
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Re comment by Deanna December 28, 2007 @ 8:03 am
“I haven’t read Redemption yet, but does the book propose a solution for dealing with the here and now and the overcrowding that occurs?”
Read the book.
“How to get more foster homes and more volunteers when they feel like they are doing all they can?”
Read the book. Though, in my opinion, funds should be allocated at the get-go for a PR/media relations person to advise on “positioning” the shelter in the most favorable light in order to attract public help.
No one said it was going to be cheap or easy. It’s a huge undertaking. But then, anything worth having is worth sweating for.
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
MAYBE Mr Boks would be better served if he did some work - instead of playing on his computer all day!!! Apparently - he has NO clue about much of anything! When’s the last time he touched one of the animals at the shelter?
Comment by Carol — December 28, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 2:04 am
lynn, i think the only thing we aren’t doing here is having an adoption van go out 7 days a week. and we may not have the magic number of volunteers. Boks has been gone for a couple years i believe. so the lack of achieving no-kill so far doesn’t fall on him. that would be a cop out, imo, since everyone knew/knows what needs t be done. NYC didn’t have all the in-fighting that LA seems to have with their shelters and rescues. it was pretty cooperative. several new rescues started up along with established orgs expanding a bit to handle more animals. money was/is a big issue here, i think LA was/is more generous with it’s funding.
we’ve had a decrease in the number of dogs incoming at the shelter, but the incoming cats has risen. so over 5 years, the incoming hasn’t really decreased. which is a problem especially when everyone is at capacity. they have been taking the animals to other areas that have less of a problem, but one wonders when they are going to max out. here’s the charts for the 5 yr period:
http://www.nycacc.org/images/Euthanasia.jpg
i think NKE can work. as a matter of fact, i thought 5yrs was too long in the beginning, lol!~ (things were bad!)i don’t think NY has failed (or will), but we def aren’t there yet.
Deanna, your description of the HS sounds about like here. crates in every nook and corner. when i would eval animals for the adoption van, i used to leave notes to make sure they could find them all in the make shift areas.
Comment by straybaby — December 28, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
Diane, the HS where I volunteered is located in an area with no limits on dog ownership and no BSL legislation. Other ideas?
Concha, the HS I volunteered at was the Capital Area Humane Society in Columbus, OH. It sounds like you moved to Columbus from somewhere else — maybe you can bring your vision of what a shelter should be like to Columbus. But I can assure you they are located in a suburban area (Hilliard - a nice suburb!), not a “warehouse” area. Blame zoning that it is located in among several businesses. I bet the land was cheap. :-)
Again, holidays are peak time for surrenders and a lull for volunteers. (Perhaps why it wasn’t as clean as it should be.) Empty cages? Did you ask why? I know that they once had an agreement with the Franklin County shelter to fill those cages from the County shelter. Winter is a peak time for adoptions as well (when I was there, they often adopted out more than they had) and maybe those cages just hadn’t been filled yet.
As for their hours, I will grant you that they have room for improvement. But at least they are open in the evenings and on weekends.
Having not been there for at least 5 years, I won’t argue whether or not it’s now a bad shelter. But it was very good and improving when I was there. They were just so overwhelmed. One of the improvements made while I was still in town was to allow breed rescues to remove dogs. (That was a BIG deal.)
I would encourage you to look at volunteering and seeing things from the inside.
Comment by Deanna — December 28, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Lynn, insisting that the book be read is of limited value to all of us who have these questions about the immediate overcrowding and lack of fosters right here, right now. Yes, this book is near the top of my reading list, but I have these questions *now* since the topic came up again. Can you make an attempt to give us the Reader’s Digest Condensed version?
Everyone I know who can foster dogs or cats already does. (Which is a lot of people.) Where do all these needed volunteers come from?
Comment by Deanna — December 28, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
As we’ve learned in community gardening for over 25 years, you get volunteers by asking for them and then taking care of them once you get them.
Very few people are going to come to your organization, no matter what it is, on their own. You use standard PR strategies, you list on every possible website (VolunteerMatch.org, IdeaList, local United Ways, etc) and then follow up within 24 hours whenever someone contacts you. You ask friends to ask friends.
You also have a Director that nutures and values the volunteers and relationships with breed rescue, local rescue, TNR groups, whatever.
As the head of two local non-profits, I’ve been quite horrified by the exhaustion/compassion fatigue mentioned by shelter/rescue folks that post here — when my folks are getting exhausted from the demands of the public and/or the work in front of them, it’s MY job to make sure they have the support and encouragement so that they can gather themselves up and keep on going. If that means I wear a funny hat or buy pizza for everyone, then I wear the funny hat or buy pizza — whatever it is that these volunteers need to know that they are cared about and that their work is appreciated.
It’s just smart management to ensure that your volunteers are happy and secure in the knowledge that you care about them and the work that they are doing — and it blew my mind that Winograd had to spend so much time in his book mentioning all the PR techniques that are the mantra for those of us in community organizing.
Regardless, Winograd did a good job of outlining how to build good PR and value volunteers. Nurture your volunteers as carefully as you nurture the animals in your care and life will blossom for everyone.
Comment by Dorene — December 28, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 27, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
lynn, what kind of support does the shelter have? that article is disturbing in the way it sounds like they are hanging on to the animals. here it’s been up to the rest of the rescue community to get them out of the city shelter. yes, they are hanging on to the animals longer as space permits and it does get crowded there, but the other shelters take in a percentage of the animals from the city so the city isn’t warehousing them. the no-kill in my hood has over 50% of their dogs listed for adoption from the city shelter. it’s been that way from the beginning. also, i notice they talk about the declining euth rate, but don’t seem to mention what’s happening on the adoption end. our euth and adoption rates are tracking right along side of each other. adoptions up by 11,000 and euths down by 11,000. haven’t seen any death at shelter stats, but from what i had seen, the animals were getting better care than the previous system.
Comment by straybaby — December 28, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
To Straybaby: I’m boarding a flight. Responses later.
Deanna: Everyone really ought to read the book. It’s a matter of having all the facts and concepts or not. I won’t write a summary since it would omit too many important details that you need to know. The book is only 200 pages.
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
From what Ive seen in the mgt of wpt.org Im not at all sure that its that costly to take this process on. The Republicans under Newt cut funding for NPR again and again and also within the UW budget and by adapting to the circumstances WPT has come up shining again and again.
They do it with volunteers and private money by putting the right structures in place.
By the descriptions Im reading here it sounds like we have an advantage that LA does not which is a singular structure to contend with. If you have so many rescue groups competing for resources and funding it may well be that the efforts waste a lot of time and resources.
Banding together may be the best hope and then simply go to the city and offer them a plan by which replacing the problematic personnel or perhaps outsourcing beyond city bureaucracy all the operations can be brought together under a single authority with no kill as a goal.
You have savings in front of pols and you might be surprised as to who becomes your ally. But the biggest challenge may well be getting the well intentioned splinters to all come together first.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 28, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Straybaby:
Thanks for the link to the NYC 2002-2006 stats for Cats and Dogs. I’m not sure if the kills in the NYC data includes DOA’s, Neonatal kitten deaths, non-euthanized deaths [died due to other reasons on shelter or volunteer premises], but I assume it does. In any case, in order to compare apples to apples [NYC to LA City] I assumed that your intakes included DOA’s, etc.
In the end, here are the Kill Rates [Deaths/Intakes] for Dogs and Cats ONLY:
[Not easy to put a table up here, so bear with me.]
Year____NYC_____LA City
2001___N/A______.75
2002___.70______.74
2003___.67______.72
2004___.56______.69
2005___.55______.61
2006___.44______.60
2007___N/A______.45
Note that the data for NYC is for 12 months each year. Data for LA City Shelters is from Jan-Oct of each year. So if none of the numbers lie, he brought NYC’s kill rate down to 55% from 67% and LA City’s kill rate down from 61% to 45%. Again…..if the numbers don’t lie.
Boks came to NYC from Arizona around 12/13/2003 and about two years later to take over the LA City shelters.
Let me say that I haven’t been privy to what goes on in the LA County or LA City shelters for years. But I read the papers. And largely I perceive that some things never change.
I can tell you that funding for LA City and LA County has always been pretty much like pulling teeth out of a canary, although I sense that in more recent years both LA shelter systems have been embarrassed by their stats. One thing I do know is that the LA City Mayor made a campaign promise to clean up the problems at the City shelters. I can only guess that more funds were made available then. But again, speculation on my part.
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Deanna:
Yes, Winograd does tell you about the volunteer component. But I’ll speak from my experience, which though decades old, still works.
All it takes is one person willing to go into the community to spread the word. Back in the 70’s I arranged to have a room at City Hall available one evening a month where I would give a 30 minute presentation of life as a shelter volunteer. It’s easy to speak about something you’re passionate about! In the local paper I would post community notices of the meeting and used a little “persuasion” to draw attention. I had a friend who had a craft workshop and I conned her into letting me speak before her group. Then another show-and-tell at a class I was taking at the University - the prof was an animal nut and gave me the floor. And so it goes on and on. And as everyone knows: animal people know more animal people. And it just grew. Sure, there’s attrition, but those are things you deal with. You’ll end up with volunteers who quit after the first day, others will stay for a while, and yet others who will probably bunk at the shelter. You call the newspaper reporter who does local human interest stories and tell him you’ll give them the real dope on the shelter for a good story and photos. You have their photographer get shots of volunteers working and loving it. You seize every opportunity.
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Straybaby:
Rather than try to describe what I know of the LA City shelter system in terms of support, go to their website and see what they write.
http://www.lacity.org/ANI/
How much is hype is anyone’s guess. Bear in mind that they work for a Mayor who made a campaign promise to fix the mess in the shelters.
LA City has a detailed breakdown. Go to the “Stats” webpage.
A word about stats: I work with them extensively and no one knows better than I do how numbers can be manipulated to fit an agenda. People can also spin a tale like you wouldn’t believe. So it’s vital to understand what each and every category represents and how the numbers were captured.
I also believe that Kill Rates [Deaths/Intake] cannot be the sole measurement of success. One has to look at the numbers for Redemptions, Adoptions…..Live Placements. Contrast that number with the Intake and monitor those rates as well. You want to see the kill rate go to 0 and the Intake/Outgo rate go to 100% [or higher if you like to keep a limited population available for adoption].
And after all this, you have to watch the stats of the other animals. It can’t be all about Cats and Dogs.
I’m sure Gina is going to toss me off the blog if I keep up the marathon writing! [Thanks for your patience, Gina!]
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Deanne,
While I couldn’t do Winograd’s book justice by writing a synopsis, I can refer you to his website, wherein he discusses overcrowding:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.....geles.html
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
as for the “100% no kill is the objective”.. no, it’s not.
At least not for Winograd. His definition is 90-95% not killed and he says there will always be some dogs so unhealthy or so temperamentally dangerous that killing them is truly the best course.
Achieving 90-95% adoption of all pets taken in would be an incredible achievement, especially in a world where shelters didn’t play games with numbers and words (like no kill of “adoptable” animals which means precisely nothing)
I have never seen any organization assert that 100% not killed is a reasonable or achievable (or desirable) objective. At least not any organization that doesn’t pre-select its intakes and limit them to animals it knows it can adopt out.
Comment by EmilyS — December 28, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
EmilyS,
Absolutely, 90-95% adoption would be an incredible achievement. However, there is nothing wrong with striving for 100%.
Comment by Lynn — December 28, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
Lynn, yes there is something wrong with striving for 100%. of intakes not killed.
Because it’s impossible and unwise. And to claim that’s the goal would be, in my opinion, deceptive.
The public needs to understand exactly what happens, and what can happen, in shelters. That’s one of Winograd’s important points, and the basic point of this blogpost.
Comment by EmilyS — December 29, 2007 @ 10:07 am
Sorry, call it a friendly disagreement. I still see nothing wrong with striving for 100%. If you maintain that 90-95% is the objective, and you later achieve 90-95% when there’s a real possibility of attaining something closer to 100%, you’re doing the animals an injustice. Why? Because it’s human nature to stop when you hit the goal.
It is not impossible for that to be achieved. It is possible to arrive at a place that no animals are brought in so deathly ill that they must be killed. [I’m not saying the odds are in favor of it, but it is possible.]
No one is saying that you “cover up” death at shelters or what happens there. Not a chance. If I had my way I’d force feed the photos and videos to every soul on the planet.
I believe that Winograd’s 90-95% is what he believes is a REALISTIC number. Ask him, “If 100% No-Kill is possible, would you go for it?”
Unwise? Recognize that in a shelter that has attained 95% that there may indeed be a fair number of days when no grievously sick or DOA animals are brought into the shelter. Under your premise, one could argue that if 90-95% is the goal - and nothing higher - then all surplus animals should be killed. What is wise about that?
Comment by Lynn — December 29, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Lynn, I know what you’re saying, but I don’t really accept the premise. 90-95 percent saved is not itself the goal. Completely ending the killing of all animals for population control — for any reasons other than the exact ones you or I would use for our own pets, such as untreatable illness or pain or being dangerous — is the goal.
90-95 percent saved is a MEASURE of how to know if that’s happening, to get get away from all the spinnable crap like “adoptable,” not in and of itself the goal.
If, as both Winograd and Avenzino say, around 8 percent of the animals who come into shelter systems will be euthanized “rightly” — then once you’ve hit 90-95 percent saved, you can be pretty sure that the shelter isn’t playing a numbers game with its categories, but genuinely using euthanasia as what it’s meant to be, and not as a tool of population control.
Comment by Christie Keith — December 29, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
To achieve 100%, vicious unsafe dogs would have to adopted out.
To achieve 100%, hopelessly ill and suffering dogs and cats — who should have been taken by their previous owner to a veterinarian for humane euthanasia rather than dumped at a shelter — would have to be adopted out.
These two categories of dogs and cats add up to 5-10% of dogs and cats impounded, and are why the No-Kill goal is not 100%.
Comment by LauraS — December 29, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
I agree with LauraS, as a county shelter volunteer who has seen a small number of dogs who by no stretch of the imagination should have been adopted out to the general public or even sent to rescue. It would have been totally irresponsible. We are talking a highly aggressive pit that had obviously been fought (head and forequarters covered with scars) and three dogs which ran down and attacked a man and put him in the hospital. Now, if we had had a Cesar Millan or his clone available, that might have made a difference, but we don’t.
But, we have sent 500+ dogs to rescue in 3 years and our euthanasia rate is one of the lowest in the nation. Why? We have an incredible shelter director who is committed to getting every animal out alive that he can. We have two very dedicated dog rescuers who, right now, are tagging dogs for rescue, placing them and arranging rides. There is a network of fosters for cats and a growing one for dogs. The local rescue organizations all support the shelter in a variety of ways. We have a good base of volunteers to walk dogs and pet cats.
Our shelter proves that a small, rural municipal facility can be No-Kill. We don’t meet all of Nathan’s criteria yet, but we’re pretty solid on most of them. We need to improve the situation for sick and feral cats, but the No-Kill INTENTION to save lives is there and it informs the decision-making every day.
Maybe Boks should come to Humboldt County to see how it’s done. I’m sure our shelter head, who is a lieutenant in the sheriff’s department, which runs the shelter, would be happy to talk to him. He’s too busy running our shelter and saving animals to have time to do a blog.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 29, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Please don’t hold up Cesar Milan as the epitome of what a trainer should be. There are plenty of people who would fiercely disagree. Here’s a link to one (with additional links on the page to even more):
http://www.urbandawgs.com/divided_profession.html
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 29, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
I wasn’t and I know. But he clearly seems to be able to save and rehabilitate dogs others have given up on, perhaps like the ones our shelter put down. Who would argue with that?
I have followed the controversy about him for over a year. It sometimes seems equal parts legitimate concerns and envy/jealousy. He has clearly evolved and learned a lot since he started. He has begun using food rewards sometimes, which is a definite change.
I use positive methods myself, but have found that modeling “calm assertive energy” is enabling me to start to quiet down the fence running maniacs in our neighborhood. His methods have also helped me to communicate better with my dog and I have never had any ambivalence about being “the pack leader”.
He is now directly referring to “No-Kill” on his show and consistently advocating adopting rescue and shelter dogs, including ones saved by a rescue from “euthanasia” by electrocution in Tijuana, so I say hooray. There is a lot of rescue/shelter dog content on his website.
I know that what other trainers upset about are his methods, but, frankly, they have never looked punitive to me when I have watched the show and I have probably seen most of them by now.
Read the books. Watch the show with an open mind. Give credit where credit is due and let’s all work together to save animals.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 29, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Gad, thought I’d proofed that last entry better.
To wit: I know that what other trainers are upset about are his methods…”
Comment by Susan Fox — December 29, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
I’ve tried to watch his show. The body language exhibited by the dogs is really hard to take, so I can’t keep it up.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 29, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
I’m seriously interested. What are you seeing, if you don’t mind my asking? You have a lot more dog experience than I do since I got my first dog (a rough collie)four and a half years ago and didn’t grow up with them due to allergies.
What I see are dogs that have never had boundaries and have had it all their own way and are now dealing with the fact that they aren’t in charge. I see resentment, some confusion and then, a lot of the times, relief. I see negative behavior being blocked and the desired behavior being reinforced. I see frustration being drained through finally getting sufficient physical activity (“a tired puppy is a good puppy”).
Comment by Susan Fox — December 29, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Disclosure: I’m in neither camp, and both. I do clicker-training, and I have an e-collar for field training. One of my dogs runs trails on a front clip harness, another on a pinch collar.
I don’t think any of my dogs are suffering, or that our relationship is harmed. Different tools for different challenges.
As usual for me, I can see a little of most all sides of an issue. There are a lot of orthodoxies in the pet world — concerning training, feeding, health — that just make me crazy, because you’re supposed to pick your tribe and stay with it. Heaven help you if you do not! I try to keep an open mind for it all. :)
That background set, here’s some reading on what many all-positive trainers don’t like about CM:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....L9D1N1.DTL
http://www.urbandawgs.com/divided_profession.html
Here’s one on the other side:
http://terriermandotcom.blogsp.....-dogs.html
On a practical level, my own problem with CM is that the show makes it look easy, when in fact he has dog sense and timing that many ordinary people do not. Following his methods without having his skill may result in success, in no favorable result or in a worse result.
But the show makes it all seem like magic. And that ain’t so.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Can we go back to the part of this thread that deals with 90-95% kill rate? I need to clarify a few things:
Christie:
It was EmilyS who said on Dec 28th at 10:23 PM that 90-95% was Nathan’s goal. I can’t honestly recall if Winograd ever came out with a number in his book. I always assumed his no-kill goal was 100%. However, because there would likely be severely sick with no hope animals, hopelessly injured or vicious animals, there would always be a need for killing. Remember, under the NKE
you’ve got solid vet resources/treatment and personnel to socialize all but the most vicious of animals. Christie, you said it succinctly: “Completely ending the killing of all animals for population control …..is the goal.” I couldn’t agree with you more.
As I understood Winograd’s book, he maintains that there will always be a need to kill those SEVERE cases. Given this “special population,” even if you adopted/redeemed all the other animals that were brought in, you would end up with something <100%.
How many animals are brought in so sick or injured or vicious that they would be killed? Maybe <5% of the total shelter population. Ergo, 95% no-kill is an excellent place to be!
What I was trying to demonstrate in my posting at 11:40AM today was this scenario:
On a given day there are no DOA’s brought in, no injured animals brought in, no vicious animals brought in. Therefore, no animals are killed. Therefore you have 100% no-kill for that day. So you see, it is possible.
EmilyS [10:07AM today] stated: “Lynn, yes there is something wrong with striving for 100%. of intakes not killed. Because it’s impossible and unwise. And to claim that’s the goal would be, in my opinion, deceptive. The public needs to understand exactly what happens, and what can happen, in shelters. “
My contention, using EmilyS’ statement as a basis:
~ It is NOT impossible to achieve 100% on a given day [see two paragraphs above] if certain conditions exist. I believe it’s unconscionable to strive for <100%.
~ It IS NOT wise to stop at 95% no-kill factor. EmilyS’ argument could easily be taken out of context and be interpreted so that if there was a perfect day at the shelter, you would slaughter enough healthy and sociable animals just to force the public to be aware that killing goes on [and not go beyond the 95%]. I know EmilyS does not mean that, but it can be interpreted as such.
One thing I’m sure we ALL agree on: this business with NKE words and using them in such a way where everyone understands what we’re saying is a challenge! [Ugh - I’d much rather hash this out on the phone.]
So Christie, you and I are on the same page. Aren’t we?
Comment by Lynn — December 29, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Thanks, Gina. I appreciate your response.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 29, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
I think so Lynn, but I’d say that there is no percentage goal… the percentage saved is not the goal, it’s the marker, a surrogate marker, if you will.
The goal is to never kill an animal for population control. Never.
The only animals euthanized should be euthanized for the same reasons loving owners euthanize.
I think that’s pretty clear.
If NW and RA are correct that somewhere in the 8 percent range of animals need euthanasia for those reasons, then a save rate of over 90 percent INDICATES that the shelter is probably actually meeting the goal of no killing for population control. It’s a MARKER that the goal is being met, but is not itself the goal.
Comment by Christie Keith — December 29, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Christie wrote: “Lynn, I know what you’re saying, but I don’t really accept the premise. 90-95 percent saved is not itself the goal. Completely ending the killing of all animals for population control—for any reasons other than the exact ones you or I would use for our own pets, such as untreatable illness or pain or being dangerous—is the goal.”
I absolutely agree. It’s unwise to set a goal (100%) that is unattainable. And just using numbers doesn’t tell you whether you are attaining the goal. The goal is to save EVERY animal except those who are impossibly sick or temperamentally dangerous. If that’s 100% of your intakes, fine. If that’s 50% of your intakes (and you are honestly assessing health and temperament), that would be fine too.
LynnS: Winograd repeats that 90-95% figure in his blog this week so I am quite sure he does not believe 100% is possible.:
” Achieving No Kill, in which over 90% of animals entering a shelter are saved, requires replacing century-old failed protocols with innovative, life-affirming alternatives for every single animal, every single time.”
I certainly do not believe in killing animals just to show the public that their pets get killed in shelters. I DO believe that shelters should be absolutely open and honest about what and how many animals they are killing. I DO believe that too many people think every animal they abandon finds a happy home with someone else. I DO believe that forcing them to understand the possible consequences of abandoning their pets should be part of the NKE, because it is more likely to cause the kind of mental turnaround required to achieve “high save” shelters.
Comment by EmilyS — December 29, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
re Milan: he does NOT claim to be a trainer. I suggest folks read his new book; it’s much more enlightening about his thoughts and methods. There’s very little in it that people here would disagree with, I think. It’s mostly a pretty classic “NILIF” (nothing in life is free) approach. He’s a lot less sexist, too!
Comment by EmilyS — December 29, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
If Millan was the head of LA Animal Control, the kill rate would instantly drop like a rock and quickly get as close to 100% saved as anyone could get. I think that he is going to become a very important public advocate for “No Kill” because he’s made his reputation rehabilitating dogs that seemed hopelessly aggressive and screwed up.
Yes, Emily, you’re absolutely right, he calls himself a “dog psychologist”, not a trainer. I realize that it means whatever he wants it to mean, but it is a real distinction.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 29, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Christie,
Great, we are in concurrence.
The goal is to never to kill except for reasons for which either of us would put our own pets down. The numbers are simply measurements of performance, indicators of whether or not the process [NKE] itself is working as planned and how well [or badly]. Quantifying the goal [“never to kill…….”] has a distinct advantage: it clearly shows what statistical value must occur in order for the goal to be achieved.
As I mentioned before, I do not recall Winograd stating a goal in numerical values, but it seems logical that goal = 100%. However, because NW and RA expect [based on history] that something less than 10% will be killed for truly humane reasons, the “realistic goal” is something greater than 90%.
Comment by Lynn — December 30, 2007 @ 12:10 am
EmilyS:
I’m sure that if NW uses the 90-95% in his blog he’s basing his estimate on the assumption that some animals will be killed [for humane reasons] on EVERY day of the week. My contention is that it is entirely possible that on some days no animals will be killed for humane reasons [humane by OUR definition] - and therefore, for that day, 100% will be actualized. Not many days, but it is possible.
I don’t believe that Christie is saying that 100% should not be a goal. I believe she’s saying that the goal represents the NKE CONCEPT as opposed to numerical values. [Whereas I take it one step further and quantify a concept in order to assess measurement of performance.]
I also agree about people needing to be educated. However, I’m betting that most people are selectively blind. They don’t want to know. Won’t listen. As I said, if I had my way I’d force feed them all the info. [I ran the volunteer program in one of the LA County shelters at a time when less than 2% of all incoming animals were adopted or redeemed. Consider that there were at least 300 animals on the premises of just ONE of the shelters at any given time….and 98% were gassed. I let everyone know this, whether or not they turned green.] You’re darn right the public needs to know what happens.
Check out page 203 of “Redemption,” § VIII and § IX, PR and Volunteers, respectively. While it isn’t listed, there are a lot of opportunities for public education regarding old/current practices. How better to convince the public about transitioning to NKE than by clearly informing them of current practices, animals killed, etc.
True, things have improved over the years…….but simply not enough. [Again, assuming no one’s fudging numbers to look good for the Mayor.]
You see, you, Christie and I are all in concurrence. It’s just the mumbo jumbo words and personal definitions that get in the way. :-)
Thanks to everyone for bearing with our discussion - it’s really important to understand the concept and intentions. And maybe by us dragging this discussion out, someone else might be a little clearer on what NW is promoting.
Comment by Lynn — December 30, 2007 @ 12:14 am
I want to add something that’s been haunting me, and truthfully, I cannot recall whether I saw the statement on this website or another.
Someone said that in many cases the cages would be terribly overcrowded [before fully instituting the NKE] and that she felt the animals would suffer more in overcrowded cages than if they were mercifully killed.
I asked my uncle, a survivor of Auschwitz, if when he was thrown in the cattle car enroute to the death camp, if he would rather have been killed before the train left the station. [He knew it was a trip to death.] His answer was simple, “Life is precious and you do what you need to in order to survive.” L’Chaim.
Animals deserve as much.
Comment by Lynn — December 30, 2007 @ 12:24 am
There’s a news story in The Detroit Free Press, http://www.freep.com concerning pet stores in the Detroit area. The agency responsible for inspecting them has not been doing their job for years and now the state will be concentrating on the area of deer and cattle and the poor little animals in the stores be damned. I’ve been in the area at the Gibraltor Trade Center mentioned in the story and think that conditions there have been worsening.
I’d like to see all these pet stores closed. My concern - what happens to all the little critters. Are they euthanized. Do the shelters take them in. What happens to them.
Comment by VJ — December 30, 2007 @ 5:06 am
Lynn, I don’t think NW assumes that animals will be PTS every day of the week. Above 90% is an estimate, not a daily goal. I’ve never read his writings to imply that daily euthanasia in a specific shelter will always occur. The % he talks about is the average that’s roughly about as high as you can get - around 92-93% seems to be where they are topping off in practice.
I’m near a 92% Winograd-inspired shelter and I can assure you they do not euthanize when they hit 92% for a specific day. They euthanize “vicious and irredeemably suffering” animals - more some days, less others - but they euthanize very few overall.
Comment by Sally — December 30, 2007 @ 6:25 am
I’m sure that if NW uses the 90-95% in his blog he’s basing his estimate on the assumption that some animals will be killed [for humane reasons] on EVERY day of the week.
On what do you base that assumption, Lynn? It seems a strained and bizarre reading, to me. Animals are killed in most shelters every day now, because the kill rates are so high. In Redemption, NW does make it clear that he’s talking about the annual average. Where are you getting the idea that he expects that annual avarage to be matched every day of the week, with “extrra” killing to prevent the saved rate from rising higher than than?
Comment by Lis — December 30, 2007 @ 8:25 am
Sally and Lis:
Let me make this clear: I never said that anyone created daily rates. If you read my all my entries in this thread you should see that I was presenting a case to demonstrate that it IS possible ON A GIVEN DAY to not kill a single animal, in which case the rate FOR THAT DAY would be 100%. Now you know and I know that over the course of many days, 100% is not sustainable. But the point I was making is that it is POSSIBLE. Not likely, but POSSIBLE. Read the entire thread.
Let’s not make this thread all about numbers. It’s the goal that counts: the goal is to NOT kill any animal unless it is diseased or injured beyond hope or if it is so vicious that it cannot be rehabilitated.
Sally, tell us, if you will, which shelter you are from and the link to the rate history [if available to the public]. With rates as exceptional as those your facility needs to be given a pat on the back.
Comment by Lynn — December 30, 2007 @ 11:20 am
I’m not “from” a shelter, but I live near the Charlottesville Albemarle SPCA in Virginia. It’s the community, open-admission shelter for the city of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle in Virginia. CASPCA has the animal control contract for the community.
Last rate I saw for them was 92% live exit (this includes adoptions, transfers to rescue, return to owners, and I believe the TNR cats and the barn cat program.)
They are an exceptionally good shelter.
In Virginia, shelter statistics are online at VDACS.
I believe it’s Tompkins County that has hit 93% live exit.
Comment by Sally — December 30, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Sally:
I went to VDACS.com and that produced a website that listed all kinds of businesses. Ironically the first one was for a stripper. I then googled Virginia and the results were not as forthcoming as i would have liked. Can you give me the precise name of the shelter? [No acronyms, please.]
Thanks.
Comment by Lynn — December 30, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Whoops - Sally, I meant to say in the preceding post: What does the acronym VDACS mean? [I have the shelter name from your earlier post.]
Comment by Lynn — December 30, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Lynn - Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services:
http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/animals/index.shtml
Comment by Carol PW — December 30, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
I really don’t understand what all the semantical arguments about whether 85% or 100% equals No Kill. And frankly, I’m not worried about a shelter that hits 95% somehow then deciding to kill the other 5% because they have met the Winograd goal. A shelter at 95% (or 100% on a given day)knows what the end objective is - no animal is killed unless it is unredeemably vicious or in unremitting pain.
It would be much more useful for all of us to put our energies toward working with shelters that are killing 40%, 50%, 70% of their animals. And there are lots of shelters out there whose kill rates are appalling.
Comment by 2CatMom — December 30, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Ooops - that first figure above should read 95%.
Comment by 2CatMom — December 30, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
So right, 2CatMom.
If anyone would like to post the link to a shelter’s statistics, I’d be happy to have them. I’m compiling stats.
[Big Brother’s watching you, Shelter Director!]
Comment by Lynn — December 30, 2007 @ 8:04 pm