Do you like this story?
Can we adopt our way out of shelter killing? HSUS, Maddie’s Fund, and the Ad Council team up to try
By Christie Keith
February 7, 2009
Currently, somewhere between 3 and 4 million pets die in America’s animal shelters and animal control agencies.
No-one involved in animal welfare is happy about that, but how we’re going to solve it is a matter of great controversy. On one hand is the growing no-kill movement, and on the other is the traditional sheltering community. The two camps are caught in an ideological conflict about the use of killing to control animal population.
I could probably write a book comparing the different world views, ideas, and underlying ideologies of the two movements, but the most fundamental difference between them is how they answer this question: “Are there enough homes to absorb America’s homeless pets?”
The traditional shelter world says no, and thus all its actions, policies, and programs and assumptions are based on that belief. From mandatory spay/neuter legislation to limit laws to breeding bans to restrictive adoption policies, their approach is predicated on the idea that we have too many pets for the carrying capacity of our country’s resources. The only answer is to drastically reduce the supply, and until that happens, kill the excess. “Until there are none, adopt one.” “Don’t breed and buy while shelter dogs die.”
The no-kill movement agrees that we should decrease the supply through widespread, low-cost, accessible spay/neuter — something it argues has already been pretty successful, given that the vast majority of owned dogs and cats are already sterilized — and find homes for those animals who come into the shelter system by utilizing programs like satellite adoptions, foster care, etc. It insists we can end the use of killing as a tool of animal population control if only the will is there to do it, and that “pet overpopulation” is a regional or facility-specific problem, rather than a national reality.
The two camps can argue philosophy until their heads explode, but there’s a good case to be made that this isn’t a debate about philosophy; it’s about math.
The answer to “How many dogs and cats would you have to put into homes every year to stop killing in shelters?” is, quite simply, a number. “How many dogs and cats are adopted from shelters every year right now?” is also a number. So is “How many dogs and cats are acquired from other sources every year right now?”
And those three numbers, when looked at together, answer the question of whether or not there are enough homes for America’s homeless pets. The numbers don’t change based on your ideology. They’re the same whether you love or hate Nathan Winograd, whether you think traditional shelters are heroes or villains, and whether you think the term “no-kill” is a powerful force for good or the worst of deceitful propaganda.
Richard Avanzino, the president of Maddie’s Fund, a group that is spending $200 million from the Duffield Family Foundation to end the killing of America’s healthy, treatable homeless dogs and cats, says that right now, Americans adopt around 20 percent of their pets from shelters. If that number were increased by only a couple of percentage points, it would put all the healthy, treatable homeless dogs and cats into homes, not just once, but sustainably. Is he right?
We may be about to find out.
Last year, Maddie’s Fund and HSUS teamed up with the Ad Council, the country’s leading producer of public service advertising and source of the famous and success campaigns “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste,” and “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk,” to design a three-year ad campaign aimed at closing that gap in shelter adoptions:
The goal of the Ad Council pet adoption campaign is to encourage millions of pet lovers who are looking for a pet to make animal shelters and rescue groups their first choice, saving the life of a dog or cat in need, rather than buying from other sources. It is the first time ever that the prestigious, 66-year-old Ad Council has focused a nationwide public service campaign on an animal welfare issue.
“We are ecstatic,” said Richard Avanzino, president of Maddie’s Fund. “This campaign has the potential to save all of our nation’s healthy and treatable shelter dogs and cats and change the course of events in the cause of animal welfare.”
“It will make a life-saving difference in securing loving homes for untold numbers of pets and get us closer to a no-kill nation,” added Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States.
“We are thrilled to partner with these prestigious organizations on this critical initiative to help save shelter pets by giving them homes,” said Peggy Conlon, President and CEO, The Advertising Council.
The campaign is not just about television and print ads. It has a huge social component, one that’s based on extensive research and focus group testing about where people get their pets, why, and their attitudes about shelter adoption.
It turns out that there are 41 million people who want to adopt a pet from a shelter, but haven’t done so yet. They are, in effect, the “swing voters” in this effort, those whose actions will make the difference between success and failure — literally, between life and death for America’s shelter pets. It would take only a small percentage of those people following through on a decision they’ve already made to get all healthy and treatable dogs and cats out of the shelters and into homes.
There are 14 million of us who did get pets from shelters. The campaign will be asking all of us who have shelter pets and/or who support shelter adoption to put our weight behind this campaign. Because although I know I’ve often written about my beloved shelter dog, Colleen, and many of us write and blog about our shelter pets, the reality is that this topic isn’t well-represented when researchers look at the content of online pet conversations.
In other words, we need to talk about our shelter pets, and shelter adoption, more. Not yell at people, not guilt and shame them into action, not make them cry with the sad fate of animals in shelters if they don’t come and get ‘em. No, this is a change year, a hope year; negative messaging is out. We need to talk about the rewards and joys of bringing a shelter pet into our homes.
Imagine that; something fun and positive that you can do to save animal lives, and you don’t have to get off your computer or spend a dime.
Will this campaign succeed in closing the adoption gap and making that change permanent? That’s a question only time is going to answer, but if nothing else, it’s going to get a lot of dogs and cats out of shelters and into loving homes, and elevate the images of shelter pets and animal shelters.
And if it works? We won’t ever have to argue the ideology of no-kill again, because the numbers will settle the debate.
I invited Rich Avanzino to come answer questions about the new campaign, Maddie’s Fund, and the no-kill movement at a chat tonight, Saturday, February 7, at 7 PM Pacific/10 PM Eastern Time, as part of PetHobbyist.com’s annual Chat Month. Please feel free to email me your questions for Rich at phchristy@pethobbyist.com; questions received in advance have a better chance of being answered.
(Note from Christie: I’ve been doing some editorial work for Maddie’s Fund, but the Ad Council campaign pre-dates my involvement.)
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
I think telling people to focus on the positive is a great idea. Nobody really likes to be lectured and it can be intimidating for people to talk to some shelter/rescue workers if they think they’ll *get* a lecture on the type of pet they want or where they got their previous pets. You catch more flies with honey, right?
Comment by Tara — February 7, 2009 @ 7:05 am
It is with great hope and anticipation that I read this piece, Christie. A necessary step, though, will be making shelters and rescue groups more appealing to potential adopters. A lot of the people I talk with don’t like going to the local animal control or humane society because it is too depressing to see so many wonderful animals who might never find homes and be killed for simply that reason. There are others who find the shelters rather unpleasant places to go ~ noisy, smelly, cast off furniture, institutionalized paint colors, cats and dogs in small cages/kennels, old/sick animals,overworked/unfriendly staff.
I no longer volunteer/foster for my local humane society because of their killing policies. The “euthanasia tech” has the authority to meander through the cattery and dog kennels and pull animals at will to kill. Of course, the general public is not aware of this, but once I found out I made a big fuss and left. I still do a lot of rescue since I live in an area where “throw away cats” are not unusual.
I will follow this campaign closely and would be happy to do what I can to promote the adoption of these precious animals, who, through no fault of their own, find themselves homeless. I hope that we can improve those shelters/rescues that continue to be cruel and inhumane along the way. Please let us know how we can personally be involved (other than simply writing a check which, for some of us right now, is not an easy thing to do).
Your column today gives me hope!
Comment by catmom5 — February 7, 2009 @ 7:14 am
Catmom, I hope you come ask Rich those questions — because he does, in fact, have some answers for those issues, too. :)
Comment by Christie Keith — February 7, 2009 @ 8:14 am
Christie you totally rock.
Comment by Sue Cosby — February 7, 2009 @ 8:16 am
Wonderful! I fully understand why someone would want a particular breed of dog or cat, but there is something just so special about a shelter pet particularly the ‘mutts’.
Both my cats are from a shelter - one picked me (apparently I have ‘sucker’ written on me with ink only cats can read) and the other one was picked for me by the shelter manager.
They might not be glamour-pusses but they are just the best cats in the whole world!
Comment by 2CatMom — February 7, 2009 @ 8:39 am
Maybe I’m a dreamer, I don’t think it’s necessary to set up a “competition” between kinds of dogs to promote shelter adoptions. Yes, there’s a ceiling on how many pets people will own, but we’re so close to saving those last 3-4 million lives, and the pool of potential homes is so large, that I think it’s reasonable to just focus on increasing shelter adoptions rather than creating conflict with those who breed, buy from breeders, or want purebreds or purpose-bred animals.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 7, 2009 @ 8:47 am
The answer to “How many dogs and cats would you have to put into homes every year to stop killing in shelters?” is, quite simply, a number. “How many dogs and cats are adopted from shelters every year right now?” is also a number. So is “How many dogs and cats are acquired from other sources every year right now?”
I mostly agree with this, with the addendum that it is a number with qualifications. That is, just as we continue to say that you can’t just say that a person who wants a dog should be content with ANY dog - be it from shelter or breeder - we also can’t just say that a person getting a shelter dog will be a good match with whatever shelter dog is in the first cage they come to. The idea of appropriate “matchups” remains an important part of the equation.
Where this becomes problematic, of course, is if the demographics of the dogs available in any given local shelter is not a good match for the needs of the locally available adopters. For example, smaller dogs generally do better in urban areas while larger dogs tend to be more desirable in rural areas.
None of this is news to most people knowledgeable on the subject, but it does need to remain a visible part of the discussion. Along with the ramifications - one of the most relevant of which is the thorny questions of shelter statistics.
We know that if we could just get shelters and rescue groups to be more proactive about sending their available animals to parts of the country where their adoption prospects are better that it would help those animals find homes. And the reason there isn’t more of this going on isn’t even all that much about money - heaven knows, there are plenty of active “rescue railroads” with members who will volunteer to transport animals from where they are to where there is a prospective home waiting. Often at little to no cost to the organizations involved. So why isn’t there more transport of available shelter animals?
I think a big culprit here has to do with the way the shelter statistics are maintained. I’m not sure the reporting system has been set up to do an adequate job of dealing with counting animals that are sent elsewhere to be placed. I think the shelters worry that such transport may artificially inflate some shelters live release rates while artificially deflating others. And since shelters are being held accountable via their statistics more and more, this can be a very real deterrent to their willingness to transport animals to areas where they will be more readily adopted.
I’m not a person that is good with numbers, so I won’t be any good at specific ideas about how to adjust these reporting systems. I just know that this is a factor that influences what some shelters will and will not agree to do, and so it needs to remain visible as a part of this discussion as well as planning moving forward.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 7, 2009 @ 8:54 am
I think a big culprit here has to do with the way the shelter statistics are maintained.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 7, 2009
I agree! How can you address ANY situation that’s not clearly defined by some facts?
We need to get together and get a system where we determine not only how many but also what kind, specifically and how they got there.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 7, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Well, the Asilomar Accords did establish a system of record-keeping that many shelters have agreed to use — as far as I know, it’s the only standard being used by more than a handful of shelters.
Speaking for myself, I have some real problems with the method that was agreed on, but I also think there is great value in an apples-to-apples comparison of previous years within a single system, and across systems over time.
I’m someone who wants data, raw data, and to draw my own conclusions, so I couldn’t agree more that we need consistent, nationwide, un-spun statistics for all animal control agencies and, as much as possible, from the shelter industry.
But there’s no way to impose a standard on private organizations, so to an extent there will always be a black hole of data from rescue groups, small shelters, and any private organization, no matter how large, that doesn’t accept public financing or contracts. Their participation in a system like that will always be voluntary — although there are private shelters who follow the Asilomar Accords voluntarily now, and I’m sure there would continue to be in the future.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 7, 2009 @ 10:09 am
But there’s no way to impose a standard on private organizations, so to an extent there will always be a black hole of data from rescue groups, small shelters, and any private organization, no matter how large, that doesn’t accept public financing or contracts.
Understood - but like all large and complex problems, sometimes you have to take a multipronged approach and use what works where it is applicable.
Because I’m not a numbers person, the discussion of the shortcomings of the statistical reporting methodology agreed to in the Asilomar Accords was where “Redemption” kind of lost me. But I think I got the message right - that the metric chosen wasn’t necessarily the most useful with respect to really getting to the bottom of the problem. And I also got the impression (correct me if this is wrong) that there were certain aspects of the way this agreed-upon reporting system could be manipulated so as to serve the interests of the shelter while not necessarily being in the best interests of the animals affected. So that’s a problem.
Certainly if a new system is established and implemented it will have to be done so in a way that accounts for the effects of the old reporting system. I’m not sure exactly how to do that - I just know it’s done all the time - both in accounting systems and laboratory measurements where sometimes new and better ways are found to count/measure properties that have been under study for some time.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 7, 2009 @ 10:29 am
I hate to be cynical, but - I’m afraid these 3 to 4 million cats and dogs are dying for something that has nothing to do with cats and dogs. Some of them are dying to protect people’s “fear-of-change” black hole. I experienced a tremendous culture shock when I moved from working for for-profit companies to working for animal shelters. (Especially since my last job with a for-profit company was one where the primary work goal involved achieving precision measurements in huge data sets!)
A part of the traditional sheltering ideology I witnessed was a hostility to the very notion of … well … solving problems with math, and the kind of eggheads who would even suggest such a thing. A persistent and systematic anti-intellectualism. People aren’t arguing against Nathan Winograd’s numbers (as opposed to his person) because part of what they object to is the very approach.
My experience was that the organizational culture of scolding people like 19th century schoolmarms and raising gobs of money through quaint teas and pictures of cute and/or suffering animals (even using newfangled means like the Internet) is just plain comfortable for some people. They do not want their jobs threatened by professional lawyers and statisticians and niche marketers and so on. They view such people as cold, heartless “corporate” people.
We all have our drums to beat, and I’m sure mine (by itself) is not the whole symphony, but I think the industry requires mass professionalization. I am really appalled by the attitude that “passion” and tears for the animals is not accompanied by a sense of commitment that pushes some people out of their comfort zones when it comes to, oh, learning how to use basic database software.
Comment by Barbara Saunders — February 7, 2009 @ 11:39 am
I won’t be able to ask those questions tonight, but would certainly like to have a transcript of the program if at all possible. Is there somewhere I can go to stay on track with what’s happening with this campaign?
catmom5
Comment by catmom5 — February 7, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Great article! And thanks for publicizing this worthy ad campaign.
I’ve just published a supporting post about my pets and this campaign on my blog. :-)
Comment by karen — February 7, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Great post, Christie. The Oregon Humane Society developed a very clever marketing campaign a couple years ago focused on ending the tragedy of “petlessness.” Check out the messaging and the TV/radio/print ads at - http://www.oregonhumane.org/ad.....ssness.asp.
Comment by Jennifer — February 7, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Hey, anyone know why Nathan Winograd’s blog appears to have gone “private?”
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 7, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
It appears he has a new URL:
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?page_id=166
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 7, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
Yay for the Ad Council - and for shelters and rescue groups. I also adopt pets from my vet clinic as they adopt out any animal they find who needs a home, many of which are dropped off at their doorstep. And yay for all of my dogs and cats, who came from shelters or rescues or my vet.
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — February 7, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
I think this ad campaign has great potential; kudos to the organizations involved.
But I think there is a point here being overlooked, and that is owner retention. I’ve seen statistics saying that 7 out of 10 people who either buy or adopt a pet keep it less than two years, and that squares with what our rescue has seen in the last 10 years.
A case in point is Tessie, who came to us originally from an unwanted litter. Tessie was adopted to her first home as a puppy and returned 6 months later - people said they didn’t have time for her. She was adopted the second time to a retired fellow who returned he because he developed health problems. She was re-adopted a third time and returned from that home because she didn’t get along with the other dog. Statistically that is 3 adoptions, but it is really only 1 dog. It’s a revolving door - and quite common in the shelter business.
If we are going to end shelter killing I think we will have to take a serious look at why people do not keep their pets.
Comment by Mary — February 7, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Well, there are organizations out there making a study of the dynamics of the human-animal bond:
http://www.censhare.umn.edu/
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 7, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Here’s more:
http://www.google.com/search?c.....8;oe=UTF-8
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 7, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Great notion.. and of course central to this is that the producer (shelters) WANT to “sell” to the consumer. Some of Winograd’s harshest criticism is directed at shelter policies that inhibit (or prevent) adoptions. I’ll look forward to Rich’s chat tonite
Comment by EmilyS — February 7, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
I am so excited about the positive campaign coming out!!! I act as a liason highlighting the unique and wonderful focuses of three animal nonprofits in my community; Citizens for Animal Rescue & Emergencies (CARE), The Humane Society of Genesee County, and Adopt-A-Pet. The stats in this article are helpful to me and part of what I have been searching for to site. Thank you. I also would love to tell stories of some wonderful rescue animals, including my cat Courage who can tell when I am going to have a seizure and makes sure I sit down. After I sit or lie down he gets my fiance’s attention and makes him come to me to help. Rescue animals are often end up rescuing us; emotionally or physically. Animals are the true innocent beings on this planet. Thank you all for your love and work for the animals!
Comment by Angela L. Alexander — February 7, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
For the numbers people reading, I think it’s important to point out that the animals dying in shelters at the greatest numbers in most areas of the country are cats. You can see the dramatic difference in the statistics of shelter intakes and dispositions published for NJ where the cat deaths are more than three times the dog deaths in shelters:
http://www.nj.gov/health/cd/do.....disp07.pdf
Comment by Sue Cosby — February 8, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Is that because there are more cats in general coming into shelters? Because so many are feral and put down? Because less effort is made to get them adopted?
It seems to take longer for our shelter cats who have to be the only cat to find a home, because people who like cats tend to have more than one. (Guilty: we have four) So it would seem that there are more slots available than for dogs.
In general, do available statistics differentiate between feral and non-feral? I would think that that is an important distinction.
Comment by Susan Fox — February 8, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
In 2002 I came up with the idea of hiring a professional market research company to come into our community and perform an extensive demographics study. The price tag was around $75,000 and included polls to the community, accurate human/animal demographics, focus groups, etc. I thought it would be an invaluable tool for the community; that we would know better what areas to focus our legislative issues, rescue/adoption programs, county shelter budgets, humane education programs…and so on. I felt that, in order to solve the animal problems in our community, we first needed to understand them…truly understand them…as unique to our community…ya know?
Our plan was to do collective fund raising and have the expense shared by everyone including a big chunk of it from the county, Maddie’s and other financially stable groups in my area. I personally was contributing $7,000.
Here is copy of the letter we sent to the shelters, rescue groups, breeder groups and other animal interest groups in our town. Not a single organization responded favorably; they said it was a great idea but just too much money. After months of trying, it went exactly nowhere. :-(
Dear Director,
We are asking for your participation and support in a new program that will create invaluable tools for the animal welfare community in xxxxxxx County. Pets Count! is a research and development project aimed at gathering and using information about local demographics and the attitudes, trends, and insights of people in our community regarding pet ownership and animal welfare issues.
Since the homeless pet crisis can only be solved through extensive community participation and a clear understanding of the issues that are unique to xxxxxxx County, this project is imperative to the goal of ending the unnecessary suffering and deaths of homeless pets in our community.
The use of market research and demographic studies to help determine the needs of a particular community is the latest call to action to regional groups by National groups such as the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the National Council on Pet Population Study.
Most regional animal welfare groups are still using crude, outdated formulas for estimating program budgets and many continue to engage in the habitual use of speculative ideas to determine the needs of their community’s homeless pet population. This haphazard practice is finally being recognized as one of the most solvable problems contributing to the overall failure of regional groups to put a quick and sure end to the unnecessary killing of their stray and homeless pet population.
It is now clearly understood that reliable regional information is essential for a community facing the daunting challenge of realizing the goals of no more homeless pets and no more preventable shelter deaths.
With comprehensive community profiles, accurate statistical information, and professional, solution-based studies, regional animal welfare groups will be given a truly priceless set of tools for accomplishing their goals in a timely and efficient manner. It is not acceptable for animal welfare groups to waste any of their monetary and human resources while homeless pets are still dying for help.
Surrounded by the deaths of thousands of precious beings, we must show the concern enough and the competency to validate the information upon which we base our programs, our expenses, and, most importantly, the life and death decisions we make daily for the homeless pets in our community.
Accomplishment of this project’s goals will demonstrate xxxxxxx County’s unwavering dedication to finally putting an end to the atrocities faced by the homeless pets living and dying among us. If Pets Count! is implemented to its fullest potential, xxxxxxx County will be unique in the Nation for finally leaving dated traditions behind in favor of this progressive, professional approach to animal welfare issues. We are asking that you review the information provided in this packet and respond with your ideas and input into this important initiative.
___________
Comment by Joy — February 8, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
I also think that we have a different problem between the cats and dogs. I know a lot of people that have purebred dogs but very few people that have purebred cats. Almost everyone I know have shelter cats, picked off the street, from the vet and so on. My cats were all strays but don’t count as adoptions from a shelter even though if they were picked up thats where they would have ended up. I think when you are talking about numbers you have to differentiate between cats and dogs. If a bigger number of people adopt instead of buying that is going to effect dogs way more than cats. Thanks for the interesting topic. That is good news for all animals. By the way the last time I looked at Petsmart 75 percent of the cats were about 1 or 2 years old and had already been adopted once and were returned for various reasons. Pretty sad.
Comment by BARB L — February 8, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
This is encouraging news, and I hope it is the tipping point that will finally make a difference to shelter animals.
Like several of the other commenters, though, I also have some doubts and observations. This is a complex problem, and I don’t think that you can spay/neuter OR adopt your way out of it. There are alot of cultural issues that come into play, including the widespread attitude that pets are simply a commodity, that they exist for human entertainment, and that, ultimately, they’re disposable.
And, as a few people have pointed out, cats in shelters are particularly troublesome, given the numbers: in my community, they consistently outnumber dogs by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 (those are the “adoptable” animals - these numbers don’t include ferals or scaredy-cats who get put down because they hiss from their holding cage).
Two years ago, I attended a local conference that specifically addressed all homeless cats (abandoned, feral, in shelters). It was called “It Takes a Village” and brought together people (okay, mostly women) to discuss and brainstorm on how to better address the needs of cats. The woman who organized the conference believed very much that the “commodity” aspect didn’t get the focus it deserved. She pointed me to this article that Patty Adjamine (New Yorkers for Companion Animals) wrote back in 2003. I still find it insightful - it points out some realities that are ignored by many in animal welfare:
http://tinyurl.com/czmsy3
I think a crucial element to ending shelter killing is keeping more animals from entering the shelter in the first place. And that, I think, takes a two-pronged approach: (1) providing education and assistance for people who face challenges (litterbox issues, introducing pet to new baby, finding pet-friendly landlords) and (2) creating a culture in which more people treat their pets as lifelong family members.
These goals should be part of the mission of every animal welfare org. If my local shelters are typical (and I sadly think they are), these aspects are almost completely ignored. Simple changes like problem-solving hotlines, or staff/volunteer behavior counselors could go a long way toward reducing intake. (They also would have to clearly and consistently communicate to the public that these services exist and encourage people to use them.)
Shelters should always be there, of course, for the real crises and those who, despite best efforts, prefer to dump their animals. But if more shelters operated as places of true animal advocacy, this is a discussion that we might not even be having.
Comment by cerridwen — February 9, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
What I find so frustrating is that we end up with so many “bully” breeds (primarily pit bulls, but we also get quite a few American bulldogs as well as other bullys) and their mixes in our shelter. And yes, we are very good at identifying them here and give the “iffy” ones as much leeway as possible — we are just in an area where these breeds are very common.
It’s so hard for us to place them, in part because there are so many here (our Petfinder listing for today shows 22 pitbulls/pitbull mixes out of 103 total animals) and most people come in looking for something entirely different. Also, so many people are just not equipped to manage a dog that has the strength and energy level of the average pit bull, and there are always landlord and insurance issues to consider.
We do regular pit bull spay/neuter clinics here — we have four “Payday for Pit Bulls” clinics scheduled next month, which will allow us to provide free s/n to some 120-140 dogs, with the first 30 per day receiving their choice of $20 in cash OR free vaccinations and microchip for their dog.
We also work with experienced pit bull rescue groups — two of our staffers are members of one of the big ones — and they take what they can.
We have recently been working with some of the long-term resident pits in our offices to make them more adoptable, and that is helping, one by one, but as you can imagine, that isn’t easy. Even though they tend to be just lovely, sweet dogs, I can see why they are so hard to keep — they are so athletic, going right up and over our double doors when they don’t want to be kept in one place.
BI’m in the middle of trying to get an advanced foster program together to enable us to get some of these guys out for a couple of weeks for evaluation and basic socialization in qualified homes, and we’re hoping this will help get more of them adopted, but realistically, the market here is so saturated. And we can hardly expect someone who wants a toy poodle to take home a pit bull instead, just because that’s what we have. Plus, this is not a breed that we can easily share with other shelters (like we could with all the toy breeds we received from a puppymill case last year), since everyone seems to have their own overload of them to deal with.
I feel like we really are between a rock and a hard place with these dogs. I am so sorry I missed getting questions to Richard Avanzino; I’m hoping someone else brought this up with him to see if he has any suggestions.
If anyone has gotten anywhere with this, I’d sure like to hear what they have done. We are certainly open to suggestions!
Comment by stellaluna — February 9, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Maddies Fund is great, because it awards the no-kill shelters that adopt out animals from the kill-shelters with money— to the tune of $240 per animal adopted out. Add your adoption fee to that and here in NYC, a no-kill gets $440 to adopt out an animal.
Prior to this, some no-kill shelters had very low adoption rates. They found it made more sense to advertise and take in donations than to deal with homeless pets. Those with high adoption rates frequently imported puppies and kittens from other countries— highly adoptable animals.
Comment by Monica (Plans for Pups, LLC) — February 18, 2009 @ 10:09 pm