pet connection

Newsweek Online has a good piece on the heated debate between those who see shelters killing instead of placing pets as lacking in community engagement and vision and those who see the killing as the only way to cope with the animals made homeless as a result of human irresponsibility:

[M]any animal lovers don’t realize is that PETA itself may have put down some of those unwanted [pets]. The organization has practiced euthanasia for years. Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued. … Shelters around the country kill 4 million animals every year; by some estimates, more than 80 percent of them are healthy. In recent years those grim statistics have split the animal rights community. Ironically, PETA has emerged as a strong proponent of euthanasia. In defense of its policy PETA has insisted that euthanasia is a necessary evil in a world full of unwanted pets. But while the group has some well-known allies, including the Humane Society of the United States, a growing number of animal rights activists claim to have found a better, more humane way.

[...] Bonney Brown, executive director of the Nevada Humane Society, says that in 2007, the first year her group went “no-kill,” her shelters managed to save 90 percent of the 8,000 animals they took in. Among other strategies, the organization ramped up its volunteer force, from 30 to 1,700, expanded its hours so that people could come in after work and engaged in extensive media outreach.

Here’s the rest.

Washington state’s King County has been trying to fix its broken shelter system, and is in the early stages of a nearly-million dollar overhaul of how it takes care of its animals.

In a press release issued this afternoon, the Metropolitan King County Council announced that it was declaring a state of emergency at the shelter and asking the county’s veterinarians to step in and help the animals who need it, as well as an aggressive new adoption campaign:

Councilmembers Dow Constantine and Julia Patterson were joined in the motion by County Executive Ron Sims, who today issued a declaration of emergency at the shelters. The motion creates an adoption campaign and allows local veterinarians to assist in providing care. The two measures will help alleviate the shelter health crisis and prevent future overcrowding and suffering while the County moves forward with longer-term strategic plans.

“We’ve already proposed an excellent process to improve animal services in King County. However, the animals in our shelters can’t wait four months for a strategic plan. They need help right now and they are going to get it,” said Council Vice Chair Constantine.

“We have near- and long-term strategies to improve the conditions at the animal shelters, but the animals in our care today, tomorrow and next week need our help as well,” said Council Chair Patterson. “Our generous community of veterinarians is ready to help and we are now calling them in.”

UC Davis’s shelter medicine team inspected the shelter last winter, and their report, issued last week, was damning, saying that shelter management practices had led to “a breakdown in care leading to animal suffering, illness, and likely un-necessarily high levels of euthanasia and death, as well as creation of significant public health and safety risks for staff and shelter visitors.” Council member Dow Constantine said, “Calling on the veterinary community to provide assistance and support is a step towards providing immediate relief for the animals at the shelter.”

When King County, WA, announced last week that it was embarking on a nearly-one-million dollar upgrade of its animal shelter system, it was clear that such an effort was long overdue. It was particularly hard to understand just why these changes were so long in coming, given the history of troubling reports from volunteers, veterinary staff, and the county’s own citizen advisory committee.

The county brought in two organizations to evaluate the shelter system and its operations. One was shelter consultant Nathan Winograd, who issued a report consistent with problems identified by the advisory committee but that caused some volunteers and staffers to protest.

Another was the team from the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program, which visited the facilities in January.

Their report, released today by the county, is 151 pages of observations, some extremely troubling and some hopeful, as well as recommendations to turn around what they call “a breakdown in care leading to animal suffering, illness, and likely un-necessarily high levels of euthanasia and death, as well as creation of significant public health and safety risks for staff and shelter visitors.” The report continues:

Issues overall fell into four categories: A. Programs, B. Facilities, C. Staffing, and D. Animal Care. The programmatic issues addressed in Part A describe a weak foundation that underlies the breakdowns in animal care and other areas. The lack of necessary programmatic underpinnings has led to an apparent inability to identify needs, such as required staffing hours, minimum housing units, and necessary facility improvements, or describe challenges the shelter and community face or may expect to face while trying to meet community expectations. Without the ability to clearly identify and plan for these needs and challenges, effective problem solving is impossible.

The UC Davis team found that although “most staff members were clearly dedicated and caring, and in some cases were exerting heroic efforts to provide for the animals in the shelter, it was evident that the capacity of both staff and facility was exceeded in almost every area of animal housing and care.”

They further reported that the problems were widespread and systemic, with few systems in place to address overcrowding. In addition, although some critics have contended that these problems were the result of legislative mandates to end the use of killing for shelter space, they found differently:

According to data provided by the shelter, there is a trend of worsening crowding and increased illness and death over the past year compared to 2006. This can not be attributed to the recent legislation, which went into effect only two weeks before our visit.

Although some volunteers and staff objected to specific problems of caring for sick animals and reported incidences of animals going without food or water, UC Davis inspectors made a number of similar observations: (more…)

Hardly a week goes by that I don’t get a frantic email from someone wanting me to publicize the case of an individual whose animals were seized due to alleged abuse or neglect.

Sometimes the person is being presented to me as a rescuer or breeder being wrongly targeted by a hostile animal control or shelter organization in their area for opposing the policies or practices of that organization. I’ve gotten a lot more of those since I began writing about the shelter reform movement.

Sometimes they’re being offered as an example of an evil puppy miller whose crimes are likely to be overlooked or under-punished due to ineffective local authorities or corrupt law enforcement or just general apathy.

When I reply, it’s usually with something like this:

I’ve investigated a few situations such as this one, and I’ve seen as many that were hoarders by any definition as I’ve seen examples of people being persecuted. There’s no way for me to know which one this is, and without knowing that, I can’t get involved with this case.

But as you champion this individual’s cause, keep one thing in mind. Animals, and people’s love for them, have become weapons in a propaganda war over how best to keep animals in our lives and homes.

On one hand, the nationwide movement for shelter reform has caused some disgruntled animal control and shelter workers to make examples or even targets of rescue groups and home-based breeders who have a different view than their own.

On the other hand, among those fighting to defend the traditional relationship between people and companion animals there is an unfortunate tendency to champion every whacko hoarder as a victimized rescuer, and every abusive breeder as a target of an animal control system gone rogue.

Who should we believe? Which side should we be on?

We should be on the side of the truth. When confronted with a report like this one, consider the agenda of whoever is telling the story. Try not to get sucked into these things unless you can get a grasp on the facts. When a case isn’t what you thought it was, stop trying to force it to fit your ideology.

And when you talk about these situations, realize that a stealth campaign to restrict and regulate pet ownership in the name of “helping animals” created this conflict. But while one side may have started it, those on the other side haven’t been slow to adopt the same techniques, making it increasingly hard to know what’s really going on in a given situation.

In fact, the willingness of people on both sides of this issue to use every incident as grist for their propaganda mill has made it almost impossible for people to show compassion for humans or animals without the risk of getting sucked into an agenda they may neither understand nor support.

Don’t fall for it. Don’t play into it. And if you can’t win your argument without propaganda, then your argument should fail.

Washington state’s King County Council and County Executive Ron Sims held a press conference today to announce an overhaul of its troubled animal control system.

Last year, the county council received reports of problems at the two shelters operated by King County Animal Care and Control. In response, they formed a citizens’ advisory committee to investigate. Filed last September, the group’s findings were damning:

One point on which we are unanimous is the deplorable state of KCACC’s shelters. Far from being a “model animal control program” or a “recognized leader in the animal welfare field,” we found King County’s animal care program to be well beneath the standards that should be expected in a prosperous, compassionate, and generous community such as King County.

Consultant Nathan Winograd was brought in early this year to inspect the shelter, and his report supported the advisory committee’s view on the state of the shelter system. The UC Davis Shelter Medicine team also inspected the shelter, although that report has still not been made public.

It had been announced that Sims would respond to Winograd’s report and that of UC Davis, but instead, he and the Council held a press conference this afternoon, and issued this joint media statement, its tone firm and optimistic:

New cat cages, dog runs, more staff and continued operational reforms are among immediate upgrades to conditions at King County’s aging animal shelters that are part of a joint proposal from the County Executive and County Council that would also create a policy framework for a model animal welfare program.

Nearly one million dollars is going to fund the effort, some coming from unused donations the shelter system has previously received, some new funding from the County. Upgraded facilities, more capacity at the existing shelters, expanded veterinary care, and additional staffing are all planned, but no announcement was made about the fate of the shelters’ current management team. Sims praised the shelter staff and laid all the blame for the problems outlined in the reports on the outdated shelter buildings themselves:

“Despite often heroic efforts by shelter staff, everyone agrees the current shelter falls far short of what’s needed for them to care for the thousands of dogs and cats that move through the system each year,” said Executive Sims. “We will continue our program and operational reforms already underway but the final answer is a new facility to replace a 35 year old structure originally built as a dog pound.”

[....]

“I first became involved in reforms to save animals 15 years ago as a county councilmember, and it is essential that we move toward getting a modern facility designed for the sheltering services needed in the 21st century.”

“I have no doubt that the men and women in Animal Care and Control have the best interests at heart for the thousands of animals in their care,” added Sims.

What’s next? Time will tell. Doing the same thing under the direction of the same people, only harder and with more money, usually doesn’t result in systemic change, and systemic change appears to be what’s called for. It’s also hard to understand why King County has yet to release the report it received from the UC Davis Shelter Medicine team that visited around the same time Winograd made his inspections.

But there’s also a lot of room for change in this press release:

Councilmembers Julia Patterson and Dow Constantine are introducing legislation to create a long-term strategic plan to provide recommendations on whether the County should build a new shelter, reorganize the delivery of animal services among different agencies, or reorganize animal services in partnership with other providers.

[....]

“Animal care has been an emotional and divisive issue,” said Council Chair Julia Patterson, who led the Council’s adoption of model animal welfare legislation in May 2007. “Today we choose to unite both branches of government to commit to achieve the goals of a model program together. The animals in our care deserve nothing less.”

There will be a community meeting on the future of KCACC on Monday, April 14. More information and the full press release can be found here.

Update: Local media worded things a bit more strongly, here on KOMO-TV. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Putting an end to their squabbling over the King County animal control program, the County Council and County Executive Ron Sims jointly outlined an agreement Thursday to spend nearly $1 million on immediate improvements and to plan the transformation of the much-criticized operation into a national model of excellence.

“It’s a responsibility to provide humane care and give every healthy or treatable animal a home,” Council Vice Chairman Dow Constantine, D-Seattle, said at a news conference announcing the agreement.

The joint announcement represents an easing of the tensions that were heightened by a council consultant’s March report that was harshly critical of Sims, who oversees the county’s animal control and care services.

Under the agreement, the county will replace all cat cages and add dog runs at or near the main animal shelter in Kent to reduce overcrowding and the risk of infections disease. Spending also will go to expand veterinary services, review agency operations, add to the shelter staff, assess building and equipment needs and hire workers to enhance placement of animals for adoption, coordinate volunteer activity and improve public outreach.

Of the $965,000 in spending, about $570,000 would come from an animal benefit fund built up over 20 years from donations by people licensing their pets, adopting animals or simply making charitable contributions. The rest will come from the county’s capital budget.

I’m sort of reeling to learn there was more than half a million collars just sitting there, “building up” over 20 years. If lack of resources were the problem, wouldn’t they have at least tried to tap that at some point?

And from the Seattle Times:

Sims and the council members said the county would sterilize more pets, find homes for more abandoned or stray animals, crack down on animal cruelty and reduce euthanasia rates to 15 percent of the cats and dogs that enter the shelters next year

“We can do a heck of a lot better,” Sims said at a news conference with council Chairwoman Julia Patterson and Vice Chairman Dow Constantine.

Said Patterson, “The three of us believe that the people of King County are compassionate people and they expect us to move forward in this direction.”

The agreement ends weeks of confrontation between the executive and council following a consultant’s devastating report on conditions in the Kent and Bellevue shelters.

The $965,000 spending plan — to be voted on by the County Council — calls for hiring more part-time veterinarians and hiring other workers to care for animals, step up adoption efforts and work with volunteers. The money would also buy additional dog kennels and cat cages to reduce overcrowding.

While those short-term changes are being made, a long-term plan for the shelters’ future would be developed and a consultant would “shadow” shelter staff and report his or her observations to policymakers.