Last year, I wrote a series of blogs highlighting significant problems at the Elizabeth Animal Shelter. You can read the two blogs here and here. Specifically, I discussed the following findings:
- Shelter had an unacceptably high kill rate
- Routine illegal killing of owner surrendered animals during the seven day protection period
- Frequent illegal transfers of stray animals to rescues during the seven day hold period
- Poor promotion of animals
- Shelter adopted out hardly any animals
- Shelter did not spay/neuter animals adopted out
- Rescues were often only the reason unclaimed animals made it out of the shelter alive
- No volunteers allowed at the shelter
- Little to no veterinary care provided
- Records indicated inhumane euthanasia/killing practices
In addition to my advocacy, other groups, such as the Reformers – Advocates for Animal Shelter Change in NJ, aggressively pushed for change at the Elizabeth Animal Shelter. Did Elizabeth Animal Shelter improve? Does the shelter still have serious problems?
Live Release Rate Increases Significantly
Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s statistics for all dogs and cats it impounded in 2016 are listed below. You can view the actual records here and here. Overall, 8% of dogs and 16% of cats were killed, died or had unknown outcomes. This equates to a 92% dog live release rate and an 84% cat live release rate. In fact, the shelter reached the 90% live release rate threshold for dogs, and came pretty close to it for cats, that some people consider no kill (I use a much higher standard).
Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s death rate significantly decreased in 2016 compared to 2015. Overall, the shelter’s death rates for both cats and dogs dropped by about half in 2016.
Elizabeth Animal Shelter still killed too many pit bulls in 2016. Specifically, about 1 in 5 pit bulls and 1 out of 4 unclaimed pit bulls lost their lives. On the other hand, Elizabeth Animal Shelter achieved very high live release rates for both small dogs and all other breeds.
Similarly, Elizabeth Animal Shelter killed too many adult cats in 2016. Overall, around 1 in 5 adult cats lost their lives. On the other hand, Elizabeth Animal Shelter reported an impressive 92% live release rate for kittens.
Despite Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s death rates for adult cats and pit bulls being too high, the facility still made progress in 2016. Overall, the death rates for adult cats and pit bulls decreased by half (from 42% to 21%) and by around one quarter (from 25% to 18%).
Improved Live Release Rate Associated with End of Routine Illegal Killings
Elizabeth Animal Shelter stopped routinely killing owner surrendered animals during the seven day protection period in 2016. In 2015, Elizabeth Animal Shelter killed 124 dogs and cats during the state mandated stray hold and owner surrender protection periods (many were killed immediately). On the other hand, Elizabeth Animal Shelter only euthanized 22 dogs and cats during these periods in 2016. While I do have some questions as to whether some of these animals were in fact hopelessly suffering, which they must be for a shelter to take the animal’s life during this time, the facility did appear to relegate these to medical cases.
Overall, Elizabeth Animal Shelter killed/euthanized 15% and 4% of all the dogs and cats it impounded in 2015 and 2016 during the seven day protection period. This 11% decrease in killing over the two years accounts for nearly all of the 12% drop in the combined dog and cat live release rate from 2015 to 2016. Thus, the strong advocacy efforts to stop this illegal killing along with efforts to directly save these animals accounts for much of the improvement at the shelter.
Rescues Continue to Save the Day
Elizabeth Animal Shelter relied almost exclusively on rescues to save unclaimed animals. Based on my review of the supporting documents for approximately 40% of the dogs and cats listed as adopted or “medical release” in Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s intake and disposition records, 89% of these cats and 84% of these dogs went to rescues. This is very similar to my findings from the prior year. If I were to extrapolate this data for the entire year, I’d estimate Elizabeth Animal Shelter only adopted out 9% of the cats and 10% of the dogs they impounded. Thus, Elizabeth Animal Shelter almost entirely relied on the rescue community to save its animals.
Based on my observations, Elizabeth Animal Shelter made little effort to adopt out animals. First, the animal shelter is almost never open. The facility is only open from 4 pm to 6 pm on weekdays and from 3 pm to 4 pm on Saturdays. In other words, the shelter is essentially never open when working people can adopt (i.e. weeknights and weekends). In fact, Elizabeth Animal Shelter violates state law by not being open for at least two hours on the weekend. Second, the shelter’s adoption web site has terrible photos of dogs that look like prison mugshots. Even worse, not a single cat adoption listing is currently on the web site. Third, the shelter does not vaccinate or spay/neuter the animals it adopts out. Instead, the shelter threatens adopters from Elizabeth with fines if they do not spay/neuter the animal within 30 days. Fourth, Elizabeth continues to bar volunteers from the facility who could help market these animals. Thus, Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s poor policies continue to result in the facility adopting out few animals.
While Elizabeth Animal Shelter has very limited space, it can adopt out substantially many more animals. For example, models I developed based on the performance of good, but not the best, animal shelters suggest Elizabeth Animal Shelter could adopt out around 150 dogs and 160 cats each year. If Elizabeth Animal Shelter did this, it would likely allow the shelter to significantly reduce both the pit bull and adult cat kill rates. In reality, most high performing shelters must adopt out a substantial percentage of pit bulls and adult cats to achieve no kill level live release rates for these animals. Furthermore, if Elizabeth Animal Shelter adopted out more animals, rescues could save animals from other high kill shelters and reduce more killing in the state.
Animal Intake Decreases Significantly
Elizabeth Animal Shelter impounded far fewer dogs and and cats in 2016 as compared to 2015. You can view the actual records here and here. Specifically, the facility took in 16% fewer dogs and 32% fewer cats. However, Elizabeth Animal Shelter impounded 26% and 46% fewer owner surrendered dogs and cats in 2016 verses 2015.
Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s dog and cat intake decreased significantly more than both the Animal Care Centers of NYC and ACCT Philly. As you can see below, Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s dog intake decreased around 2 to 3 times more than both of the two larger urban shelters in the region. However, Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s cat intake decreased 3-11 times more than these other two shelters.
Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s length of stay data supports this theory. The shelter’s average length of stay for dogs and cats in 2016 were 10.7 days (7.5 days in 2015) and 8.1 days (4.1 days in 2015). As a comparison, Elizabeth Animal Shelter only had about 11-13 days and 8-17 days to get each dog and cat out of the shelter in 2015 (i.e. when the shelter took in more animals) before it ran out of space. Therefore, Elizabeth Animal Shelter appeared to take fewer animals in, particularly cats, to avoid overcrowding, at least during higher intake months.
Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s strategy of relying virtually entirely on rescues to create space is doomed to fail. While the shelter’s use of many rescues reduces the facility’s risk of any single rescue closing or not pulling animals for other reasons, large coalitions of rescues rarely are efficient at adopting out animals. Why? No single rescue faces any negative consequences if it fails to adopt out enough animals to prevent the shelter from killing. For example, if a single shelter or rescue agreed to pull all animals from Elizabeth Animal Shelter’s kill list, and Elizabeth Animal Shelter killed animals the rescue organization did not pull, the rescue organization could face criticism and lose donations. Similarly, if a single rescue saved all of the shelter’s animals it would receive praise and likely receive more financial support from the public. However, when dozens of organizations rescue animals voluntarily, no single group faces any repercussions and such groups have little to gain. Therefore, these organizations will often stick with overly restrictive adoption policies, less aggressive marketing, and overall less effective processes that result in fewer adoptions. Thus, Elizabeth Animal Shelter has limited the number of positive outcomes it can achieve and will likely have to restrict intake to avoid overcrowding and/or killing.
While I would clearly prefer Elizabeth Animal Shelter impound and safely place more animals, the facility is better off not taking in dogs and cats if it is just going to kill them. Clearly, Elizabeth Animal Shelter can do much more and take in all animals needing help, but at the end of the day, I’d rather the animals have a chance of life on the streets or with their existing owners than face a certain death at a kill shelter (especially since most of these animals are healthy cats who are far better off on the streets than in a shelter).
In Part 2 of this series of blogs, I will examine whether Elizabeth Animal Shelter still kills healthy and treatable animals. Additionally, I’ll answer the question as to whether the shelter still violates state law. You can view Part 2 here.
So you are patting yourself and reformers on in th back? Interesting…i don’t recall you or them doing anything to help any animal there. I saw advocates from union county lost pets page, shelter helper page and the staff do all the helping. No one cares about your writing. Action and working with the city helped these animals.
Rescues were given credit in this blog. Additionally, I will discuss the shelter working with rescues in Part 2.
However, the key point is rescues can’t save animals they don’t have access to. If a shelter is routinely killing animals immediately upon intake, then rescues have no chance to save these pets. Like it or not, until advocates spoke up, Elizabeth Animal Shelter frequently killed healthy and treatable animals during the seven day protection period. When advocates made it an issue, the shelter stopped and the live release rate increased.
Rescues were also heavily involved with the shelter when the shelter illegally killed animals. In fact, they pulled more animals in the prior year when the kill rate was significantly higher. Thus, the change from year to year was due to the shelter stopping its illegal killing of animals. That coupled with the rescues continuing to pull animals and the shelter’s decreased intake accounts for the improved live release rate.
This is why we need the seven day protection period enforced and required rescue access (for facilities that are not rescue friendly).
Finally, if it wasn’t for advocates, such as those in Elizabeth who stood up after Jennifer Areteta’s two dogs were illegally killed on the the day they came into the shelter, the city would not have brought you in. That is why advocates and people doing direct rescue work are allies in ending shelter killing.
This blog does an incredible service by holding people accountable for how tax dollars are spent. The argument that someone has to be in the shelter and hands on with animals in order to have a voice is a red herring and a deflection. If you feel you must blame the messenger for the message, I am left to presume you are defending the systemic issues which remain. How unfortunate. And I disagree completely about the writing; a lot of people are reading and are being educated in the process. Free speech changes communities and changes broken systems. I would think you would be applauding it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellently stated Aubrie! I agree wholeheartedly that this blog is instrumental in educating it’s readers of the practices & condition of the taxpayer funded shelters in NJ. I for one am one of those readers who prior to discovering this blog, was largely unaware of just how systemic deficiencies within our shelter system were. Until then, I had only been acutely aware of the deplorable conditions that existed at the shelter in the community neighboring that which I resided at the time, which has since closed. Oddly enough, I had never given pause to consider the conditions elsewhere. NJAO opened my eyes (and my mind that if one municipality could allow such deplorable conditions what’s to say others aren’t as well) to a more comprehensive view of the level of care shelter animals were receiving throughout the state. This ultimately led to my interest in the Helmetta Regional Animal Shelter when reports of abuses began circulating on social media and my subsequent involvement with the Reformers – Advocates for Animal Shelter Change in NJ. IMHO, those associated with NJ animal shelters should consider this blog as CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and use the criteria identified concerning their shelter, to re-evaluate their standards & practices and begin to implement changes that would move them in a positive direction employing progressive methods and becoming more community minded. Those who claim to be genuine in their caring & wanting the best outcome for the animals in their shelter, should realize that we are all on the same page & those that continue to have such a visceral response should perhaps reexamine their career choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person