Uncategorized

Office of Animal Welfare Inspection Report Reveals Terrible Problems at Jersey Animal Coalition

Posted by

0

On March 12, the New Jersey Department of Health’s Office of Animal Welfare and South Orange’s Board of Health inspected Jersey Animal Coalition, a self proclaimed “100% no kill shelter”, for compliance with New Jersey Animal Shelter Regulations. The South Orange Board of Health gave the shelter an “Unsatisfactory” rating resulting in the shelter’s closure “until further notice.” The 10 page inspection report, which is public information, reported numerous and frankly shocking violations of these regulations. Some of the most noteworthy violations are listed at the bottom of this blog post.

Most disturbingly, some problems existed nearly a decade ago when Jersey Animal Coalition first opened its shelter. Inspection reports from 2005-2007 noted poor cleaning, no appropriate isolation areas for sick animals, lack of proper records on animals, and no documentation of routine medical exams. In subsequent years, South Orange’s Animal Control Officer appeared to take over inspections and gave the shelter a satisfactory rating. However, 2013 inspection reports again found violations of New Jersey shelter regulations, which included improper isolation of sick animals.

While the shelter may have cleaned up its act during this time, I find it hard to believe the same types of problems would get fixed and then suddenly reappear. First, Office of Animal Welfare Office inspectors may provide higher quality inspections than local officials. In fact, the Office of Animal Welfare Office’s mission statement includes educating animal control officers on New Jersey shelter regulations. Second, the shelter’s president and manager were in charge during these early years and during this latest inspection. Additionally, Jersey Animal Coalition’s “Shelter/Pound Annual Reports” submitted to the Office of Animal Welfare showed the shelter had 4 different veterinarians in charge of their disease control program each year from 2005 through 2009. Additionally, the March 12, 2014 shelter report noted the shelter veterinarian’s annual certification of Jersey Animal Coalition’s disease control program posted at the facility was from December 3, 2009. After the March 12 state inspection, the shelter apparently hired a new veterinarian. Why have veterinarians quit working with Jersey Animal Coalition or did the shelter change veterinarians so frequently? In my opinion, that is a huge red flag. Thus, the lack of Office Animal Welfare inspections, the same people running the shelter, and frequent changing of shelter veterinarians makes me question the quality of the town’s inspections from 2008-2013.

Volunteers are currently not allowed to help run the shelter. In an email to volunteers, the shelter claimed it was not their decision. However, in a subsequent email to volunteers the shelter stated volunteers would be allowed back only after completing a mandatory training with the new shelter veterinarian. The shelter then cancelled the orientation the very next day. While I do not know what the true facts are, I am somewhat skeptical of the shelter’s statements. In the March 12 inspection report, a shelter employee told the inspector bedding in the Animal Control Officer drop off room was brought in by owners bringing dogs in for surgery that day and was not from the laundry area exposed to ringworm. However, the owners of the dogs denied bringing in the bedding when questioned by the inspector. Additionally, the shelter’s web page states it is closed for 3 cases of ringworm, but does not mention any of the other violations laid out in the 10 page inspection report. As a result, I’m skeptical of the shelter’s statements at this point.

Whatever the reason behind volunteers not helping at the shelter, I am very concerned about the animals well being. The shelter’s web site states the shelter “has a small paid staff, and a large corps of dedicated volunteers.” If the shelter provided such poor care as documented in the March 12 inspection report with the help of a “large dedicated corps of volunteers”, how will it provide proper care now without all that help? Based on the National Animal Control Officer Associations recommendations, Jersey Animal Coalition’s estimated 80 animals would require around 7 staff each day to properly clean facilities and feed animals. Keep in mind a facility, such as Jersey Animal Coalition, would likely require even more staff to fix all these major issues and provide appropriate enrichment for its animals. Many animals have spent years living in this shelter and developed medical or behavioral issues requiring significant care. I have yet to see any evidence the shelter is staffed at appropriate levels or such staff is properly trained.

The real question is what happens now. Does the town of South Orange permanently revoke Jersey Animal Coalition’s shelter license? If so, what will happen to the animals? Frankly, the people running this shelter should not be allowed to stay in charge based on the egregiously poor care provided to the animals documented in this inspection report. Honestly, the NJ SPCA should be involved and one has to question where they were over the last decade? Hopefully, long overdue actions finally take place.

No kill shelters must master the very basics of sheltering before aspiring to reach a much higher standard. Frankly, the shelter violations in this inspection report show an inability to conduct basic animal sheltering operations. When a shelter cannot properly clean, keep records, hire a veterinarian, have a disease control program in place, provide basic veterinary care and enrichment, and prevent intact animals of both sexes from being kept together, the idea of becoming “a 100% no kill shelter” is preposterous.  Clearly, Jersey Animal Coalition did not comprehensively adopt the no kill equation based on the violations in this report. The no kill movement needs to call out shelters who are not living up to our standards, both kill and no kill. As a result, we all need to condemn the “leadership” of this shelter and demand change.

Key findings in inspection reports:

  • “There was no evidence available at the time of this inspection which indicated that sick, diseased, injured or lame animals were provided with at least prompt basic veterinary care to alleviate pain and suffering. There was a dog in the main dog kennel that appeared to be emaciated with a body condition score between 1 and 2. The ribs were clearly distinguishable from a distance of approximately 8 feet away in low light. and the ridges of the spinal column were significantly prominent. There were no veterinary treatment records available to indicate that this dog had been evaluated by a veterinarian and was receiving any type of treatment and there was no documentation available to indicate that this dog was eating a sufficient amount or an appropriate quality offend despite its emaciated appearance. Another dog that was housed in this same bank of cages had difficulty rising to a standing position. This dog appeared to be the overweight. There was no documentation available to indicate that this dog, was currently receiving any medication or other veterinary care to alleviate pain.”
  • “There was no evidence that a program to address the physical as well as psychological well-being of animals was in place at the facility at the time of this inspection.”
  • Animals displaying signs of stress were not provided with relief pursuant to a disease control program that was required to be established and maintained by a supervising veterinarian. The emaciated dog described above was displaying behavior consistent with severe psychological stress. This dog was cowering in the corner, had a crouched body position and hunched back with very slow and deliberate movements, and was averting his gaze with a tense facial expression. Other dogs were displaying signs of aggression, which included lunging at the door of the enclosure, tight lipped growling and low toned fierce barking, raised lips and presentation of teeth in combination with an intense stare.
  • The outdoor exercise enclosure contained an exorbitant accumulation of feces which had not been scooped. cleaned or disinfected for an indeterminate number of days or weeks. Snow had not been removed from this outdoor enclosure and the dogs had been permitted to defecate and urinate in this snow covered area. The snow had started to melt and the feces had begun to deteriorate resulting in a cesspool that collected in the middle of the enclosure and up to the concrete steps in the back of the building.
  • “Animals showing signs of contagious illness were not removed from rooms containing  healthy animals and housed in a separate isolation room. Cats with signs of ringworm were housed in the laundry room and a black cat in the cat room exhibited signs of a severe skin condition consistent with ringworm infection, including hair loss throughout the entire body and scabbing, which was more severe on the cat’s back above the base of the tail. There was also a grey cat in this room that displayed signs of a mild respiratory condition with sneezing  and clear nasal discharge. A biack and white cat and a tabby cat in this room also had signs of slight nasal discharge. There were no records available to indicate that these cats were seen by a vetarínarian and that treatment had been prescribed and administered.”
  • The dogs in these enclosures were moved to the opposite enclosure one at a time, rather than all the dogs in that bank of cages
    at the same time, therefore the dogs in the adjacent and lower enclosures were not protected from the splash back and run off from the individual enclosure that was being hosed down. Feces were not removed from the enclosures being sprayed with a hose which resulted in the particles of fecal matter and waste water to be spread through the air into adjacent enclosures into the
    main walkway, and onto the inspector who was standing approximately 7 to 8 feet away.
  • “There was no evidence that a disease control and adequate health care program was established or maintained under the supervision of a doctor of veterinary medicine.”
  • “There was an accumulation of dog feces in various stages of decomposition located in the parking area, in from of the garage bay doors, in the driveway, along the sidewalks, on the concrete apron at the front entrance to the building and throughout the outside grounds of the facility. Most of the feces in these public access areas had been stepped in by both dogs and pedestrians.”
  • There was an unlocked cabinet in the main center court of the hallway that contained various medical supplies, including needles, syringes, and IV sets. that remained unmonitored throughout this inspection and was easily  accessible to any employee, volunteer or visitor that entered the facility.:
  • “There were 4 crates in the education room that each housed one of 4 large dogs and a sign in this room indicated that these were aggressive dogs. These crates were constructed of insufficient gauge wire to provide safe containment of the animals; the crates wobbled and started to tip when the dogs jumped on the sides of the enclosures; there were no safety clips or other devices to prevent injury to the animals if they push their head or limbs through the space where the panels join”
  • “The upper level of the dog enclosures located in the main dog kennel room were in need of repair. The flooring panels in these kennels flex upon the movement of the dogs and therefore some of the sealant or other material that is used to prevent water, urine and other contaminants  from leaking into the enclosure below had become loose or otherwise dislodged.”
  • “An electric air blower dryer was placed on the floor in front of a cage during the cleaning process, but it did not
    sufficiently dry the enclosure at the time of this inspection. Several dogs showed signs of  irritation, including redness of the skin and discoloration of the fur on their paws, between their toes and the appearance of red irritated skin on their abdomen and muzzle.”
  • “The dry erase board in the left cat room that listed the name of each cat with its description indicated that female cats that had not been spayed were housed in the same free roaming cat room with sexually intact male cats.”
  • “A bowl of uneaten dry food was removed from a dog enclosure and placed on a grey cart. Inspectors were unable to determine which enclosure this bowl of food came from and therefore, were unable to ascertain which dog had not eaten that day. Food was not replaced in any of the dog enclosures throughout thc remainder of the day during this inspection.”
  • “Bags of food in the outdoor shed were stored on the floor which was wet at the time of this inspection and the food was not protected from contamination”
  • “Inspectors were unable to determine the amount of food each animal was given on a daily basis: there were no feeding instructions or other documentation available at the time of this inspection. At least 2 dogs appeared to be overweight and one dog appeared to be severely emaciated. There were no records available to determine if these conditions were caused by excess or lack food or a medical condition.”
  • “Dogs were not given a sufficient amount of water in their bowls to maintain the availability of water at all times. Inspectors were told that the water was being restricted so the dogs would not spill it and make a mess”
  • “These prescription medications were prescribed to owned animals that were not present at the facility. There were also medications in various rooms throughout the facility that  did not have any labels on the containers indicating what medications were contained in the bottles or daily pill dispensers.”
  • “There were no intake and disposition records available to inspectors at the time of this inspection. For animals that were received or impounded and/or adopted. euthanized or otherwise transferred.”
  • “The form which was required to be signed annually by the supervising veterinarian indicating that a disease control and health care program was in effect at the facility had expired. A form posted at the facility was signed by Dr. Santiago on 12/3/09.”
  • “Importation certificates were not available at the time of this inspection for the mother pit bull type dog and her 10 puppies that were being housed in a crate located in the office at the facility at the time of this inspection. There were Ialso no importation certificates available for other dogs that had been imported into New Jersey from other states and which were, or had been housed at the facility.”
  • “Rabies vaccination certificates were not being filled out properly”

Misguided War on Craigslist is Costing Lives

Posted by

0

Most of the animal welfare community believes listing animals on Craigslist is a terrible thing. Craigslist allows people to rehome pets for a small fee to encourage pet adoption, but not promote pet profiteering by breeders. Every day, people post pictures on Facebook saying Craigslist animals automatically go to dog fighters, laboratories and dog flippers. In fact, numerous petitions to remove Craigslist’s pet section entirely have popped up in the interest of animals.

No Solid Evidence to Suggest Craigslist is More Dangerous Than Other Pet Placement Venues

The evidence showing Craigslist is far more dangerous to place pets is nonexistent. The well-publicized Puppy Doe incident where a man abused a pit bull puppy obtained from Craigslist is one example of abuse. Craigslist is the nation’s 10th most popular web site and attracts 50 million different visitors each month in the United States alone. In other words, 1 out of 6 Americans use Craigslist each month. Therefore, it is entirely logical with so many visitors and pet placements that a few would go wrong.

People abuse animals obtained from other sources as well. Do people think no one abused an animal adopted from an animal shelter or rescue? Yes, it does happen at animal shelters who “do criminal background checks” as well like this example here. Unfortunately, animals placed for adoption always have a small risk of falling into unsavory hands. Few people would take PETA’s view that killing homeless animals is preferable to adoption due to the tiny risk things may go wrong. Unfortunately, the Craigslist haters fall right into this misguided view that the public at large cannot be trusted. Should we no longer do off-site adoption events since unscrupulous people may visit? Maybe, we shouldn’t put shelters in high traffic locations or keep them open at convenient hours to prevent bad people from adopting animals?

Craigslist also literally saved one bait dog’s life. Mama Jade was a victim of untold abuse, including apparent dog fighting, having her teeth removed, over-breeding, and various other injuries. However, the breast cancer she had was too expensive for her rescuer to afford. As a result, euthanasia seemed like the likely outcome. After posting a plea for help on Craigslist, all the necessary funds came in and then some (which went to a local rescue). Mama Jade finally got the life she long deserved. Unfortunately, these types of Craigslist stories rarely make the rounds on various animal welfare groups Facebook pages.

Banning Craigslist Pet Placements Will Lead to More Shelter Killing

Removing Craigslist’s pet section will undoubtedly lead to more shelter killing. Many people who will not be able to place their pets will be forced to surrender animals to kill shelters. These impounded animals will either be killed or cause another dog or cat to die by taking its space.

Eliminating Craigslist’s pet section will reduce adoptions by shelters and rescues resulting in more animals killed in shelters. Many shelters and rescues rely on Craigslist to place their animals quickly into loving homes. If rescues cannot place their animals quickly, fewer animals will get pulled and saved from kill shelters. Similarly, kill shelters who cannot place their dogs as swiftly will kill more animals due to lack of space.

Craigslist also is an important avenue for long-term lifesaving. Craigslist is immensely popular with young adults. If we can convince young adults to adopt now, we may very likely gain adopters for decades to come. Rough 60% of people online aged 25-44 years old use online classified ads, which Craigslist is the most popular. Facts like these lead those focused on saving lives, such as Bert Troughton of the ASPCA, no kill advocate Kathe Pobloski, and Austin Pets Alive to support using Craigslist to place animals. Thus, it is imperative we use every tool we can to save lives today and well into the future.

In fact, my wife and I placed several dogs we fostered in great homes using Craigslist.  All these dogs were pit bulls, which languished in the shelter for months, and were adopted within a few weeks using Craigslist. One adopter was a young man who went on to volunteer with us at the shelter. His girlfriend ended up becoming a dedicated worker at a no kill shelter. Another adopter was a young golf instructor who regularly shares pictures of the dog and even lets us pet sit our former foster. Thus, our personal experience corroborates the effectiveness of Craigslist to save lives and find wonderful homes.

Unfortunately, the war on Craigslist already is resulting in shelter animals losing their lives. Several rescues are “saving” animals being rehomed on Craigslist. At the same time, New Jersey shelters are killing 73 animals each day. Therefore, these rescues are choosing to “save” animals who will likely be fine and ignoring the animals who have a 100% chance of death. Additionally, many other animals who would have been safely rehomed on Craigslist may end up surrendered to high kill shelters after their owners were told not to use Craigslist. As a result of their war on Craigslist, self-proclaimed animal welfare advocates are reducing the amount of lives saved.

Wrong Assault on People Rehoming Their Pets

While certain rescue groups and individuals sharply criticize owners rehoming their pets, leaders in the animal welfare and no kill movement think otherwise. One argument made by these folks is owners are basically too stupid to rehome a pet on their own. The California Sheltering Report, which was written by the Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA and other groups, disagrees and says owners are in fact better at placing their dogs:

“Owners may also be in a better position than a crowded shelter to rehome their pet, as they know their pet’s positive qualities and can exhibit the pet in a comfortable habitat.”

Similarly, Austin Pets Alive, which led Austin, Texas to becoming the largest no kill community in the country, strongly advocates people rehome their pets using Craigslist. Logically, keeping pets out of shelters saves lives and improves quality of care for animals in shelters.

The criticisms from these individuals show a clear lack of empathy. On the adoption site I run for a local shelter, people frequently contact me looking to rehome their dogs (typically pit bulls). Most times people must relinquish their dogs for very good reasons, such as landlord issues, personal health problems, or even the owner’s death or going to prison. Virtually all rescue groups do not even respond to their pleas for help or simply say “no we will not help you.” If these people turn the dogs over to a kill shelter, which are typically the only ones willing to take the dogs, animal welfare people sharply criticize the “heartless” owners. Yet, when distressed owners try to rehome the animals on Craigslist these same owners are castigated as well. For example, these judgmental people often send nasty messages to distressed owners on Craigslist telling them not to rehome their animal that way. Unfortunately, this not only fails to solve the problem, but turns people off from supporting animal welfare organizations.

The Better Way

So, am I advocating people place animals for free on Craigslist with no questions asked? No, I am not. However, I also believe most people will have the common sense and knowledge of their pet to make informed decisions. That being said, I believe the following things would result in more safe placements and lives saved:

1) Local rescue groups and shelters should collaborate to provide a hotline to distressed pet owners. People answering the hotline should have ample resources, such as solutions to common behavioral issues, lists of dog (particularly pit bull) friendly rental properties, and dog trainers who agree to provide discounted or free training. Many times problems causing a person to relinquish a pet can be solved. Therefore, the animal welfare community can prevent the need to rehome pets altogether in many instances.

2) People insisting on contacting individual placing animals for adoption on Craigslist need to follow proper etiquette. First, they should come across as nonjudgmental, offer to help, and provide the following or similar rehoming guidance:

https://apapass.wiki.zoho.com/Rehome-Your-Pet.html

3) For those wanting to crackdown on Craigslist posts, flag all posts where someone appears to sell animals for a profit. Craigslist only allows classified ads for animals needing homes for “a small rehoming fee” in order to help homeless animals. Cracking down on ads from breeders will decrease their ability to sell animals.

Let’s focus on saving lives and leave moralizing to others.

Proposed Pennsylvania Coyote Slaughter

Posted by

3

Across the river from New Jersey, Pennsylvania politicians are trying to put a bounty on coyotes. Under legislation passed by Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives, the state would pay hunters $25 for each coyote killed. Currently, Pennsylvania allows hunters to kill as many coyotes as they wish at any time of the year. Unlike most animals, coyotes are not even afforded protection during the period they rear offspring. Undoubtedly, many puppies are left to die when their parents are killed. In fact, the already lax hunting regulations on Pennsylvania coyotes results in the killing of 40,000 coyotes each year. To put this in perspective, New Jersey shelters only killed 4,643 dogs and 22,067 cats in 2012. Thus, coyotes are already under assault in Pennsylvania even without this law.

Killing Coyotes is Almost Like Killing Dogs

Coyotes and dogs are very closely related. In fact, both animals can interbreed. Most of the behaviors you see in your dog are exhibited by coyotes, such as whining, barking, licking, etc. Coyotes are of course much more elusive and self-sufficient, but otherwise they are quite similar to man’s best friend. If it is morally wrong to shoot stray dogs posing no danger to people, why is a state encouraging the killing of such a similar animal?

Eastern Coyote Origins

The eastern coyote’s arrival in our area is a fascinating story. Prior to the European settlement of North America, the two most important large predators were the eastern wolf and the cougar. Along with Native Americans, these predators kept whitetail deer populations at healthy levels.  While scientists debate whether the eastern wolf is a separate species or just a race of gray wolf, the eastern wolf was a smaller and sleeker animal adept at preying on fleet prey. Upon arriving in North America, Europeans hunted and killed eastern wolves and cougars and converted their wooded habitat to farmland. As a result, no large wild cat or dog was left in eastern North America.

During the 20th century, coyotes from the western United States migrated east. Historically, coyote numbers were restricted by gray wolves who occasionally killed coyotes and often displaced them from productive areas. Upon the extinction of the gray wolf over much of the continental United States, coyotes migrated east. Interestingly, coyotes interbred with remnant eastern wolf populations in southeastern Canada and then migrated into the northeast. Additionally, purer coyotes also penetrated the northeast from Ohio. Eastern coyotes with some eastern wolf genes are larger, have more impressive craniodental morphology, and therefore can take larger prey. Nonetheless, eastern coyotes still retain mostly coyote genes based on this study and this study and are therefore a far cry from the large wolves we see on nature documentaries. Typically, eastern coyotes average about 30-40 pounds.

Eastern Coyotes Serve a Vital Service

Eastern coyotes provide an invaluable service in keeping ecosystems healthy. With the elimination of eastern wolves, cougars and Native Americans, whitetail deer numbers exploded. Pennsylvania deer densities approximate 30 deer per square mile today compared to only 8-10 deer per square mile prior to European settlement. Overly abundant deer devastate ecosystems resulting in reduced songbird populations and diversity of plant and animal species. Unnaturally large deer populations also cause more vehicle collisions and damage to homeowners properties. Eastern coyotes are the most significant remaining predator of whitetail deer and killing this predator in droves makes no ecological sense.

Coyotes also may control other overly abundant species due to human alteration of habitats. Canadian geese, which are viewed as a nuisance and a potential source of disease may have their populations limited by coyotes.  Additionally, a study of a program eradicating coyotes in a small area found rodent species exploded and the diversity of rodent species declined.  Thus, killing coyotes who are playing a vital role in the ecosystem makes no sense.

Eastern Coyotes are Great Neighbors

Eastern coyotes are excellent neighbors and cause few problems. In Pennsylvania, coyotes only take “a few dozen” sheep out of around 100,000 sheep found in the state. This equates to less than 1/10 of 1 percent of all the sheep in the state. Undoubtedly, those numbers would decrease even more if simple steps to protect these sheep were undertaken. While coyotes may kill some outdoor cats and the occasional small dog, no evidence exists this is significant. In fact, Pennsylvania Representative Mike Peifer, who introduced the coyote bounty bill, based the proposed legislation on “anecdotal accounts” of people losing pets to coyotes. Do anecdotal accounts justify the slaughter of 40,000 or more coyotes? I think not.

In reality, eastern coyotes make great efforts to avoid people. The PBS Nature episode, “Meet the Coywolf”, showed coyotes living in suburbia using creative means to avoid people despite living right next to them. For example, coyotes often were active late at night while people slept and even slept near highway entrance and exit ramps during the day where people rarely visited.

Coyote Control and Bounty Program are Counterproductive

Coyote control programs have never been successful and may actually create more problems. Historically, coyote populations were suppressed by gray wolves through occasional killing and displacement from prime habitats. As a result, coyotes developed a tremendous ability to compensate. Arguably, this adaptability increased further after humans killed coyotes on a large scale during the last 150 years.

Coyotes thwart population control programs in numerous way. First, the killed coyotes are often quickly replaced by immigrants from nearby areas.  Second, the short-term reduction in coyote density increases food availability to remaining coyotes and results in larger litters and more puppies surviving to adulthood. Coyote control programs decrease the number of older coyotes in groups and force the remaining coyotes to become more bold to obtain food for puppies. Therefore, coyotes may more likely hunt larger animals (such as domestic sheep or deer) and venture into human settlements and cause conflict. Puppies may learn this behavior from their parents creating a culture of more problematic coyotes. Also, coyote control programs cause more young adults in existing packs, which are not breeding, to form new packs and breed. As a result, more coyotes produce puppies which compensates for the increased mortality from hunting/trapping. Additionally, the number of adolescent coyotes in the population increase, who like human teenagers, are more likely to get into trouble. The end result of these coyote control efforts are no change in the coyote population, and possibly an increase, as well as coyotes more likely to cause problems.

Bounties are especially ineffectual.  People may claim the bounty even though they killed a coyote from another state. Historically, bounty programs never worked and were largely a waste of money ($700,000 in the case of Pennsylvania’s proposed program). This is why even the pro-hunting Pennsylvania Game Commission fur biologist Tom Hardisky opposes this bill:

“They’ve been proven to not work. At least 50 to 60 years ago we ended the bounty system [in Pennsylvania],” said Hardisky. “With bounties you don’t manage a species, you wipe it out, and there are repercussions on every other species. It’s happened over and over. There’s often fraud and the waste of taxpayer money. There is no science behind wildlife bounties.”

Similarly, the pro-hunting outdoor columnist and former Pennsylvania Game Commission biologist Roger Latham expressed similar sentiments:

“According to the many, many surveys and studies made, the payment of bounties on the smaller predators is one of the most inefficient and ineffective methods of all,” wrote Latham.  Fraud is synonymous with all bounty systems. Animals are brought in from other states and even other countries and pawned off on untrained officials.”

The reality is coyotes like most large predators regulate their own numbers. Coyote numbers are limited by their prey and also by their own kind through territoriality. If a coyote cannot win control over a territory, it will likely not successfully breed. Thus, coyotes do not need hunting to limit their numbers.

Bounty Nothing More Than a Tool To Appease Lazy Hunters

Despite Pennsylvania Representative Peifer’s claims about pet safety, the real reason for his bill is to appease hunters. Peifer is an avid “outdoorsman” and surely has a huge hunting constituency in the Pocono region he represents. It is far easier for a hunter to blame coyotes for their failures than to get better at their craft. As is typical even with certain minority human populations, coyotes are scapegoated.

The following quote by Peifer shows how misguided this individual is:

“Aside from during the February coyote derbies, nobody goes out hunting for coyotes,” he said. “When a bow hunter sees one, he doesn’t want to shoot it and ruin his chance to take a buck; bear hunters don’t want to spoil the drive by stopping to shoot a coyote. Hunters like to eat what they kill, and you can’t eat coyotes so they don’t shoot them.

“What this [bill] does is incentivize the killing of more coyotes, get hunters to take an interest in hunting this species that has grown out of control.”

Nobody in Pennsylvania kills coyotes? Tell that to the 40,000 individual coyotes slaughtered each year. No, coyote numbers are not out of control. In fact, predator populations are too low as shown by the Pennsylvania deer population totaling 1.5 million or 3 times their normal level. If anything, we need more large predators, such as cougars and eastern wolves, to lower the deer population to a healthy number. Of course, Mr. Peifer does not want to hear about that as it seems he’d prefer Pennsylvania’s wild lands become one large game farm filled with animals he likes (i.e. the ones he like to hunt).

Of course, we should not need to make the ecological arguments. Shooting or trapping an intelligent animal so closely related to man’s best friend for no valid reason is simply morally wrong. We must not only reject the ridiculous bounty, but the notion that killing 40,000 coyotes a year is a good idea. We must move into the 21st century and leave barbaric rituals to the history books.

Do Cute Young Animals Decrease Older Animal Adoptions?

Posted by

0

Many New Jersey animal shelters and rescues transport highly adoptable puppies into the state. Typically, these groups argue transports of highly desirable animals increase foot traffic into shelters or off-site adoption locations and therefore increase adoptions of older dogs. On the other hand, many other people believe transports take homes away from local dogs and increase kill rates of local dogs.  As discussed in a previous blog post, New Jersey shelters transport large numbers of dogs from out of state each year. Thus, the answer to this question significantly impacts the lives of many local shelter dogs.

Preliminary Data Indicates Young Animals Decrease Older Animal Adoptions

An analysis of kitten impacts on adult cat adoptions shows young animals decrease adult animals adoptions. Darlene Duggan conducted a statistical analysis of the effect the number of kittens available has on adult cat adoptions. The analysis was done at a medium-sized open admission animal shelter during the months of February and August. Kittens and adult cats were defined as 4 months and younger and 5 months and older, respectively. In February, when kittens are less plentiful, 3 fewer adult cats were adopted for every 4 additional kittens made available for adoption. During August, which is during the peak of kitten season, for every additional 3 kittens made available 1 less adult cat was adopted. Thus, additional kittens available at the shelter significantly reduced adult cat adoptions

These results may be even stronger for dogs. While actual data is needed to determine impacts of puppy availability on adult dog adoptions, I think it would be more significant. My personal experience at off-site adoption events is puppies are adopted far more quickly than adult dogs of even the same breed. The size difference between adult dogs and puppies is much larger than adult cats and kittens. As a result, people may perceive puppies as relatively “cuter” than adult dogs verses kittens and adult cats. Additionally, our culture seems to generally view puppies as cuter than kittens. For example, kids more often want a puppy for Christmas and pet stores sell more puppies than kittens despite cats outnumbering dogs as pets in the United States. In fact, a recent study found puppies tended to stay in shelters for roughly half the time as adult dogs. However, this study defined puppies up to 6 months of age and did not adjust the length of stay for puppies who were too young to be put up for adoption. Thus, the length of stay of transported young puppies typically placed for adoption is probably even less and these puppies likely displace significant amounts of local dogs.

Shelters and Rescues Need to Change Behavior

The findings above have serious implications for local animal welfare organizations. Most New Jersey shelters receive large numbers of kittens during the spring and summer. As a result, efforts should be made to make kittens and cats available for adoption in different locations. For example, putting kittens up for adoption at permanent off-site locations, such as Petsmart, or in foster homes will decrease adult cat displacement at shelters. Additionally, shelters can put adult cats up for adoption at other retail outlets with few competing kittens. Also, shelters can exchange animals to minimize competition between young and older animals at each shelter. Thus, shelters should find ways to shield adult cats from competition from more adoptable kittens.

In my opinion, New Jersey animal welfare groups should not transport dogs due to the high local dog kill rate at many shelters in the state. While I believe New Jersey’s per capita intake rate is low enough to reach no-kill status while transporting dogs into the state, many shelters perform poorly and require significant rescue help. As a result of the transport craze, shelters are losing two potential homes – a foster home and a permanent one for dogs in imminent danger.

Animal welfare organizations should try to decrease competition between puppies and adult dogs. In reality, dog transports will continue since it is easier to “rescue” highly desirable puppies. However, organizations running off-site adoption events, such as Petco, Petsmart and Best Friends, should require only locally obtained dogs participate in off-site events. While this may seem extreme, Maddie’s Fund only pays its per adoption subsidy to groups participating in its Maddie’s Pet Adoption Days for local animals. At the very least, these organizations should try and ensure puppies and adult dogs are made available at different locations or times to minimize local dogs getting displaced by transported animals. Additionally, shelters should offer reduced adoption fees and free/discounted services, such as vet care, dog training, and doggie daycare, with community partners for adult dogs to make adult dogs more competitive with puppies.

In conclusion, animal welfare groups need to confront the issues preventing animals from finding loving homes. The more these issues are honestly looked at, the more wonderful homes we will find for homeless animals.

Raising Money and Costing Lives

Posted by

0

Best Friends Survey Shows Disturbing Results for Shelter Animals

Last April, Best Friends published the results from a survey it conducted about the pet adoption market. While nearly all people surveyed identified themselves as pet lovers and recommended adoption to others, substantial numbers viewed shelter animals as damaged goods. Respondents believed the following about shelter animals:

  1. Have behavior problems – 65%
  2. Are malnourished – 63%
  3. Are unhealthy – 61%

People mostly viewed adoption’s benefit as saving a life rather than shelter animals being a better value.

Worst of all, young adults (18-34 years old) viewed shelter pets much less positively than other age groups. Specifically, 46% of young adult verses 33% of older age groups viewed shelter pets as less desirable than animals available from pet stores and breeders. Additionally, 38% of young adults compared to 28% of older adults believed shelter animal stayed in shelters as long as needed to find a home.

Animal Welfare Organizations Must Take the Blame for These Results

This survey’s results show animal welfare organizations are sending the wrong message to the public. Unfortunately, Best Friends press release about the survey largely blames the public for being ignorant and remains silent about animal welfare organizations. While Best Friends certainly does some excellent work, no-kill advocates do criticize Best Friends tendency to value collaboration with animal welfare groups over confronting such groups on important issues.

Dr. Becker over at mercola.com analyzes the results quite well.  She mentions some people may not find the specific breed they are looking for at a shelter. Certainly, it is more difficult to find designer dog breeds at shelters. However, Dr. Becker cites some interesting commentary from Mark Cushing, founder of the Animal Policy Group.  Apparently, this is a lobbying group, but the analysis is still insightful. Specifically, Mr. Cushing blames the major animal welfare television ads showing sick and abused animals “rescued” by these groups. We certainly have seen the ASPCA ads with Sara McLaughlin and various Humane Society of the United States ones with emaciated animals. Clearly, these ads convey the message “shelter animals are abused and give us money and all will be ok.” Is there any wonder why 2/3 of people view shelter animals as damaged and almost 40% of young adults think animals in shelters are safe?

Additionally, many shelters do not publish their kill rates or disguise them leading to the disconnect among the public about shelter killing. Most shelters do not want to discuss kill rates due to concerns about fundraising or ego. Others claim nearly all of their “adoptable” animals are saved when large number of dogs and cats are killed. Unfortunately, this secrecy leads to 38% of young adults and 28% of older age groups to erroneously believe animals are safe in shelters. Once again, shelters are putting their self-interests over their job of saving the animals under their care.  The solution is quite simple – mandatory publishing of kill rates (of all animals not just “adoptable”) so people can become informed that pets are not safe at many shelters.

Organizations do not have to send this “damaged goods” message out to raise money. The Upper Peninsula Animal Welfare Society (“UPAWS”) in Michigan increased its save rate from 37% to 99% in a few years and raised significant funds during this period. However, UPAWS’s Pet Promoter in Chief argues its better to only make special pleas a few times a year.  Additionaly, UPAWS’s pleas do not overemphasize abuse of the animal, but instead focus on getting the pet well and into a good home.  As a result, the  organization raises needed funds, but does not tarnish the shelter pet brand.

Many Animal Shelters and Rescues Are Responsible for These Results

Local groups replicate the fundraising tactics used by national organizations. New Jersey’s largest animal welfare organization, Associated Humane Societies, frequently makes fundraising pleas for “abused” and “neglected” animals on its website as well as it Facebook pages. Similarly, many rescues highlight the terrible conditions animals were in before the rescues saved them.  Many rescuers whether they admit or not view themselves as heroes and want others to as well. As a result, rescuers highlighting the terrible conditions of the animals makes them feel like bigger heroes.

Shelter operations also impact the public’s negative perception about shelter animals behavior and health. Too many local shelters lack proper enrichment for animals, do not quickly get animals safely out of the stressful shelter environment, and do not provide proper medical care. As a result, people walk into poorly performing shelters seeing dogs acting “cage crazy” or looking sick and develop negative impressions. While we know these “problems” often disappear once animals get into a home, the potential adopter’s experience is tarnished.

Young Adults Pet Buying Trends Are Bad for the Future

Advertisers heavily market products and services to young adults.  Most importantly for pet adoption, young adults develop brand loyalty during this stage of life. Win these people over and you may have a customer for decades. Additionally, persuading older age groups who may be more set in their ways to adopt may be more difficult. Thus, it is imperative to win this demographic so we can have adopters for decades to come.

Recent research indicates young adults are looking for convenience and affordability in products and services. Overly restrictive and intrusive adoption requirements from many shelters and rescues certainly make adoption inconvenient. In fact, some rescues will not adopt animals to young adults altogether. Misguided beliefs about high adoption fees being necessary for good homes also is an impediment to reaching this market.

Shelters and Rescues Need to Show Their Pets Are the Best Product Available

Shelters need to properly market pets individually. After working with hundreds of shelter dogs (most of which were pit bull type dogs), I was always struck by how individual each animal was. Profile writers need to stop talking about the pet’s terrible past and focus on its positive present self. Show how this animal will make the adopter’s life better.  Use language to get people imagining doing all the things they enjoy with the animal. Allow the adopter to feel like a hero by giving this amazing animal a new home. You can read how to properly write pet profiles here and here.

At the end of the day, our goal is to save lives. If shelters continue the failed mantra of “poor abused animal, give us money, and adopt him”, they will only attract a small part of the pet market. Families or singles bringing an animal into a home usually want a well-adjusted animal. Shelters need to make the adoption experience fun, easy and effective by getting to know the adopters and helping them find their match made in heaven.  For example, take a look at the KC Pet Project’s adoption process which helped make Kansas City the fourth largest no-kill community in the nation. After adoption, the shelter should continue being a resource to help with any home adjusting issues.

At the end of the day, it all about the animals and not the money. When you see how an organization markets its animals, you can tell whether it is all about the animals or all about the money.

Shelters Need to Do More Than Send Animals to Rescues

Posted by

1

Recently I’ve seen several shelters and their supporters reach out to rescues to pull animals. While working with rescues is a key part of the no-kill equation, I do not think asking for rescue help alone is very effective in making New Jersey a no-kill state.

Clearly, these shelters are competing with each other for limited foster homes through local rescues resulting in little to no net saved lives. Rescue help can make a huge difference in other places where one local shelter exists. In these cases, the rescues would have to travel great distances to go to another shelter so this likely results in net saved lives. However, New Jersey is a densely populated state with many local animal shelters rescues can choose from. Also, many local rescues pull easier to adopt animals from out-of-state leaving relatively few rescues to save pets from New Jersey’s large number of animal shelters. As a result, rescues pulling an animal from one local shelter likely causes another animal to not get pulled from another nearby shelter.

The rescue market is much different from the adoption market. As discussed on a previous blog, shelter killing is largely a market share problem where shelters need to modestly increase their share of the market where people obtain pets. In my view, the rescue market is much less expandable. For example, fewer people are willing to take care of an animal and then adopt it out. Even fewer people are likely willing to do so with rescues which often have stringent requirements for adopters.

The most powerful tool for expanding foster homes are urgent pleas saying the animal will die if not pulled within a short period of time (i.e. 24-72 hours). These pleas typically attract those involved with animal welfare and likely cause someone to take on an additional pet temporarily. Unfortunately, many shelters are unwilling to make these pleas as they perceive it is bad for public relations to put a face and number on their killings. As result, these urgent pleas are generally not made public and when they do occur it’s mostly through rescues/volunteers who sometimes do not name the shelter.

Organizations with vast resources over-relying on rescues is not very efficient. In an ideal world, rescues would only pull animals needing extraordinary treatment or who cannot live in a shelter environment. However, even in these cases a well-run foster program administered by the shelter can successfully place these animals. In fact, one New Jersey shelter, which takes in millions of dollars of revenue a year, refuses to put a volunteer foster program into place and instead relies on rescues to pull neonatal kittens when volunteer foster programs may be more effective. Additionally, rescues often have very limited financial and human resources making it difficult to oversee large numbers of foster homes. Thus, the notion of expanding the rescue market significantly is not likely.

The reason why shelters rely on rescues is simple – it requires little work and saves money by passing the cost of care to the rescue. The shelter simply makes a few phone calls or sends an email and the turns over the animals forever to the rescue. In fact, we know of one shelter which takes in millions of dollars in a year who charges pull and spay/neuter fees to the rescues on a per animal basis. This is particularly troubling when you consider most rescues are financially strapped and the rescue is saving the shelter on the cost of care and/or euthanasia.

In reality, rescues should focus on shelters with limited space and financial resources who cannot hold animals for long. Many local shelters are pretty much old school pounds who lack the space to hold animals for any significant amount of time. While the lack of investment in shelter facilities is a huge problem, it is time-consuming to remedy due to the high cost of building/expanding animal shelters. Additionally, the governmental bureaucracies running these pounds make foster programs difficult to implement. Also, some pounds adopt animals out without being sterilized which poses the risk of additional animals entering the shelter system. Therefore, rescue efforts should be focused on facilities where few practical alternatives exist.

In the end, we need our well-funded animal shelters to shape up and stop wasting precious rescue resources. Our rescues are overburdened and overworked. Given the massive under funding of New York Animal Care and Control (i.e. New York City’s animal control shelter), many New Jersey rescues must help out in New York. Add the many pound like shelters in the state and you have high demand for rescue resources. Our well-funded animal shelters need to stop diverting scarce rescue resources and start doing the following:

  1. Improve customer service
  2. Conduct off-site adoption events several times a week with same day adoptions
  3. Implement volunteer foster programs administered through the shelters
  4. Stay open a few evenings a week so working people can adopt
  5. Proactively seek owners of lost pets instead of casually dismissing such animals as “dumped”
  6. Work with struggling pet owners to help them find solutions to problems so they can keep their pets
  7. Rehabilitate dogs with medical and behavioral problems
  8. Offer real low-cost or better yet free spay/neuter services to economically disadvantaged pet owners
  9. Practice trap-neuter release for impounded feral cats and work with shy cats to make them adoptable

Open admission animal shelters, such as Nevada Humane Society and Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA, place approximately 96% of the animals sent to private homes through direct adoptions. These shelters accomplish this despite taking in several times more animals per capita than New Jersey shelters and saving over 90% of impounded animals.

Remember you are paying for these well-funded shelters through your taxes and/or donations. You should demand they spend your money wisely and put it to good use. Don’t let them get away with taking the easy way out.

No Kill Shelters – Much More Than Not Killing

Posted by

0

No Kill Is Very Possible

No kill shelters are often misunderstood by the general public. I initially believed no kill shelters were sanctuaries where animals rarely were adopted and lived out their natural lives. Thoughts of biting dogs and bizarre people who worked with them filled my mind. As I became more familiar with animal welfare, I believed all no kill shelters were highly selective in the animals they took in. After all, these shelters must be limited admission to not kill since pet overpopulation is gospel in animal welfare circles. Additionally, many of the self-proclaimed local no-kill shelters fit that stereotype taking in mostly easy to adopt animals.

My world turned on its head when I learned high volume open admission shelters across the country became no-kill. Additionally, data from pet industry and other studies suggest far more homes exist than the number of adoptable pets killed in shelters each year. In fact, pet industry studies suggest only 1/3 of people obtaining pets are adopting and provides much room for shelters to increase market share. In New Jersey, we would have to obtain an even smaller share of the market to end shelter killing due to our shelters taking in much fewer animals per capita than the nation as a whole. Thus, more than enough homes exist for us to save all the dogs and cats killed in shelters each year.

Another myth about no kill shelters is that euthanasia is not done. The term no kill means literally “not killing” and returns euthanasia to its original meaning of “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Thus, hopeless suffering sick animals and dogs posing a serious threat to humans (who would suffer living in a kennel their entire life) would be euthanized.

The number of animals meeting “euthanasia” criteria will decrease over time. Advances in medical and behavioral science fields are increasing the number of animals saved each year in shelters. Additionally, sanctuaries and hospice care are gaining momentum for life saving alternatives for vicious dogs and terminally ill, but not suffering animals.

Saving 90% of all animals is generally considered the criteria where shelters are euthanizing rather than killing animals. Nathan Winograd developed this mark based off of the best performing shelters at the time, and extrapolating dog bite rate data and infectious disease rates in cats. Subsequently, Nathan Winograd and others suggested a higher rate, such as 95% or more, may be more consistent with no kill now based on advances in the field over the last decade. Personally, I believe a save rate of 95% would be more consistent with no kill for New Jersey’s open admission shelters since stray puppies who are at high risk of disease rarely come in. However, 90% remains the standard most recognize for an open admission shelter to qualify as no kill.

Key No Kill Programs

No Kill open admission shelters operate on a fairly simple principle. Think of a bucket, where animals you impound is water coming in and water coming out through a hole are the positive outcomes of your animals. To save all the animals you can:

1) Reduce the flow of water coming into the bucket

2) Increase the flow of water coming out of the bucket

The various programs below, widely known as the “No Kill Equation”, operate on these two principles. Various organization emphasize some more than others, but the key is to ensure your positive outcomes equal the number of animals you take in.

Volunteers
Volunteers are a key element to any successful shelter. Volunteers can fill all aspects of shelter operations from animal socialization and enrichment, kennel cleaning, marketing, adoption counseling, public relations, fundraising, etc. Given the financial realities of most animal shelters, substantive volunteer programs are essential to a successful no-kill shelter. Do not be fooled by token volunteer programs done for public relations reasons only.
TNR

Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) programs help feral cats who cannot be adopted into a home for behavioral reasons. Feral cats are released into a colony with a human caretaker who provides food and veterinary treatment. Barn cat programs are similar to TNR except they are on a much smaller scale with one to a few cats going to one location.

Foster Care
Fostering at risk animals, such as neonatal kittens, puppies, and behaviorally stressed adult animals gets vulnerable animals out of the shelter. This program is run through the shelter with volunteers fostering animals temporarily until the animals can be adopted. Some very large shelters in our area do not have this program which unnecessarily results in the loss of lives. Additionally, foster care can also involve transferring animals to independent rescues who adopt the animals out.

Comprehensive Adoptions
Comprehensive adoption programs include innovative marketing, special incentives, great customer service, and frequent off-site adoption events.

Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation and Prevention
Shelters must have modern vaccination, handling, cleaning, socialization and care policies to prevent illness.  Additionally, state of the art rehabilitative efforts are required for animals needing medical or behavioral treatment.

Pet Retention
Pet retention is a key and overlooked program. While not as exciting as getting an animal adopted, keeping animals in their home has the same effect. Counseling pet owners surrendering their pets, having a hotline for troubled pet owners to call, and actively supporting good pet owners needing help are all elements of a succesful pet retention program.

Public Relations and Community Involvement
Working with the community and being viewed as a partner rather than an adversary is key. The community’s positive view of a shelter will increase donations, adoptions, and other shelter efforts.

Proactive Redemptions
Reuniting lost pets with their owners is generally the quickest way to get animals out of a shelter alive. Unfortunately, many shelters do not actively try and reunite strays with their owners. Shelters actively searching for owners can significantly increase save rates.

Low Cost, High Volume Spay & Neuter
No-cost and low-cost, high-volume spay/neuter programs decrease the number of animals bred. Often cost is a major barrier for people who want to spay/neuter their animals. The key is to make this service affordable to people who need it,  which are usually economically disadvantaged individuals. Do not be fooled by labels such as “low-cost” when such services are not affordable to the people who need them most.

Compassionate, Hard-Working Shelter Director                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Leadership is the most important part of all these programs. With a terrible leader, the programs above cannot be accomplished. The leader must be passionate, hard-working, and believe in the cause.

The State of the State of New Jersey’s Animal Shelters

Posted by

3

New Jersey’s animal shelters are largely failing the animals under their care. While New Jersey’s kill/euthanasia rates decreased modestly in recent years, many animals are still losing their lives in the state’s animal shelters.

High Kill Rates Despite Few Animals Brought into New Jersey’s Animal Shelters

New Jersey animal shelters take in far fewer animals than many shelters across the country. Based on the New Jersey Department of Heath’s 2012 Animal Intake and Disposition report, New Jersey shelters impounded approximately 10 animals per 1000 people. The Humane Society of the United States says the average community in the country takes in 30 animals per 1000 people. Additionally, New Jersey’s intake numbers are certainly lower since the Animal Intake and Disposition Report double counts animals impounded from one New Jersey animal shelter and transferred to another New Jersey animal shelter. For instance, the per capita intake rate of several large northern New Jersey animal control shelters is only 5-8 dogs and cats per 1000 people.

Thanks to New Jersey’s long time low-cost spay-neuter program and relatively cold climate (i.e reduces length of breeding season) New Jersey’s shelters take in few animals. While many spay/neuter advocates point to New Hampshire’s subsidized spay/neuter program as the solution to shelter killing, New Jersey started its program 10 years before New Hampshire. Despite this program’s existence for 30 years, 15% of all dogs and nearly half of all cats are killed in New Jersey’s animal shelters. In reality, the death rate of New Jersey shelter dogs and cats is higher due to:

1) Double counting of some transferred animals from one New Jersey animal shelter to another

2) Large numbers of highly adoptable transported dogs from out-of-state masking the local animal kill rate

3) Number of animals dying in shelters are not counted in above figures

In fact, kill rates at some New Jersey animal shelters are eye-opening. For example, the state’s largest animal shelter, Associated Humane Societies, reported 2,628 cats killed, died, or went missing in their 2012 Shelter/Pound Annual Reports submitted to the New Jersey Department of Health.  To put it another way, 69% of all the cats who had an outcome at Associated Humane Societies 3 animal shelters lost their lives or cannot be accounted for in 2012. At Ron’s Animal Shelter in Salem County, 73% of all dogs and 87% of all cats who had an outcome were killed in 2012. At the Paterson and Trenton Animal Shelters, 38% and 54% of dogs who had outcomes in 2012 were killed, respectively. Thus, many animals simply have little chance after entering many of the state’s animal shelters.

By comparison, over 200 communities across the country are saving 90% or more of the animals impounded into their shelters. For example, cities, such as Reno, Nevada with a per capita intake rate of 38 dogs and cats per 1000 people saved 94% of their animals in 2012.  The Austin, Texas region’s coalition of shelters and rescues, with a human population of 1,024,000 saves approximately 92% of its animals despite taking in roughly three and half times as many animals per capita as New Jersey’s animal shelters. These shelters are implementing widely known and proven policies to achieve this success. Why are so many New Jersey shelters failing to do so?

Shelters With Lots of Funding Not Leading the Way to Success

New Jersey has several well-funded animal welfare groups who are not doing what it takes to end the unnecessary loss of lives in the state. When a shelter receives millions of dollars in donations and animal control contract fees, this group needs to lead. Unfortunately, we see many organizations sticking with backwards policies or simply choosing to stay silent about the poorly performing shelters across the state. In some cases, these well-funded shelters actively fight life saving policies. These animal shelters need to ensure their animals make it out alive and strongly advocate for positive change.

Old School Pounds Still Thrive in New Jersey

In this day and age, folks would be shocked that old-school pounds still exist in New Jersey. In reality, many facilities only keep animals for the mandatory 7 day holding period for strays (and less for owner-surrenders). At the end of the hold period, these animals are usually either killed or if lucky pulled by a rescue. Adoptions are uncommon in these facilities since:

1) They do not post dogs online

2) Facilities often not open due to animal control officer out picking up animals or simply having limited hours

These truly are catch and kill old school pounds.

Shelters Never Giving Dogs a Chance

We noticed a disturbing trend where shelters never give dogs a chance to get adopted. Many times shelters deliberately misuse temperament tests to kill dogs. Other times shelters conveniently do not have enough behavioral evaluators/profile writers to get the dogs marketed online before the pets are killed. These shelters then highlight the chosen few who are helped. If nobody knows a dog exists, how can the someone complain if it is killed?  In reality, 10%, and more likely 5% or fewer dogs should have severe untreatable behavioral problems.

Limited Admission No-Kill Shelters and Rescues Turning Their Back on Local Animals

Many limited admission shelters bring in large numbers of dogs into New Jersey from other states.  In addition, many rescues who do not have a physical shelter and are not included in the statistics above are also bringing large numbers of animals from out-of-state. Anecdotally, many of these dogs seem to be medium to large-sized breeds who directly compete with the dogs being killed in New Jersey’s shelters. Apparently, the once plentiful supply of small breeds from southern shelters are no longer available and easy to adopt puppies from large breeds are being brought into the state.

How many dogs are being transported? Based on the Shelter/Pound Annual reports of 5 rescue oriented shelters out of 105 shelters statewide, 1,045 dogs were brought into New Jersey. In Connecticut, state officials determined 14,138 dogs were transported from primarily southern states which is nearly 4 animals per 1000 people. If these numbers are similar in New Jersey, 40% of our animals and probably close to half of the adoptable dogs would be transports. Thus, these transports are significantly competing with New Jersey’s local dogs and undoubtedly displacing many of our local dogs resulting in less New Jersey dogs making it out of shelters alive.

The logic many of these groups use does not hold up to scrutiny. Many rescuers will say “a life saved is a life saved no matter where it came from.” Unfortunately, the fallacy with this argument is that we are not killing because rescuers are not saving enough animals. Animals are dying because of the policies and choices made by people running shelters. If shelters facing far more difficult circumstances than New Jersey shelters are ending the killing,  then New Jersey shelters are not doing a good enough job. If rescuers help local shelters achieve no-kill status (saving 90% + of all animals), it puts enormous pressure on other local shelters to perform better. Donors and concerned citizens want their shelters to succeed and the money will flow to those shelters who make the grade. Eventually the poorly performing shelter directors will shape up or ship out. Imagine what the pressure on other state’s high kill shelters would be if New Jersey became a no-kill state? It can be done and we just need to come together to make that happen.

Trend Towards Reduced Funding for New Jersey Animal Control Shelters

In recent years many communities entered into arrangements to reduce animal control and sheltering costs. The 2010 property tax cap law, which limits municipality property tax increases to 2% each year, likely facilitated this phenomenon. Unfortunately, homeless animals are often at the bottom of municipal budget priorities and this trend is not positive for New Jersey’s homeless animals.

Animal Welfare Activists Need to Take on Poorly Performing Shelters

Unfortunately, many in the animal welfare world blame the public for shelter killing instead of the shelter leaders who are responsible for it. You will see things like “if only everyone spayed/neutered their pets” or “we just need a breeding ban” then we wouldn’t have any shelters killing savable animals. While these specific arguments can be addressed individually, the simple answer is communities with a far more irresponsible public have ended the killing. We can do it by simply following proven policies to get there. To get those policies in place, we need to inspire, persuade, and pressure those in charge to do so.