adoption

CNN Takes An Inside Job To Defend High Kill Shelters

Posted by

0

CNN’s “Insight Man” featuring Morgan Spurlock, who is best know for his “Super Size Me” documentary, aired a show this week about the Animal Rescue League of Berks County, Pennsylvania (“Berks ARL”). The program had Mr. Spurlock volunteer at this shelter and showed various aspects of its operations. Berks ARL and Mr. Spurlock should be commended for bringing the shelter killing issue to a large audience. Unfortunately, this documentary perpetuated the myth that open admission shelters have no choice in killing and the killing is the irresponsible public’s fault. No kill shelters were falsely labeled as only being no kill by significantly limited admissions.
 
Berks ARL serves Berks County, Pennsylvania which has a population of around 413,000 people. The shelter claims to kill more than half the animals it takes in. Based on the shelter’s claimed intake of around 9,000 – 10,000 dogs and cats, this equates to a per capita intake rate of 22-24 dogs and cats per 1000 people. This per capita intake rate is significantly lower than many no kill open admission shelters, such as Washoe County Animal Services – Nevada Humane Society (36 dogs and cats per 1000 people) and Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter in Texas (38 dogs and cats per 1000 people), which save 90% plus of their impounded animals. Both shelters boast extremely short length of stays despite these 90% plus save rates. For example, Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter’s dogs and cats stay on average 11 and 15 days at the shelter.
 
Shelter Policy on Impounds and Adoption Show Misguided Priorities
 
Berks ARL makes surrendering animals easy, but adoption difficult. During the episode, Berks ARL revealed the shelter has an after hours “drop-off” area. Apparently, Berks ARL views pets value so low that the animals should be discarded like a piece of trash in the middle of the night. Similarly, their animal control officers are available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to pick up animals. On the other hand, the shelter is closed for adoptions on Wednesdays and Sundays and is only open from 11-3 on Saturdays. As a result, the shelter is only open for four hours on weekends, which is the busiest adoption time, but allows people to surrender pets anytime. Additionally, the adoption process involves all sorts background checks, such as veterinarian calls, verifying homeowner and landlord information in databases, as well as having all children and other household dogs present. Also, don’t think about adopting an animal if its 15 minutes before closing time either. Additionally, a dog adopted during the show was not altered which forced the adopter to come back a second time to pick the animal up after surgery. While the shelter does bring dogs to occasional events for “meet and greets”, offsite adoptions are apparently not generally done. As a result, people who do not want to visit an animal shelter because it is sad or otherwise unpleasant can’t usually adopt from Berks ARL. The adoption procedures contrast sharply with KC Pet Project, which made Kansas City’s outdated open admission shelter no kill in a year and a half.  Thus, Berks ARL makes surrendering an animal easy and adopting one a pain.
 
Berks ARL should manage intake if it cannot adopt out the animals received fast enough. Mainstream animal welfare groups, such as Humane Society of the United States and the ASPCA, advocate managed intake for shelters who would be forced to kill animals to make room for others. Managed intake serves many useful purposes for shelters. For example, pet owners who must make an appointment or wait a week may reconsider their decision. Additionally, that time could be used to implement solutions provided by the shelter through a pet owners surrender prevention program. Also, these programs ensure animals are vaccinated before intake, which reduces disease at the shelter, and manages the flow of animals to reduce costs and increase save rates.
 
Berks ARL also impounds cats at will and killed 4 out of 5 of them during the 2010 kitten season. As the mainstream animal welfare groups proposed, shelters should not impound stray healthy cats unless TNR is done. Apparently, Berks ARL’s former Board President did not hear of this strategy in 2010 as he provided no other viable solution at the time. Now, perhaps the shelter’s viewpoint has more recently changed, but I doubt cat save rates are very high now (I cannot find the shelter’s recent cat statistics anywhere). During the show, one of the shelter’s staff had a very lackadaisical attitude about Morgan Spurlock taking a newborn kitten home to foster. Unlike many shelters which have robust kitten foster programs or nursery wards which save 90% of neonatal kittens, the Berks ARL staff member nonchalantly stated its “50-50” he survives the night and gave the highly vulnerable kitten to Mr. Spurlock who never fostered a kitten before. Not surprisingly this kitten eventually died, but this was after Mr. Spurlock got the kitten through that first vulnerable night. Additionally, the shelter apparently only refers people to other organizations for trap, neuter, release and such programs are apparently done on a small scale. Thus, Berks ARL is not doing the right thing with feral cats or their kittens.
 
Frightening Evaluation Used to Kill a Dog
 
The shelter’s behavioral evaluations were done under unnatural conditions. During the show, the canine evaluator took a grey pit bull from his cage into a room literally a few feet away. Speaking as someone who has done many behavioral evaluations, I would never evaluate a dog without taking them for at least a 5 minute walk. Behavioral evaluations in stressful shelter environments often provide incorrect results. Taking a dog straight from the cage and into an adjacent room is not an accurate way to gauge an animal’s behavior in more normal circumstances. Another pit bull was taken straight out for a face to face meeting with an “aggressive” dog. While this pit bull passed the dog to dog evaluation, that is no way to introduce dogs, particularly ones stressed out in a shelter environment.
 
Berks ARL’s canine evaluator displayed a warped mindset on adoptability. Most interestingly, the canine evaluator never did a formal evaluation. She just observed some body language and felt the dog was neglected and labeled him unadoptable. The dog was killed during the documentary, but the killing was not shown. In a blog post by the shelter, they claimed they did their duty by holding the dog the legally mandated 48 hour hold period and the dog “displayed aggression.” The type of aggression, and the possible reasons (such as temporary stress, health condition, specific trigger) were not mentioned. While this dog may have been unadoptable, the time devoted to and efforts at rehabilitation were virtually nonexistent. Even the ASPCA states their SAFER test, which Berks ARL says is part of their behavioral testing protocol, should be used to develop a plan for rehabilitation and not a thumbs up and down life or death test. Given shelters taking in stray dogs under animal control contracts/adoption guarantee agreements, such as Animal Ark in Hastings, Minnesota, and UPAWS in Marquette, Michigan save 98%-99% of animals, behavioral euthanasia should be quite rare. Similarly, Austin Animal Services, which has a lower overall save rate, only reports around 4% of adult dogs euthanized for behavioral reasons.
 
Berks ARL used other questionable adoptability criteria. Dog park safety is apparently one of their criteria for “adoptability” per their blog post which likely relegates a large segment of the nation’s dog population to death if they end up at Berks ARL. Additionally, the dog evaluator stated on the show that resource guarding and animal aggression may also lead to killing. Given that research finds 50% of resource guarders in shelters don’t display such behavior in a home environment and most owners don’t care about it, using food aggression as a make or break adoption criteria is highly questionable. Additionally, a very large percentage of dogs display some animal aggression, whether it is towards other dogs, cats, rabbits, etc. Simply using that as an excuse for killing is unacceptable. Clearly, Berks ARL are using temperament tests as a reason to kill.
 
“Overwhelming” Number of Animals Due to Berks ARL and Not the “Irresponsible Public”
 
Berks ARL must take responsibility for the “overwhelming” number of animals entering their shelter. Based on the documentary, Berks ARL typically houses 170 dogs and cats (presumably its capacity) and takes in 9,000 -10,000 dogs and cats which equates to animals needing to get in and out of the shelter within 6-7 days. However, Berks ARL’s per capita intake of around 22-24 dogs and cats per 1000 people is far less than many open admission shelters who achieved no kill status. This tells me the shelter over contracted for its capacity and that is the shelter’s and not the public’s fault. No one forced Berks ARL to contract with nearly every municipality in Berks County. If the number of animals coming in under those contracts is too much, they should do some or all of the following:
 
1) Enter into less contracts so they can service their contracts properly (i.e. save lives and not take them)
2) Build enough kennels and cages to house animals long enough to get them adopted (the shelter has 10 acres of property)
3) Get rid of overnight drop off area which encourages pet abandonment
4) Stop impounding stray cats unless they do TNR and/or implement a robust barn cat program
5) Build a large foster program to expand effective shelter capacity
6) Do offsite adoptions in multiple high traffic locations each day
7) Start large scale dog playgroups where nearly every dog participates to enrich dogs lives and increase adoptability
8) Animal control officers should search lost pet reports, ask people in area about impounded pets, post fliers and scan microchips in the field to increase owner redemptions
9) Develop appointment system and pet surrender prevention programs to manage intake and help owners solve fixable problems
10) Work with local and national animal welfare groups to get volunteers to effectively target high impound areas with free spay/neuter, identity tags, microchips and pet owner retention efforts (Beyond Breed, Downtown Dog Rescue, and Spay/Neuter Kansas City are great examples)
11) Conduct behavioral evaluations properly to solve issues instead of looking for reasons to kill
12) Fully implement all other parts of the no kill equation to reduce length of stay
 
If Berks ARL wants to stop the killing, it will need to enact these changes instead of complaining about “pet overpopulation” and “not enough homes.” The data shows enough homes exist and other large open admission shelters ended the killing with much greater challenges. The question is does Berks ARL have what it takes to end the killing or will they use CNN’s Inside Man to rationalize the killing?

Disrespecting Your Shelter’s Hometown Leads You Down the Wrong Road

Posted by

0

Associated Humane Societies – Newark’s Assistant Executive Director, who is the organization’s number 2 ranking person and representative in many media interviews, posted an insulting joke about Newark’s residents on his personal Facebook page recently. The photo is identical to the following image except “New Jersey” replaces “Ohio “and” “Newark” takes the place of “Michigan.”

Ohio Shadowy place

Additionally, several of Associated Humane Societies – Newark’s employees also commented about how much they liked the photo. Associated Humane Societies – Newark operates a large animal shelter in Newark and receives up to $632,000 in animal control contract fees from the city of Newark.

This behavior demonstrates a clear disrespect for Associated Humane Societies’ community. Telling your shelter’s hometown they live in a “shadowy place” and “you should never go there” is deeply insulting. If you lived in Newark, would you want to support this shelter? Perhaps, this attitude towards the city’s residents along with a past scathing investigation and poor performances in Office of Animal Welfare inspections in 2009 and 2011 led to the popular Cory Booker administration’s displeasure with Associated Humane Societies.

The remark sends the message to people outside of Newark to not visit the shelter since the facility is in a “shadowy place” that “you must never go” to. The “you must never go to Newark” message makes even less sense when you consider  Associated Humane Societies, to the best of my knowledge, does not adopt out dogs at its off-site events (i.e. you have to go back to the shelter in Newark to adopt the animal you meet outside of the shelter). As a result, the Assistant Executive Director of Associated Humane Societies’ Facebook post hurts the cause of his shelter’s animals.

Unfortunately, Associated Humane Societies’ attitude toward its hometown has an even more detrimental effect on shelter policy. In an article last year, the same Assistant Executive Director stated he wanted more stringent spay/neuter laws and backyard breeder bans to reduce Associated Humane Societies unacceptably high kill rates. KC Dog Blog, which is written by Kansas City’s no kill open admission shelter’s Board President, clearly demonstrates how Kansas City’s pit bull mandatory spay/neuter policy increased impounds and kill rates. Additionally, KC Dog Blog also documents most large animal welfare organizations, such as the ASPCA, Best Friends, Humane Society of the United States (via the California Sheltering White Paper), No Kill Advocacy Center and the American Veterinary Medical Association oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws. Such laws increase impounds and shelter killing and also waste limited resources which could be used more productively. The main barrier to spay/neuter is cost for poor folks and mandatory spay/neuter laws with their punitive fines simply exacerbate the problem. Similarly, breeding bans, which sound great, are also ineffective and drain limited resources as evidenced by Long Beach, California’s 30 year breeding ban’s failed efforts at achieving a no kill community.

The “irresponsible public” argument and resulting attitude communicated by Associated Humane Societies represents a huge obstacle to creating a no kill community. While the shelter’s personnel may have negative experiences with the public, those interactions are not representative of the entire population. Newark most likely is more responsible than the average American community. Associated Humane Societies – Newark took in approximately 8 dogs and cats per 1000 residents in its service area during 2012. Unfortunately, we do not know what the city of Newark’s per capita intake rate is since Associated Humane Societies impounds dogs and cats from numerous other communities. However, the nearby urban communities of Elizabeth, Paterson plus surrounding towns and Jersey City – Hoboken took in approximately 7 dogs and cats per 1000 people. Nationally, Maddie’s Fund states the average community impounds 14.5 dogs and cats per 1000 people. Thus, Newark likely impounds around half the number of animals as the average American community on a per capita basis. Therefore, “shadowy” Newark is likely more responsible than many less “shadowy” places.

Associated Humane Societies – Newark’s animals would benefit greatly from a significant change in attitude. While Associated Humane Societies prefers to blame the not so irresponsible public for killing shelter animals, the blame lands squarely with the shelter. Associated Humane Societies – Newark needs to stop fighting successful no kill policies and enthusiastically implement these programs to quickly move animals from the shelter into loving homes. Personally, I’d suggest following KC Pet Project’s model which made Kansas City a no kill community 18 months after taking over the shelter. As recently as 2008, this shelter killed more than 60% of its impounded animals. However, KC Pet Project now saves roughly 90% of its animals despite taking in around twice as many dogs and cats in total and per capita as Associated Humane Societies – Newark.  KC Pet Project accomplished this without Associated Humane Societies’ vast financial resources and with an undersized and outdated primary shelter having only one third of the recommended capacity.

Associated Humane Societies should also implement targeted spay/neuter and pet owner support programs to help struggling pet owners in areas with higher impound rates. For example, the ASPCA’s Operation Pit in New York City and Monmouth County SPCA’s Pittie Project programs offer free spay/neuter, vaccinations and microchips to pit bulls. Spay & Neuter Kansas City provides another great example of not only substantive programs, but a helpful and nonjudgmental attitude towards the people requiring help. This organization literally goes door to door in some of the poorest neighborhoods to help struggling pet owners. As a result of these programs and relationship with the community, Spay & Neuter Kansas City assisted over 15,000 people with spay/neuter surgeries, veterinary services, and pet outreach programs in 2013.

Let’s drop the “shadowy” jokes about people and get onto helping folks and their animals. That is how you save lives!

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.

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.