Seagoville, TX is Your Town, U.S.A.

The Seagoville Animal Shelter is a small shelter in rural Texas.  It takes in about 1300 pets a year.  In December 2010, Sgt. Karl Bailey of the Seagoville Police Department was tapped by the police chief to take over the shelter because he loves dogs.  At that time, the shelter was killing about 70 pets a month.

Sgt. Bailey had no experience running an animal shelter and little time to make preparations.  But he knew he wasn’t going to have pets killed at any shelter where he was in charge.  As such, he began reaching out to anyone who could help him save lives at the shelter including rescuers, local humane societies, veterinarians and members of the public.  He set up a Facebook page, updated the city’s webpage for the shelter and placed an ad in the local paper asking for help saving pets’ lives.  And he met with city leaders to explain his plans and ask for their support, which they gave.

His first day on the job, Sgt. Bailey ordered needless killing be stopped at the shelter and shut down the gas chamber.  He went on to start and expand a volunteer program, start a foster program, conduct offsite adoptions in high traffic areas, open the shelter on weekends when more people were free to visit, and list pets on the city’s website as well as Facebook, television and in the newspaper.

He credits the public for stepping up to volunteer and in fact, the public is who the shelter appeals to when they need help reducing the population or with donations.  Under Sgt. Bailey’s leadership, the community saved 98% of the pets at the Seagoville shelter in 2011.

Sure Seagoville is small.  And it’s in rural Texas.  And there are probably a dozen more reasons other cities can come up with to explain why they can’t do what Seagoville does and why they “have to” keep killing pets.  But the fundamental elements of Seagoville’s success are applicable to any shelter, anywhere in the U.S.  A compassionate director committed to saving pet’s lives and instituting meaningful reform, supported by city leaders and the local community, can succeed everywhere.

 

Memphis Using PetHarbor – Take Two

Once before, MAS seemed to answer calls from advocates to post pets on PetHarbor.  I was so excited, I immediately put up a post thanking them.  But it didn’t last.  They never posted any more pets and eventually deleted the ones they had up.

Today, it appears as if they have again posted hundreds of pets to PetHarbor.  Will it stick this time?  I really hope so.  Especially considering reader Ona reports the “Friends” of MAS group has only posted 11 dogs and 5 cats on its FB page in the last 5 days.  (Click here to see a spreadsheet of Ona’s tallies on the number of pets posted by the “Friends” since March 1st.  Thanks Ona!)  Pets can not be adopted, reclaimed, rescued or fostered if no one knows they are in need.

There is no link to the animals listed on PetHarbor from the MAS webpage.  The only way to view these pets is to go to the PetHarbor website and begin digging.  Most people are not going to know to do this so a link from the MAS webpage will be essential.  Hopefully it will be added very soon.

If MAS keeps their PetHarbor postings current, which they have the ability to do via the Chameleon software, it will help save lives.  There is more work that needs to be done – many of the 227 lost dogs are lacking photos, there are only 5 adoptable dogs, 13 lost cats and 1 adoptable cat listed – but it’s a start.  And it carries the potential to do a lot of good for the pets at MAS if they see it through.

Here are some of the dogs available under the “lost” category at MAS (click to enlarge):

I hope this dog is receiving the veterinary care she obviously needs.

Click to see the above dog on PetHarbor.

Looks like a middle-aged Lab gentleman.

Click to see the above dog on PetHarbor.

Click to see the above dog on PetHarbor.

And now for something completely different

Tonight on MAS-TV, I watched a lady clean cat cages. I don’t know who this lady is but I don’t recognize her from the webcams so maybe she is a recent hire. The video shows an enclosed cat room where it’s safe for the cats to run around, which is what she lets each one do while she cleans his cage. In this clip, which I wanted to share because it made me happy (and because I think we could all use a respite from the eye-gouging misery that is MAS), she has just finished cleaning a cage housing a litter of kittens. They had a grand time running around the room to stretch their legs for a little while and now she’s putting them back.

Caring for cats at MAS

►

More like this please.

“This is why we’re here.”

Want different results?  Change the things you’re doing!

The Greater Androscoggin Humane Society (GAHS) in Maine made some significant changes last year with regard to aggressively marketing their pets.  They launched a social media campaign and got creative with adoption events – including a 24 hour adopt-a-thon.  They became better known in the community.

As a result, instead of maintaining an overcrowded facility of homeless pets, they are now importing pets from other shelters to meet demand.  Adopters sometimes even wait in line for hours outside the shelter for the chance to be first through the doors when the place opens.

Can the importance of marketing shelter pets be overstated?  I think not.  Check out Dogged Blog’s post from yesterday on the subject:

If people mired in this old-school, ineffective, failed paradigm would step out of it for a few minutes, they’d realize how bad they’re making themselves look every time they, always predictably, trot it out. “It’s not our fault we do what we do,” they say. “It’s all the bad people! Blame them! We’re just helpless victims!”

You people really need some new material.

My suggestion that you get new photos will help get those pets into homes. Think about that while you continue to enable your community’s filthy high-kill shelter to fail the animals inside its walls.

Carl Willing, an adopter who took turns with his wife holding a place in line overnight at GAHS in order to get first chance at a dog named Bo, remembers the experience when they finally got inside the shelter:

“Seeing Bo, when he came out,” Willing said, pausing to lovingly scratch Bo’s ears. “Oh, yes! This is why we’re here.”

This is why we’re here.  How great is that to read from an adopter?

To those facilities who refuse to post all their pets online and aggressively market them to the community, I ask:  Why are you here?  The public is the solution to your problems.  Stop blaming them.  Stop forcing pets to pay for your stubborn ignorance with their lives.  We are a no kill nation.  Join us.

The Care and Marketing of Long Term Resident Shelter Pets

No kill shelters face some challenges that kill shelters don’t.  Among them, caring for dogs and cats who, for whatever reason, end up spending a longer than average time living at the shelter, waiting for the right adopter to find them.  Regarding the standard of care and special handling unique to these shelter pets, I contacted Dayna Kennedy, the Shelter Manager for Upper Peninsula Animal Welfare Shelter (UPAWS) in MI.  She had some great information to share:

While we don’t call ourselves a no kill shelter, we do operate like one.
We are an open admission shelter, so we frequently see “less desirable” candidates for adoption. We give an animal as long as they need and never impose time limits. This can sometimes mean an animal stays with us for a longer period of time. While very few dogs stay more than a couple weeks and few cats stay more than a couple months, I believe it is of the utmost importance that an animal’s health and behavior are assessed daily no matter how long the stay, because some animals handle shelter life better than others.

For dogs, structured training sessions, foster homes, other dogs to play with, extra walks, swimming, Kongs, car rides, and other enrichment programs can help these animals until they can be adopted. While cats tend to stay longer in shelters, their needs are much the same. Cage-less cat rooms, training, time outside in a secure enclosure, or maybe a fish to watch (at a safe distance) can keep cats emotionally stable until they are adopted.

If an animal has some health or behavioral concerns that need to be
addressed, it may not be beneficial to try to get that animal out of the
shelter until those concerns are handled. We see dogs with food
aggression, cats that are almost feral, dogs with severe dog aggression, cats that hate being touched, animals recovering from serious medical issues, and the like. We work with whatever issue an animal may have until we believe the animal is adoption ready, but it is up to the shelter staff to make them adoption ready by addressing their specific needs every day and in the meantime, make sure they remain emotionally stable.

Sometimes though, enrichment isn’t enough. If an animal is staying longer than usual and has no serious health or behavior issues, then we need to try to figure out why the animal hasn’t been adopted yet. There is usually an underlying reason that an animal isn’t being adopted as quickly as we would like. Maybe the animal has a black coat and is located in the darkest corner of the kennel. Maybe potential adopters don’t like the way the animal barks when they walk past its kennel. If the dog that has a bad habit of barking, the dog could benefit from training, a foster home, or a stay in a room or behind the desk while the public is touring the shelter. The dog may need some exposure at an off-site adoptathon or an extra article about him in the newspaper.

Sometimes, it is not even about the animal at all. Shelters may also need to evaluate how the staff may be making a person feel about a particular animal, how the written description on the website sounds, what types of advertising is most effective, and even how the animal looks in its cage. Cage placement, behavior, cleanliness, staff perception of the animal, adoption price, poor manners, etc., are all important areas to evaluate while enrichment programs are being used.

With that being said, I think if long stays are the norm for any shelter, managers should consider gathering some outside feedback from the public, adopters, and other shelters. Something might need to be done.

And, for a specific idea on promoting these special shelter pets, Dayna offers:

We  just implemented a new special adoption promotion called the
“Lonely Hearts Club”. We reduce a cat’s adoption fee to $20 and a dog to $30 and put special heart signs on their kennels if they have been at our shelter for more than two months. It is just a way to promote them a bit more. The key thing is to steal ideas from what is working for other shelters:)

Thank you so much Dayna for sharing your insights on this subject.  I’d like to collect some experiences and practices from other shelters in order to provide a resource for people looking for ideas to help these special pets.

So, open question:  Do you know of a marketing technique that works for your local shelter in helping to get long term resident pets adopted?  How does your shelter care for these pets differently than those who are at the shelter only a couple of days or weeks?

Testify!

When I heard about how UPAWS in Michigan went from an open admission shelter who killed more pets than they saved to an open admission shelter saving more than 90% of their pets, I wanted to know more.  We often hear from kill shelter staff and their supporters that no kill is just not possible in our community/on our budget/until we have MSN/etc.  And yet UPAWS shows us, once again, that it is possible in the very community they had previously driven away from their shelter.  They don’t have MSN in their county.  And the cost to taxpayers for this incredible lifesaving effort?  Zero dollars.

So we know it’s possible, but how difficult is it – making that change?  I wanted to know from those who were there during the years of killing, the transition period and the present environment of lifesaving.  I asked UPAWS board members if there was a “darkest hour” along the way – a point where they doubted they could pull off such a turnaround.  And I specifically wanted to know how they handled dogs with behavior issues which would make them “unadoptable” in many shelters (cage aggression, resource guarding, etc.).  Several members generously shared their experiences and thoughts.  You have read some of what Reva Laituri had to say here.  Now I want to share with you the responses I received from other members.  Thank you to Ann Brownell, Lynn Andronis, Joan Mulder, Dayna Kennedy and to everyone else at UPAWS doing the hard work of saving lives.  I hope your words will motivate others who believe no kill isn’t achievable.

I gave careful consideration to editing their letters and putting together a post in my usual manner.  But after much deliberation, I decided I really wanted to share each of their responses with you in their entirety.  Because every word they have to say is important.  This is what every shelter in America can be.  This is the testimony of no kill in action.

Ann Brownell:

My name is Ann Brownell and I have been volunteering since 1997 at UPAWS. I was on the Board in 2002-2004. I am currently on the UPAWS Board since 2008.I am one of the few that gained the trust of the previous Executive Director (before 2006 and she leaving). She did not seem to trust many people. As I look back now, I know the ED loved animals and she felt that she was doing the right thing with stringent rules and regulations, but I always felt that I was defending the rules, the stringent policies. The public was not treated well a lot of the time.  I felt foolish after the change, and I like Reva, feel like I was part of it all.  I just blindly trusted the ED and what she said. The thing is I never knew was how much euthanasia was really happening — kittens, puppies, dogs, cats, rabbits… I always felt like I was walking on egg shells….never knowing exactly “what” was wrong…just having a feeling. The majority of our community disliked our shelter.  I didn’t realize to what extent until after management change.

The former management did not trust the media. When we had a huge cat neglect case in 2004, I asked why don’t we contact the local TV station and ask for help.  I was told NO that they would get the facts wrong and that we should keep this within our shelter’s close knit few. That was a turning point for me. I started to really question in my mind what was happening.   Felt sad and bad a lot of the time but I stayed for the animal’s sake. If that large neglect case would happen today – we would be contacting the media asap!

So after the change in management and the ED leaving, yes, I was of the mindset of “Oh no, we may be in trouble here”. But the animals needed us.  The first year was tough, I have to admit. There were former supporters that stood by old management and let us know that they were not happy at all with the changes. They fought the change. We lost their support but as the months went by, we gained support from others who found out we were going in a new positive life-saving path.  For me it was a rocky time but we got through it and as more animals found homes it spurred us to know we were going in the right direction. Redemption saved us!

I remember in 2005 two cats being euthanized because they were 7 years old. There was no reason to euthanize those cats, but I was told they were too old and would never adjust. I cried for them, I was so sad. I planned on leaving. I am so glad I didn’t. We adopt out senior pets all the time…and they are loved and they do adjust.

After reading Redemption I felt stronger than ever that we needed to reach out to the community by asking the TV station, radio and newspapers to help. Before the change, our website was updated every few weeks (when management had the time). We had a great looking website but it wasn’t being updated. I begged to be able to take it over to be able to keep the pets up to date. Though I did finally get more access toward the end, I knew the potential of the website was being missed. After the change, our Board voted to make a new committee called Community Relations of which I am chair. I am very proud of the accomplishments. Our website is updated every night and I take great pride in taking photos and videos and being part of writing their stories. I hear all the time from so many people in our community, “I love your website, we go on it every day!” We have a page with an article and pets for adoption in the local weekly newspaper and I am constantly faxing PSA’s to the radio stations.  Our daily newspaper prints PSA’s for us all the time and in fact, we now have a local newspaper writer who writes a column for our newsletter. We also have a local radio station that does a weekday segment for us in the afternoon, talking about two pets of the day and what UPAWS is up to. A monthly segment on a local TV show has now been added. The media does this for free for UPAWS, it costs us nothing.  Consistency is the key; I make it a priority to have UPAWS in the public eye in some way every day. I love Community Relations!

There is more to do but we know we are on the right path and we are constantly “thinking outside the box” with new adoption promotions, new ideas. But it is fun, I love it and though I work a regular paycheck job in retail, I am passionate about our shelter and the homeless pets. Nothing today gives me more joy.

Kitteh showcasing the cage free cat room at UPAWS

Lynn Andronis:

The change in direction occurred rather sharply on December 1, 2006 with a change in management. (Note: Our Director resigned – was not fired.) As a board, we had agreed with her request to not publicly announce her resignation until the end of November, even though her resignation letter was submitted in August. Our reputation in the community was such that many people refused to adopt from us and would instead travel 50 miles (or more) to adopt from another shelter. At the end of November, we began what could only be described as a “media blitz” within our community. We utilized every resource we had….press releases (for ANY reason), news articles (for ANY reason), television and radio interviews (again, for ANY reason) and having a “Grand Opening” to publicize our “new look” (a cleaning/painting job, really). The “dark hole” I was facing was a shelter full of animals, with a new attitude but no “human” clients! Sort of like…”if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?” We planned and executed the best approach we could have….but would it work? Thankfully, it did. By the time we started our “Home for the Holidays” campaign in mid-December, we had almost no cats and had to transfer them IN from another nearby shelter (our first official transfer!).

In addition, the financial hole we were during the Fall of 2006 was so large that there was a genuine fear that we would have to shut our doors. In my heart I knew that once people found out about the change in management, the adoptions/donations would increase. I knew that we wouldn’t lose supporters because of the Director’s departure. In fact, I was positive that MORE people would support us. But would the money come in time? The increase in revenue from adoptions helped us through the early months until the donations began to increase once word of our “new attitude” became better known. But, it was a stressful time for me…..would everything happen as we wanted it to, or would some part (or all) of the plan fall apart?

I also had a personal concern that at the 2007 Annual Meeting, there would be a “hostile takeover” of our board.  In past years, our members’ meeting was only attended by about 5 people, plus the board.  Unfortunately, those 5 people were rabid supporters of our previous director.  I came prepared with graphs showing a month-by-month comparison of adoption and euthanasia rates.  They showed a dramatic flip of those rates that coincided with her departure.  If this was the direction that these few members wanted for our shelter, I felt that they should be confronted with the reality of her tenure on our animals.  Fortunately, I walked into the meeting and there were almost 50 people in attendance.  I knew, at that point, that our direction was safe and so were our animals!

For me, the economic downturn in the Fall of 2008 was another potential problem. I was noticing that our admissions were increasing at a record pace, with a majority of the people citing financial difficulties. I was fearful that the economy would have a similar effect on our adoption rates and donations. Although many shelters across the country experienced increases in surrenders (as we did), they also saw decreases in adoptions (we did not). I attribute our ability during the hard financial times (and since) to the publicity that our animals receive on a continual basis (thanks to Ann for her hard work!).

The semantics of the “No-Kill” vs. “Low-Kill” was not a “dark hole” for me, but generated lots of internal debates. Once our policies and practices were changed, there was some discussion about claiming a “No Kill” status for our shelter. I (and others) take the “man on the street” approach to what exactly “no kill” means. In that common-sense view, “no kill” means never picking up the needle and frankly….we do.

In the past, our Director would never talk about our kill rates in public. I openly admit that we euthanize, but explain why this is our only alternative and our stats provide an easy explanation of our work. Because we are an open-admission shelter that also handles stray animals for our community, we have absolutely no control over what type of animals come through our doors. We accept ALL of them and for that reason we will always have to make the hard (but necessary) decision to kill (even when it is our only option). We euthanize animals that come to us so ill or injured that euthanasia is the most humane solution for that particular animal. We euthanize those dogs that come to us that would rather rip your face off than sit on your lap. We also perform Owner Requested Euthanasias if approved by staff. We don’t talk about “no kill/kill” rate – the numbers are explained as “of all the animals that came into our shelter last month (or last year), X% walked out the door on their own 4 feet.” Again, this is an easy way to describe our work to a lay-person….i.e., the “man on the street.” We have nothing to hide, but more importantly, it is the truth.

I know that many shelters across the country have been using the Asilomar Accords formula for their data collection. Unfortunately, some of these shelters are using the designations of “unhealthy” or “untreatable” to just reclassify their animals. The actual kill rates don’t change….just their designation of the animals. Personally, I view this as “spin” to make a shelter appear to change, but their internal practices have not and so the rate of killing remains the same. For example, shelters can claim to be “no kill” because they don’t kill on site, they take the animals to the vet’s office for the killing. But, HEY….their numbers “look” better to the public! No Kill/Low Kill means that the internal policies actually change so that more animals are saved. Anything other than that….in my view, is a lie. Every shelter needs to maintain their honesty/veracity within their community if they want to continue to operate successfully and save lives. (Sorry….I’ll get off my soapbox now.)

SIDE NOTE: Please note that I often use the word “kill” (instead of euthanasia) so as to not diminish the enormity of what we are doing and our responsibility.

SIDE-SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear on the issue of our past and current finances. It’s not that we are receiving substantially more donations over previous years.  We do, however, have a little bit of a “cushion” now.  It’s that we are finding homes for many more animals. We still face the same problems as many other small local shelters. Our building is 30 years old and needs work (we would love a new building, but can’t afford it); we are situated out in the “boondocks” and many people can’t find us (we would love a new location, but can’t afford it); although we have a beautiful/effective website, our shelter does not have high-speed internet access or a computerized shelter management program, all paperwork is done by hand; our staff works very hard for very little pay; there are times during the year where our census skyrockets (right now we have 70 cats….70 cats!); our volunteer board works their butts off doing what they can to help get animals adopted or pitch in at the shelter; and the list goes on. We still face many obstacles in our future and each of us involved know that our work will continue. We are all committed to that work.

A mature gentleman Beagle, currently in foster care, available for adoption at UPAWS.

Joan Mulder:

When we decided to change our shelter we knew we could make a difference in the
animals lives.  We hope that our story will inspire other open admission
shelters to turn away from the killing and start saving lives.  It CAN be
done.  No matter how small or big you are!

I first became involved at UPAWS as a volunteer in 2001.  They had a case
of 35 starved/neglected horses and since I’ve had horses all my life I
called to help out.  I then became a board member in 2003 and employed as
their bookkeeper in 2004.  During my 2 year tenure at UPAWS, I sadly
witness a high percentage of wonderful animals euthanized.  It was due to
the same old thought process, “too many animals, not enough adoptable
homes, the animals are better off dead than in a home where they could be
abused or neglected”.  The euthanasia rate was so high that there were a
few months where it was over 100% in cats (that means that they euthanized
every cat that came through the doors plus ones that had been there from
the months before).  I quit May 2005 and  met with a few board members to
discuss what was going on and I told them that I’d come back as a
volunteer and donor as soon as things changed.

I returned as a volunteer and donor the end of 2006 when the Executive
Director resigned,  and back on the board the beginning of 2007 and then I
was then elected treasurer fall 2007 to the present time.  The entire
board decided that the killing had to stop and started making changes.  A
lot of it was trial and error but we all made a firm commitment to save
every adoptable animal that came through our doors.  One of our board
members had read Redemption by Nathan Winograd and told the rest of us
about it.  I bought one of the books, read it and then bought 3 more books
to give to each board member to read and then pass on to another board
member.  Reading the book inspired the board even more that we can make a
difference and stop the killing.

We had quite a lot of hurdles we had to overcome to change our shelter.
As an open admission shelter we wondered if we could accomplish our goal
of every adoptable animal being adopted.  Our reputation in the community
prior to these changes was terrible.  Other shelters in our area would
barely even talk to us.   Law enforcement and the county prosecuting
office were angry with us.  The old “regime” that left the shelter was
doing their best to get what supporters we had to quit donating to us.  We
even were accused by some of the local vets for “warehousing” animals.  To
this day the state inspector for Michigan shelters keeps writing us up and
threatening to close our doors because we aren’t euthanizing (specifically
the cats) enough.  There were so many misconceptions about our
organization because we used to be named the Marquette County Humane
Society that people thought we got county support and that we were a part
of the Humane Society of the United States.

The first two years of changing our shelter was challenging and very
financially difficult.  We could barely cover our every day expenses.
Just about every cat in the shelter came down with an upper respiratory
infection.  In the past the standard practice in our shelter was if a cat
so much as sniffed all the cats in the shelter were euthanized.  We
decided that putting the cats down just because they had a treatable cold
was not even an option.  Some of the cats and kittens were so sick that we
had to bring them to the vet for emergency care.  Our vet bills and
medication bills went through the roof,  draining just about every last
dollar we had built up in our checking and savings account.  We had many
special board meetings to discuss how we could get more money.  I as
treasurer had many sleepless nights, up worrying about how we were going
to make ends meet.  During this time we still continued with all the life
saving efforts that we had put into place, and I’m so very proud to say
that not one board member brought up the option of putting the cats down.
We knew we were doing the right thing and continued walking down that
“yellow brick road” heading to OZ.  We had a grant that helped get dogs
spayed/neutered for low income families that we had to turn down upon
renewal because they started requiring us to implement the old thought
process that would’ve forced us to have to euthanize more dogs.

When I thought I couldn’t handle the financial stress and was just about
at the end of my rope, prayers started to be answered.  We got a
$54,000.00 bequest that let us pay off our line of credit and put a little
bit of money in our savings.  A few of our locals vets helped our shelter
manager get a handle on the upper respiratory and the cats started getting
better.  As word got out about how we’d changed more people started
donating and volunteering.  Our fundraisers started making more money.  I
know our Community Relations person (who is also a board member) will be
emailing you the details what we did to change everything.  I don’t think
there was one thing, but many that pulled us out of the black pit we were
in.  The more the public heard about what we were doing to save every
adoptable animal the more donations came in.  The media stepped up and
helped promote us and did a lot of advertising for us for free.  We
received another large bequest this past summer that has given us more
stability and is allowing us to think about starting the process of
building a bigger shelter.
When I look back at how bad it was to where we are now I can’t believe all
we’ve done.  AND we’ve done this as an open admission shelter.  All
animals are welcome at our shelter and we’ve never turned one away – from
mice, dogs, cats to snakes, chickens and horses.  We’ve done this with a
very old and small shelter, not much of a budget and a small handful or
committed board members, volunteers and staff.  I’m very proud of what
we’ve ALL accomplished.  This could never have happened without the
support of our board, staff, volunteers and the community.

Whenever we hit a hard time we’ve always kept this first and foremost,
“It’s all about the animals” nothing else matters.

Joan Mulder
Treasurer
Upper Peninsula Animal Welfare Shelter

A declawed male cat available for adoption at UPAWS.

Dayna Kennedy:

Reva asked me to email you regarding what type of behavioral issues we
handle and about what it was like for me during the change. Sometimes, I
hate calling them behavior modification programs, because it implies that
the programs take time and money to implement. I am a “dog trainer” at
heart. I love the way you can train a dog to do almost anything as long as
you know about shaping behavior and the reward process. While I hate
looking at a fearful dog baring teeth at the back of his kennel, I love
the fact that the dog will be wagging his tail at the front of the cage in
less than three days. A dog with cage aggression would have been
euthanized within the first day of stepping its paws in our shelter in the
past.

While a dog baring his teeth at someone is not adoptable, neither is a dog
that is so fearful, it will bite if provoked. So, we can either euthanize
the unadoptable dog, or treat the reason the dog is unadoptable at its
source…the fear. The same principle holds true for almost any animal that
enters a shelter with varying backgrounds. Sometimes, we see the biggest
changes in food aggression by hand feeding meals and sometimes, the
process is more involved. For the most part, we use the ASPCA’s behavior
modification programs, but the biggest thing I have learned is that there
is no right or wrong modification protocol for every scenario. If an
animal is cage aggressive and we only leave them alone when they have
stopped growling, we just made that animal adoptable again. If an animal
is cage aggressive, we might be able to address the aggression by just
allowing the animal time away from all of the other animals until they
have adjusted. The biggest thing is that we do something to change the
animal’s behavior. Our building is old and not very conducive to
rehabilitating animals, but we make do. We let a dog behind the front
desk. We exercise the animals. We let the animals live in the office if
they don’t do well in their kennel. We rely on volunteers to spend time
with the animals. We use foster homes. We train the animals. We give them
a hiding spot. We do what we have to do to help the animals. Please
notice, that none of these things require a lot of money to implement!

As far as my darkest hour in regards to the way our shelter was changing,
there wasn’t one. I started working here in 2003. I saw the ad for a
minimum wage job working with animals and thought…perfect! I had only been
in the area for two months before I got the job of animal care giver. I
loved working with the animals. Training the difficult dogs was the most
rewarding. I would then have my heart broke when the dog I had been
training was euthanized. I quickly learned to not ask my supervisors too
many questions, because they were always met with excuses. I was
frustrated every day. I would hoard magazine and website articles and I
researched animal sheltering practices and brought these to the director’s
attention. I could advocate for the animal and for changing, but I never
won the argument in the end. I would hold the animals as they were
needlessly killed. I don’t know if I will ever forgive myself for not
finding a way to stop it.

There were so many times I wanted to walk out the doors. I wondered why on
earth anyone would even come to our shelter to adopt. We had terrible
customer service and getting a new pet was like pulling teeth. When I
adopted my puppy, I had been working here for a year, and still had to sit
through an hour of ridiculous “counseling”. I can’t pinpoint why I stayed.
It may have been I wanted to give the animals as much as I could before
they were killed. It may have been that I saw the “burn out” in the
director’s eyes and knew I wanted her job someday. It may have been that I
knew in my heart this is where I was meant to work.

Anybody that knows me knows I am an optimist. I can’t say I ever thought
we had hit a dark point with the changes. I never knew how big of a change
we could make, I just kept thinking, if we can save one scared kitten just
by holding it every single day, it wouldn’t be enough, but it would be a
step in the right direction.  I had heard the board and the director were
facing some head to head challenges, but really, I didn’t care. All I ever
thought about through the whole process was what type of organization this
could be to work for. Now, it is a great one!!! I never imagined so many
lives could be saved! I am glad I stayed.

Sincerely,
Dayna Kennedy
Shelter Manager
Upper Peninsula Animal Welfare Shelter (UPAWS)
906-475-6661

UPAWS: Doing It

This is the story of the Marquette Co Humane Society in MI – but it could be your local shelter’s story too.  During the period from 1999-2006, the private open-admission shelter was killing 60% of the pets in their care.  Their administrator had been in place for decades and was very resistant to change.  The shelter operated under policies rooted in myths and fallacies.  Numerous complaints were brought before the Board.  In the summer of 2006, they were very close to ceasing operations when a longtime volunteer introduced the Board to Nathan Winograd’s book Redemption.  The Board decided to implement some major changes to the shelter and things started to improve dramatically.  From a recent letter sent by the Board President Reva Laituri to the No Kill Advocacy Center:

Although we were still fearful, the results spoke for themselves and we realized we could save lives and do it without condemning animals to fates ‘worse than death” as we had been routinely warned. As more animals went into homes instead of garbage bags, the direction we had chosen to take was validated and many of the fears and premises we had based our policies on were proven to be invalid.

The letter outlines the changes at the shelter over a 2 year transition period (2006-2008).  During that time, the Board began investigating complaints and made greater use of volunteers.  The shelter torched their blame-the-public philosophy, replacing it with a let-us-help-you-find-the-right-pet, adopter friendly attitude.  The administrator and some staff members who could not get on board with the changes were replaced by people dedicated to saving lives.  A new manager expanded shelter hours as well as the foster program.  Rescue groups were welcomed, Petfinder and social media sites were utilized, offsite adoption events were held and interactions with the public were significantly improved.

For the past two years, the shelter has continued and expanded upon their new programs.  They have reached out to the business community for partnerships and kept an open line of communication between the shelter and the public.  People in the community are quick to respond to special needs cases because they want to be part of the effort to save as many pets’ lives as possible.   Another change was the name of the shelter – from the Marquette Co Humane Society to the Upper Peninsula Animal Welfare Shelter (UPAWS).  I asked Reva Laituri the reason for the name change and she explained there was a widespread misconception “that we are a part of, or in some way affiliated with The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).  This leads to two problems.  First, they think we receive funding from our “parent” organization and second, they believe we subscribe to all the same views and stances taken by HSUS.  Neither of which is true.”  UPAWS included the community in the selection of a new name by taking suggestions from the public.

But the best news of all about the past two years at UPAWS comes in numerical form.  93 to be exact.  UPAWS has saved over 93% of the pets coming through the doors of their open-admission shelter for the past two years.  Goodbye myths and resistant-to-change shelter staff, HELLO LIFESAVING!

I asked Ms. Laituri about any doubts or fears the shelter staff experienced during their transition period:

[S]ome of us were afraid remote adoptathons would result in impulse purchases and that many of the animals would be returned or dumped someplace.  That didn’t happen.  We were terrified that reducing adoption fees would result in a loss of income that we could not afford.  What happened is that people wanted to start sponsoring pet adoptions to supplement the lost income from the fee reductions.  This happened spontaneously.  People loved being able to see their dollars at work and know they helped a particular animal find a home.  We then feared that the people who began sponsoring adoptions were just re-directing their donations.  They weren’t.  These sponsorships went over and above what they had been giving before.  Everybody won.  Animals found homes.  The shelter gained good PR, more supporters (through happy sponsors and adopters), and the sponsors felt good, seeing their dollars at work.  And donations, in general increased as people started seeing the changes.  And surprisingly, the results started showing up pretty quickly.

Two things reinforced our belief we were headed in the right direction.  The first was our stats.  You can’t ignore that fact that with each change you made, big or little, more lives were being saved.  The numbers stared us in the face every day.  The second was the feedback from the community – both in word and deed.  Donations increased, adoptions increased, more people wanted to volunteer at the shelter or foster home pets, we began hearing about what we were doing right instead of what we were doing wrong (it was so nice not having to defend indefensible policies!), and people wanted to connect with us again and be part of these life-saving programs.  Adopters were no longer driving past our shelter to go another 100-150 miles to visit another shelter.

In addition, she shared challenges that she personally faced as the shelter went through major changes. I think her candor will touch many of you involved with your local shelter:

[T]wo things I found difficult were first, accepting there was a ideological chasm that was widening between me and our Executive Director who I had considered a friend for over 20 years, and facing the reality that like her, I had been so indoctrinated with the whole idea that euthanasia was necessary and in fact, even the preferred alternative, that I had subscribed to, and condoned so many deaths.  I know she deeply cared about animals and couldn’t understand why she couldn’t see that in setting impossible standards for both the animals and people to meet, instead of saving their lives, it was costing them.  I love animals, always have.  And I have had to accept that I had a hand in killing so many of them needlessly because I didn’t question the accepted practices and blindly accepted everything I was told.  Euthanasia is necessary because of irresponsible pet owners.  If people can’t meet our standards they shouldn’t own a pet.  Pets put up for adoption shouldn’t have any behavioral or medical problems.  The best thing for an old pet was to euthanize it because they couldn’t adjust to a new home. And on and on.  False premises based on I-don’t-know-what.

I also asked Ms. Laituri how UPAWS is doing financially now that they are saving so many pets instead of killing them:

Financially, we have no bills in arrears and in fact, have set aside three months operating reserves and are working at building that up to six months.  We are looking toward the future in terms of building a new shelter.  A big reason for the financial turnaround is because of a couple of bequests.  However, I can’t help but wonder if we would have gotten those bequests had we been operating the way we were.  In addition to the bequests, we have seen significant increases in memorial donations and honorariums.  For as long as I can remember, donations have traditionally drastically declined during January and February as well as again in June and July.  That hasn’t happened the last couple of years.  Even during these last few years of a bad economy, we have held steady, and even improved.

As chair of the fundraising committee, I have also noticed that more and more people want to do third party fundraisers for us, including businesses who want to set up programs that would donate portions of their proceeds from events or products to us.  And if we have a special need – like a new furnace, a storage building or an animal needing expensive surgery, we put it on our website and typically have the money in 1-3 days (animal needs the quickest).   Although I’ve now seen this happen many times, it still amazes me how quickly people respond.

So much for no kill costing too much money.  So much for the irresponsible public.  So much for needless killing.  UPAWS proves shelters can save lives, involve the community and remain financially sound.

I’m hoping to have a second post about UPAWS next week with input from additional shelter staff members.  Stay tuned.

One Small Step: NC Shelter Becomes More Rescue Friendly

Remember Renee Sisk?  She’s the Craven Co District 4 Commissioner who tried to intervene to prevent the local shelter from needlessly killing a healthy puppy who had an adopter waiting.  Ms. Sisk has “vowed to make county animal shelter reform her top priority until she leaves office at the end of the year”.  Schweet, huh?

The Animal Services Center in Craven Co appears to provide killing as its main service:

The county’s animal control shelter euthanizes 87 percent of its dogs and 94 percent of its cats. Thousands of animals pass through the shelter each year.

Unbelievably, with those kill stats, the shelter has been charging a $20 pull fee to non-profit groups trying to rescue pets from death row.  Ms. Sisk has put an end to that and rescues can now pull pets without being charged.  In addition, she has some straight talk for pet owners in Craven Co:

Sisk encourages community residents to not rely on county animal control to find a new home for pets they can no longer keep.

“Don’t think they’re going to rescue it,” Sisk said at the open commissioners meeting. “It’s going to go in the front door, be euthanized and out the back door.”

Is that ok with Craven Co taxpayers?

Web Non-Alert: DE Saving the Lives of Shelter Pets

I recently posted about what is really a pretty big deal for shelter pets in Delaware and potentially for shelter pets in every state in the country which might choose to follow suit.  Basically, Delaware is affording multiple, mandatory statewide protections to pets in shelters including the stipulation that killing is a last resort.  For those of us hoping to see no kill become a nationally embraced philosophy in our lifetimes, this is huge.  H-U-G-E.

I wanted to check out the reactions of the big national animal welfare groups to the great news in Delaware.  I began by doing a Google search but came up with nothing beyond local and regional coverage.  So I went to the websites of the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Best Friends Animal Society.

HSUS wants the public to know how to help butterflies keep cool in the heat, ASPCA tells us how we can win tickets to Lilith Fair, and BFAS is promoting spay-neuter on puppies and kittens (which I oppose, but that’s for another post).  I know all three of these organizations to be extremely web savvy.  So why couldn’t I find even a mere mention of the groundbreaking legislation to protect shelter pets in DE?  Did I simply miss it?  Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Perhaps even more curious, BFAS did post a link to an article in 2008 where Nathan Winograd talks about the possibility of Delaware becoming a no kill state.  If Best Friends was interested in this issue for DE in 2008, why are they not reporting on this giant leap forward for the state now?

After failing to find anything from the “big three” animal welfare groups, I continued searching the web for other reactions.  I found something from the Animal Law Coalition praising the DE legislation but cutting on those who supported Oreo’s Law in NY at the same time:

The Delaware law focuses on building working relationships between shelters and rescues to save as many animal lives as possible and at the same time ensuring that they don’t end up in a hoarding or other situation where they are abused or neglected.  It’s unfortunate the proponents of Oreo’s Law would not consider amendments similar to the Delaware law.

Is this a fair criticism?  Are the proponents of Oreo’s Law who allegedly refused to consider these amendments different from those who worked on the DE legislation?  Of course there will be state differences as far as who worked on the two laws – animal advocates in NY and those in DE.  But what about the national group behind these two laws?  Wasn’t the No Kill Advocacy Center behind both?  And is it necessary to buzzkill the wonderful success in DE by throwing sand in the eyes of fellow animal advocates?

Nathan Winograd also mentions Oreo’s Law and the DE Companion Animal Protection Act but has a very different take:

Like Oreo’s Law sought to do, the Delaware Companion Animal Protection Act mandates collaboration between shelters and rescue groups. A shelter cannot kill an animal if a rescue group is willing to save that animal’s life.

To read more about the exciting news from Delaware – including the law itself – visit the No Kill Advocacy Center.

A Pretty Big Deal

…for shelter pets in Delaware, and potentially for shelter pets of every state in the country which might aspire to follow the same path:

Across the state and the country, animal rights supporters are praising legislation passed by the General Assembly in June to codify rules for the treatment and care of animals in Delaware shelters.

[...]

Shelter administrators say the new standards will drive down euthanasia numbers and put Delaware on the road to becoming the first “no kill” state in the country.

Some key points in the legislation:

• Shelter pets must be vaccinated within 8 hours of intake
• 3 day mandatory hold for found pets
• Shelters must maintain online lost and found listings

And:

After five days, the shelter can euthanize an unclaimed animal, but only if there is no available space to house the animal and it can’t be handed over to a private rescue group or placed in foster care.

Basically, the law increases a shelter pet’s chances of staying healthy, being reunited with the owner if lost, and being kept alive to be adopted if homeless.

Nathan Winograd has lots more details in a positively giddy post on his blog.

Congratulations Delaware!

(If I’m dreaming, please don’t wake me up.)