What holds us back from joining the no kill revolution?

First, thanks to the person who made the anonymous comment ...

... about getting turned off at our shelter's door just by a sign that started exhibiting a negative, distrusting atmosphere before this person entered to look for a dog to adopt. And, I hope more people in the public will start to speak up about their experiences. I say this not because I encourage mean-spiritedness with no purpose, but because I honestly believe that in order to improve and get to no kill, the first step is for our shelter to take a self-critical, sobering look at itself through the eyes of the many good people they turn off and away, which does directly tie into the numbers of animals that get killed.

Let's not let the no kill phrase get in the way of working toward lifesaving

No kill as a term seems to send everyone on different loops—from a person off the streets who is not familiar with shelter lingo to animal-welfare advocates and shelter professionals who work regularly in this world and especially for leaders in our communities who don’t think animal welfare warrants the time, money, and staff necessary to do the kind of heavy research it takes to muddle through the world of no kill much less lead the efforts toward a change in philosophy and the way shelters do business.

Some people I know prefer to use the term low kill, and Maddie’s Fund started shying away from the term no kill—probably because success has been slow for this program despite the hundreds of millions dedicated to it—and started calling shelters “adoption guarantee” when they reach their goals of adopting out all “healthy” animals. To me, we spend too much time worrying about and arguing about terminology. Even terms like healthy, adoptable, treatable (medically/behaviorally), and all the other terms that are used in shelters are relative to the way they are either equitably and thoroughly applied--or, as is the case in most shelters, not applied fairly. Furthermore, statistics from one shelter to another are not easily comparable because these numbers are not collected and reported on in the same ways at all shelters. Only programs like Maddie’s Fund and the matrix suggested by the No Kill Advocacy Center are starting to standardize statistics across the board, but anyone can skew their own statistics with the way they categorize the incoming animals. Confusing is just the tip of the iceberg.

No kill from the No Kill Advocacy Center’s point of view is simple. It means not killing any healthy and treatable animals that can and should be saved and reserving euthanasia only for the dictionary definition of the word—giving a humane death to those who are irremediably suffering because of illness or injury, to those with a poor prognosis for recovery from an illness, and to those seriously vicious dogs that pose a threat to our community. In this sense of no kill, one can see what they mean ... if you reach the goal of only performing euthanasia in the true sense of the word, then you are no longer killing ... hence, you have reached no kill.

Determining which animals fall in which categories takes trained medical and behavioral professionals and a commitment to assess and route animals on an individual basis. Otherwise, animals are assessed less fairly and thoroughly, such as deciding to kill one dog over another for simply being of a certain breed or color or age or just not as “cute” as some others (the fate of most pit bulls, for example) or because the dog is behaving in a shy, fearful manner (understandable behavior in a shelter setting).

People in the general public are understandably confused. Recently, our shelter’s new leadership announced a no kill goal and said it would take five to seven years to get there. All people saw and registered in the headlines and news bites were the words no kill. To regular people, this means we are there NOW. All those animals they are having issues with—the ones that escape and jump out, the ones that dig too many holes in the yard, the ones that bark all night out of sheer boredom, the cats that spray the house, the ones who were toylike and cute as puppies and kittens but grew up to be annoying without leadership and attention to the animals’ needs—well, all those animals are ending up at our shelter even more so than in the past.

This is where the community needs to understand that things aren’t that simple that someone snaps their fingers and the shelter suddenly grows in its capacity and the services and programs it offers. That does take time. Whether it takes a year to make strides or a few years to completely reach the goal are also arguments that take our focus away from what matters most—which is action and taking it now. Even discussions that say increased funding is needed first can make it so no one acts until that happens, and all we are doing is wasting more time and more lives.

This is where Richard Avanzino and Maddie’s Fund are teaching us some lessons. When Avanzino took over the San Francisco ASPCA in the early 1990s, he had zero experience running shelters and the non-profit was three months away from bankruptcy. He didn’t wait for funding; he started acting. He is the grandfather of comprehensive adoption programs, one of the necessary elements leading to no kill. That’s why Maddie’s Fund focuses so much on this aspect, but what this is showing is that if you throw millions toward that aspect alone, your success will be marginal. All of the comprehensive no kill programs and services need to be happening at the same time. When that started working in San Francisco, Avanzino not only pulled that SPCA out of bankruptcy but grew it into one of the richest shelter non-profits at that time and by 1994, San Francisco was the safest community for homeless animals.

So, let it take as long as it takes, and don’t worry about that in the beginning, but start working toward implementing all the programs and services that help bring it about TODAY, especially beginning with the sheer willpower to stop the needless killing—whatever it takes. This set of To Dos for shelters is simple (see my last blog for the high-level list), and though each can be tailored for each community and tweaked or added to, that should not stop us from moving forward now. For too long, our leaders here have been talking about our shelter being in transition since the city and county took over operations of it in January. That has gone on for about eight months now.

It’s time for all of us—advocates like myself and those in the general public that are responsible pet owners and anyone who cares at all about animal welfare—whether we all can agree on the terminology or not, to ask that this time of transition come to an end and some real talk and action begin toward the various programs and services that are going to get us there.

Start asking the tough questions and demand answers. Our animal services are made possible by either our tax dollars or charitable contributions, so we are all stakeholders in reaching the no kill goal and for the welfare of the animals in our system. For example, Dona Ana County recently purchased a van that could be out in the South part of the county today providing volume spay/neuter services, and this is where 60% of the strays brought into the shelter by animal control come from. So, what are they waiting for? More questions to ask that can lead to action: How can we get more funding to the spay/neuter programs that do exist to launch an aggressive PR campaign using radio and print media and billboards? Who can go start knocking on doors to ask people what is preventing them from fixing their pets, and how can we overcome these obstacles in proactive, positive ways?

Lastly, the entire community needs to be allowed and welcomed to support the shelter in tackling and implementing each and every service and program that needs to be in place. Starting work on these programs does not take years' worth of time. Maybe the full benefits may take years to materialize, but there should be measurable progress made year-by-year to show you are headed in the right direction. Then, maybe the funding and other opportunities will present themselves when we prove that we deserve them.

Terminology: Killing vs. Euthanasia, Acceptable Homes for Pets, and More

I use the term "kill" in this blog very deliberately because No Kill's entire goal is to reach a time when only "euthanasias" are performed in our nation's shelters, and this is not the case today. The dictionary definition of euthanasia is to humanely end the life of an animal that is hopelessly sick, injured, and suffering, as well as seriously vicious dogs that pose a threat to the public. According to the No Kill Advocacy Center's research, more than 90 percent of animals entering shelters do not fit these categories, and finding alternatives for feral (wild) cats is key as well. The last place a feral cat belongs is in a shelter, where it will meet with death each and every time.

When necessary to end an animal's suffering or protect people from dangerous dogs, and these decisions need to be made with the utmost of care and assessment, euthanasias that are performed should be carried out in the most humane and respectful way possible. Otherwise, shelters are treating animals in the way they criticize the public of doing -- as throwaway, disposable.

In some twisted sense of logic, or maybe to be able to sleep better at night, it could be that shelters have to tell themselves that in the end, they are "rescuing" animals from a sure life at the end of chain (or being relinquished to a shelter again in the distant future) because all shelters see and concentrate on is the worse of the worst. That's part of that endless loop of killing that shelters are stuck in at this moment, except for some examples throughout the U.S. that show no kill is within our reach, and not in some distant, miraculous future.

The Role of Spay/Neuter in No Kill Programs

Without a doubt, spay and neuter is one of the programs of the No Kill Equation, and not just access to low-cost options but efforts made to get out in the public (especially areas that do not spay/neuter as much) and perform high volumes of surgeries. In my last post, I provided a link to the Best Friends site and some articles that talk about these efforts. I also provided a recent example of success in running a spay/neuter van in Chaparral for one weekend and how great the need is to get back there and to other areas like it to provide these and other services (vaccinations, microchipping, etc.).

It is widely known that finance is the biggest barrier to most people not fixing their pets and that people with high incomes are four times as likely to spay and neuter. With surgeries running over $100 these days (and that's without the pre-surgery blood test costs that vets recommend), that is not surprising, especially now with average income families struggling more than usual. And, even in this community, when I am out talking to the general public, most of them are not aware of the two low-cost/no-cost options in our community now -- SNAP and FSNP. Why is that, and how do we get the word out and encourage people to use these options more, and what other services can we provide to increase the volume?

I agree wholeheartedly with the anonymous comment I got from the person who said spay/neuter is key. This person also made reference to issues of overcrowding in shelters trying to "get to" no kill. That is a mistake shelters make -- announcing this as a goal for years and years out. The general public is not well-informed, so I can see where more animals are turned in by people washing their hands of the animal and assuming it will not die. That is what was happening here of late.

However, the other important point is that no kill IS an act of will for a shelter -- starting from the day you make the proclamation to stop the killing. If you are in that mindset, you exhaust every option before death and look for alternatives and become self-critical to improve. And, though no one would say success comes overnight, it has been shown that major strides can be made in a year's time. Engaging the support of everyone in the public is key and educating them of the programs needed and how to support them will help move away from simple overcrowding to options for moving animals out on a timely basis.

What is the No Kill Equation?

This equation is a set of comprehensive programs that shelters have to rigorously put into place from Day 1 to make real strides toward the reduction in the percentage of animals being killed. I'll explain each in more detail as this blog progresses and how our community could accomplish these programs, but here's the simple, high-level list out of the No Kill Advocacy Center's documentation (http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/nokillequation.html):

I. Implementation of a feral cat TNR program
II. High-volume, low-cost spay/neuter services and support
III. Partnering with rescue groups
IV. Building a foster care network
V. Comprehensive adoption programs
VI. Pet retention efforts and services
VII. Medical and behavioral rehabilitation
VIII. Public relations/community involvement
IX. Establishing a big volunteer base of support
X. Hiring a compassionate director

What did I mean by adopting animals to less-than-perfect homes, and how does that impact killing rates?

I got a great comment from "bowser" out of the South Valley who--along with others--probably misunderstood a previous comment I made that shelters are overly picky about who they adopt to and that they often turn away good, acceptable homes based on some ideal of perfection for their shelter animals or based on the "bad" owners they deal with daily, yet the irony is that many that are rejected would probably love and care for their pets very adequately, while the alternative is probably death in shelters with kill rates of 70+ percent.

To be honest, the rate of killing is not solely tied to the "bad" people out there, and based on the 165 million animals in households throughout the U.S. today, that 5 million of those end up dying in shelters is tragic, but that means 160 million are cared for and in their homes, and of these, it would be interesting to learn how many are neglected/abused. I'd have to guess that that percentage is also a lesser number than those well cared for. It is these other types of people -- the decent people -- that shelters need to try to find to adopt their animals.

As someone who volunteers and runs off-site adoptions for organizations in our area, I want to assure you that I would never make the decision to adopt to a person who had plans to tie up a dog 24/7 or who was getting a dog for solely utilitarian purposes -- that's not the way to reach no kill. In talking to a person, these motives are usually revealed. I have had to reject a few adopters for several reasons. However, this is done carefully ... weighing the quality of life the animal will have with this person (as far as you can tell) vs. dying at the shelter now, and this subjective decision should be made by well-trained adoption counselors based on a series of open-ended questions instead of check boxes on a form. There is the element of the unknown, and shelters do have animals returned regularly post-adoption. However, to not adopt out to avoid a return is not giving an animal a new chance at life, is it?

Everything is connected in the no kill programs ... pet relinquishment in an "open-admission" shelter such as ours means our shelter has to accept any animal dumped on them; however, the staff could make efforts to counsel and talk to the people and try to determine the reason for the relinquishment. If it is a behavioral or environmental issue that could be resolved, perhaps just giving the people the advice and tools they need would help mitigate some relinquishments. Giving them the sobering truth in a non-judgmental way, and requiring a tour of the shelter, might also help turn that tide. Pet retention services and education are needed because though shelters have always concentrated on humane education for youth, what about advice and education for adults that sometimes don't know any better but might do better if given the choice and other options to try?

There is no benefit of the doubt at shelters ... it seems to me like someone walking into a shelter to adopt is already trying to do the right thing, or -- like 80+ percent of the people in our nation -- they would be getting a pet from a breeder or unknowingly from a puppy mill via a pet store or the Internet. So, to automatically assume that each of these interested adopters will be like the bad people shelters deal with daily is very skewed in one direction.

I wonder what would happen if bowser did a check of his/her entire neighborhood and how most of the pets in the area are cared for? Are most tied up, or do some have a decent life? Is a decent life only one that is "perfect", and what does that mean?

I'll give you an example I heard about from our shelter recently. A woman was interested in adopting a golden retriever or mix and was told by a friend of hers, a volunteer, that one was available at the shelter. She stopped by and was asked to fill out a full application before she could see the dogs available for adoption. One of the policies at our shelter is to not adopt out to "outdoor-only" homes for dogs. However, they go one step further and ask the person where the animal will be kept "during the day". This woman said the dog would be "outside" in the daytime, and she was told that her application was rejected, and she was not allowed to see the dogs.

She turned around and adopted a dog a few days later at a sanctuary instead, where she was asked a series of questions that led to more information. The woman lived on two secure acres; the dog would be inside with the family in the evenings (after work) and given proper care; and there was plenty of shade and protection from the elements for the dog outside. So, ironically, a sanctuary that does not engage in any killing and can be very particular about who it adopts to approved this woman's adoption vs. a shelter that is still killing many, many animals.

I ask, does this make sense? What has happened to our animal-protection systems that they routinely make decisions toward death in the name of doing what is "best" and from some twisted sense of love for "their" animals that anything short of perfection is not enough?

That's why these decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis, and not by a standardized form. Decisions need to be made fairly and from an objective perspective despite the only picture most shelter staff have in their minds of the public pet owner is a dog at the end of a chain. This is a great challenge to most shelter staff, who understandably think the worst of everyone but in doing so often set animals up to die and punish the good people out there, which -- again -- far outnumber the bad. This then leads to more animals being disposed of in our landfill.

In the adoption counseling curriculum I developed for a local humane society that conducts offsite adoptions, there are clear guidelines for what makes a good, acceptable home, and they are as follows:

• It seems like a good match between the chosen pet and adopter/family
• The pet’s social, behavioral, and companionship needs will be met
• The pet will have a livable, comfortable environment
• The pet will receive the needed veterinary care
• The pet will be respected, valued, and not abused/neglected

Even some of these can mean different things to different types of dogs. For example, a pit bull or other dog that lives well in hot weather can stand to spend some time outside on a hot day in our climate while putting a winter dog like a husky through this is more troublesome. Maybe an owner has some other accommodations for the pet as well, such as a misting system on a timer that will cool the dog off throughout the day. You would not learn this without an in-depth conversation.

There might be an outside-only dog that gets daily play sessions and walks vs. one that is completely abandoned and ignored. It is these kinds of shades of gray from which adoption counselors must work and make the determination that a life with this family is better or worse than death. The less a shelter has to put animals to death, the more and more restrictive they can become, if they so choose.

Nevertheless, I agree that a lifetime at the end of a chain is a slow, sad, unfortunate death for many dogs, who are social, pack animals that have to be a part of their families in one way or another. In that extreme case, death today is better than death at the end of a chain.

Thanks, FixAustin.org!

I was very humbled to find a comment from a group that I want to model my no kill study group after: FixAustin.org. Thank you for reading this blog, and I hope to join you in your efforts and other groups like yours in the near future. I know we all believe in our hearts that a "no kill nation is within our reach"--the mantra of the No Kill Advocacy Center.