The SOMa Dog and Cat Animal Life Saving Thread
Feb 16, 2015 at 8:29am Edited
A great tool to help you find a pet, except that the JAC has not closed its account, and their pets are still showing as adoptable: http://www.theshelterpetproject.org/
What a great thread to start, Copihue, and some great ideas.
I especially like your idea of have animal adoption days in our community--that will be a big help.
I am happy to pitch in.
I especially like your idea of have animal adoption days in our community--that will be a big help.
I am happy to pitch in.
terryterry,
it's great that you want to volunteer. Contact Lisa at Puppy Love to tell her of your willingness to help.
it's great that you want to volunteer. Contact Lisa at Puppy Love to tell her of your willingness to help.
Copihue said:
A great tool to help you find a pet, except that the JAC has not closed its account, and their pets are still showing as adoptable: http://www.theshelterpetproject.org/
The JAC still exists as a rescue organization and is still trying to find homes for a few remaining dogs that were moved to foster homes when the shelter shut down.
kthnry said:
Copihue said:
A great tool to help you find a pet, except that the JAC has not closed its account, and their pets are still showing as adoptable: http://www.theshelterpetproject.org/
The JAC still exists as a rescue organization and is still trying to find homes for a few remaining dogs that were moved to foster homes when the shelter shut down.
Thanks for the clarification, kthnry.
Network of no-kill shelters in New Jersey: http://www.nokillnetwork.org/d/New-Jersey/
Feb 18, 2015 at 2:53am Edited
At the end of last night's TC meeting Joe Manning confirmed that SO's RFP is for a veterinarian service for the Walton Avenue shelter. He said he expects to receive the document from SO by Friday, and that he is looking to make sure that there are provisions for animal surrenders from owners as well as robust procedures to get animals rehomed.
He quoted AHS/Newark as having taken in three animals from Maplewood in January 2015. One dead dog for cremation, 1 live dog and one live cat. Those figures are in alignment with Debbe Hadu's perceptions of what she saw in 8.5 hrs as our ACO. She also stated that the bulk of the animals come at one time, from hoarders, and these are usually cats. Given the small need during normal times, renting the Walton St facility does not seem unreasonable to me. Maplewood Loves Animals would prefer a local shelter at the Walton Ave facility, but if that is what the townships are considering, we are willing to make the effort to make it work.
Here are our concerns:
For how long will the lease be? how long will this solution have to prove that it can handle our animal control needs? the TNVR program got three years.
What provisions will be made for the times when the vet's office is flooded with animals from hoarders?
Industry guidelines suggest 1 ACO for every 15,000 in population. We will have one. That person is going to be overwhelmed with work taking care of animals. Who will coordinate the coordinate the services of the vet, the ACO, the tnvr, the rescue, the volunteers, the animals, the marketing?
Record keeping has been appalling. Who will be responsible for knowing who comes in to the vet’s office and where the animals goes? How will this information be distributed?
Most animals are rescued in a short period of time, but some are not, they linger. What will happen to them? how long before they are killed? What criteria will be used in determining whether the animal is adoptable for not?
He quoted AHS/Newark as having taken in three animals from Maplewood in January 2015. One dead dog for cremation, 1 live dog and one live cat. Those figures are in alignment with Debbe Hadu's perceptions of what she saw in 8.5 hrs as our ACO. She also stated that the bulk of the animals come at one time, from hoarders, and these are usually cats. Given the small need during normal times, renting the Walton St facility does not seem unreasonable to me. Maplewood Loves Animals would prefer a local shelter at the Walton Ave facility, but if that is what the townships are considering, we are willing to make the effort to make it work.
Here are our concerns:
For how long will the lease be? how long will this solution have to prove that it can handle our animal control needs? the TNVR program got three years.
What provisions will be made for the times when the vet's office is flooded with animals from hoarders?
Industry guidelines suggest 1 ACO for every 15,000 in population. We will have one. That person is going to be overwhelmed with work taking care of animals. Who will coordinate the coordinate the services of the vet, the ACO, the tnvr, the rescue, the volunteers, the animals, the marketing?
Record keeping has been appalling. Who will be responsible for knowing who comes in to the vet’s office and where the animals goes? How will this information be distributed?
Most animals are rescued in a short period of time, but some are not, they linger. What will happen to them? how long before they are killed? What criteria will be used in determining whether the animal is adoptable for not?
Is the meeting posted online yet? I am curious as to how it was phrased. Is SO looking for a vet to work for the municipal shelter or is the vet to have the shelter in its entirety and afford some space to SOMA. Is the RFP being posted publicly? Are all vets being informed and offered this opportunity? I know so far that is not true and at least one vet heard nothing from the town.
Are other shelters or rescues being notified? Or have a few calls been made as was done recently in Maplewood? Have only the two or three we keep hearing about been approached?
Anyway, as a rescue I requested a copy of the RFP and offered to show it to a couple of vets and rescues.
I'll post if I get one.
Are other shelters or rescues being notified? Or have a few calls been made as was done recently in Maplewood? Have only the two or three we keep hearing about been approached?
Anyway, as a rescue I requested a copy of the RFP and offered to show it to a couple of vets and rescues.
I'll post if I get one.
@Morganna, Joe Manning's comments were made after the meeting was over. He still does not have a copy of the final proposal, so that is why no one else has it.
But the more I think about the proposal, the more I realize that in their effort to make some money by hiring the facility to a vet, the South Orange Township is taking on the responsibility of managing the animal sheltering process of the two towns. They have to coordinate the functions of the vet/ACO, rescue, tnvr, volunteers, potential adopters and residents looking for their pets. They will need to make sure that the record keeping is accurate, making sure that the marketing/rehoming effort of dogs and cats is effective or their kill rate will skyrocket, and they'll need to provide oversight to the process if something begins to go south. They will need to do all of this with one less ACO and no full-time manager. what city runs a shelter for 40,074 inhabitants with 1 ACO and no manager?
I hope that they thought this through, but given some of the other decisions that have been made, I am left to wonder.
But the more I think about the proposal, the more I realize that in their effort to make some money by hiring the facility to a vet, the South Orange Township is taking on the responsibility of managing the animal sheltering process of the two towns. They have to coordinate the functions of the vet/ACO, rescue, tnvr, volunteers, potential adopters and residents looking for their pets. They will need to make sure that the record keeping is accurate, making sure that the marketing/rehoming effort of dogs and cats is effective or their kill rate will skyrocket, and they'll need to provide oversight to the process if something begins to go south. They will need to do all of this with one less ACO and no full-time manager. what city runs a shelter for 40,074 inhabitants with 1 ACO and no manager?
I hope that they thought this through, but given some of the other decisions that have been made, I am left to wonder.
Well did it sound like the vet is taking over the shelter?
Or is the town running the shelter and leasing an area to the vet?
If it is the vet running a private shelter, they will have little control. That was what was done with the JAC.
The JAC was to take in strays from the ACOs, no ferals, no private surrenders and no animals from hoarding situations.
This infuriated people in town who wanted to bring in found animals and were told that they had to come from the ACO. This is pretty common.
Of course exceptions were made. As a volunteer years ago, I did see a man bring in a beagle and it was accepted. It was a small dog and it got adopted in days. I guess the decisions were made based on room and quick adoptability.
Pretty standard stuff.
I've volunteered at many shelters and the rules do not vary too much.
What does vary is the kill rate.
A person who just adopted a kitten that my friend was fostering had gone to St. Huberts. They saw a litter of kittens coming in from out of the area and heard it said that the kittens were feral so they would have to be killed. The family left horrified.
Pretty shocking stuff for those of us who right now are fostering kittens who just need a little love to come around.
It is frustrating to have to explain to everyone that Kill does not only apply to the very ill or the very dangerous. When kitten season kicks in, kittens get killed.
I'm with your efforts %100.
Or is the town running the shelter and leasing an area to the vet?
If it is the vet running a private shelter, they will have little control. That was what was done with the JAC.
The JAC was to take in strays from the ACOs, no ferals, no private surrenders and no animals from hoarding situations.
This infuriated people in town who wanted to bring in found animals and were told that they had to come from the ACO. This is pretty common.
Of course exceptions were made. As a volunteer years ago, I did see a man bring in a beagle and it was accepted. It was a small dog and it got adopted in days. I guess the decisions were made based on room and quick adoptability.
Pretty standard stuff.
I've volunteered at many shelters and the rules do not vary too much.
What does vary is the kill rate.
A person who just adopted a kitten that my friend was fostering had gone to St. Huberts. They saw a litter of kittens coming in from out of the area and heard it said that the kittens were feral so they would have to be killed. The family left horrified.
Pretty shocking stuff for those of us who right now are fostering kittens who just need a little love to come around.
It is frustrating to have to explain to everyone that Kill does not only apply to the very ill or the very dangerous. When kitten season kicks in, kittens get killed.
I'm with your efforts %100.
TNR will cut down on the kitten rate. Not eliminate it, but cut it down. Now's the time to put this into action.
An interview with Adam Loehner on the RFP to be issued by South Orange for shared animal control and sheltering.
http://villagegreennj.com/towns/government/south-orange-issue-rfp-animal-control-services/
South Orange township will soon issue an RFP (Request for Proposals) for animal control and sheltering to serve both South Orange and Maplewood.
“[The RFP] is being reviewed by our attorney now and should be posted publicly by the end of the month,” said Township Deputy Administrator Adam Loehner in a phone interview Wednesday.
The town will seek an individual or entity to rent the former Jersey Animal Coalition building on Walton Avenue, which South Orange owns, and to provide animal control and sheltering needs for both towns under a shared service agreement with Maplewood, said Loehner.
http://villagegreennj.com/towns/government/south-orange-issue-rfp-animal-control-services/
South Orange township will soon issue an RFP (Request for Proposals) for animal control and sheltering to serve both South Orange and Maplewood.
“[The RFP] is being reviewed by our attorney now and should be posted publicly by the end of the month,” said Township Deputy Administrator Adam Loehner in a phone interview Wednesday.
The town will seek an individual or entity to rent the former Jersey Animal Coalition building on Walton Avenue, which South Orange owns, and to provide animal control and sheltering needs for both towns under a shared service agreement with Maplewood, said Loehner.
Last sentence in Village Green article: Maplewood Loves Wellness? I think that should be Animals.
Mr. Loehner also said that his plan is not going to be a no-kill shelter. A no kill shelter is allowed 10% killing, so we are going to be having more than 10% killing. To put this into context St. Hubert's has a 9% kill rate and AHS Newark kills 57% of cats and 38% of dogs according to their self-reported data to the State of NJ Dept. of Health, and that is considered high killing. 
He did not say what he means by "low kill", 20% or 30% or 40%? And Mr. Loehner who is in charge of designing the shared service proposal for both towns said that he would wait the mandated period by law to begin killing. That means that he is going to wait seven days.
He did not say what he means by "low kill", 20% or 30% or 40%? And Mr. Loehner who is in charge of designing the shared service proposal for both towns said that he would wait the mandated period by law to begin killing. That means that he is going to wait seven days.
Again let me restate, my recent adopter heard someone at St. Hubert's say a litter of kittens that were coming in would be put to sleep. They were not deemed workable. The adopters left in horror.
Interesting that shortly after the close of the JAC, St. Hubert's sent me a mailing requesting funds.
How many of the JAC cats did they take? 10? 5? 1? Not! Maybe I should send them a mailing requesting funds from them to defray my rescue costs.
The article's quote presents St. Hubert's as saintly. Adam Loehner is even asked if he is considering them.
Great press for them and more donations will go rolling in. While the rest of us will care for the kittens deemed unadoptable.
Interesting that shortly after the close of the JAC, St. Hubert's sent me a mailing requesting funds.
How many of the JAC cats did they take? 10? 5? 1? Not! Maybe I should send them a mailing requesting funds from them to defray my rescue costs.
The article's quote presents St. Hubert's as saintly. Adam Loehner is even asked if he is considering them.
Great press for them and more donations will go rolling in. While the rest of us will care for the kittens deemed unadoptable.
How could St. Hubert's have deemed those kittens as "not workable" if they hadn't even seen them to evaluate them in person? I would very much like to know if that is how they treat ALL feral cats/kittens or do they actually evaluate some of them. Why was this litter considered not worth putting any time or work into? Or is this just how they deal with ferals in general?
Can't say @jazznet, as it was relayed by the potential adopter. They just happened to be there when someone showed up with a litter at St. Hubert's. They literally snatched their application back and walked out. Lucky for us they adopted a great cat that we were fostering for another No Kill rescue group that we network with. That same rescue group just sent us an adopter who we will pass on to Furry Hearts.
I just want to say to Morganna, Lisa Lert (& staff at Puppy Love) & Furry Hearts Rescue that they are doing an AWESOME job and I am very grateful and proud to be part of such an animal-friendly community. 
I, too, would like to commend these local organizations & Lisa for stepping up to help these animals when there's no decent shelter option locally. I volunteer with an animal rescue so I've been trying to help Lisa courtesy post some of her dogs & we've helped her find homes for a few of them. I deeply appreciate her agreeing to take in these stray dogs who would have otherwise ended up at AHS (including a stray my daughter & I found last April & who is still with Lisa, bless her heart). She is kinder & more tolerant of less-than-perfect animals.
I know that if Larry (the dog we found) had ended up at AHS or at St. Hubert's, he would have been euthanized. In rescue we have a saying, "There's a lid for every pot". I can't help but hope that someday Larry finds his lid.
I know that if Larry (the dog we found) had ended up at AHS or at St. Hubert's, he would have been euthanized. In rescue we have a saying, "There's a lid for every pot". I can't help but hope that someday Larry finds his lid.
Feb 19, 2015 at 10:42am Edited
Morganna said:
Again let me restate, my recent adopter heard someone at St. Hubert's say a litter of kittens that were coming in would be put to sleep. They were not deemed workable. The adopters left in horror.
Morganna, you were not there when these kittens came in, and you are reporting the comments of an individual who is NOT a certified behavior counselor who also did not see the kittens. You don't know what discussions took place before your adopters overheard the conversation, it is likely that they had discussed the issue over the phone and they knew that their health was compromised. According to their website their procedures are to assess the treatability of all animals by licensed individuals before a decision can be made about euthanasia. I believe that you are jumping to conclusions.
@Copihue, as far as your tirade that the adopter was "Not a certified behavior counselor" you are not exactly correct. He trains therapy animals, does dog rescue and has fostered both dogs and cats for years.
Purist approach? Hmm well if I followed the Isaac Asimov book of rules on an allowable 10% kill rate, I would have been within my rights to kill 4.7 of the 47 cats that I helped get out of the JAC and still call myself a No Kill Rescue. Somehow the math would not have impressed the cats that were killed and who would have made the choice? Ah yes a certified behavior counselor. I'll run that by the little feral I'm working with who has half of a back leg.
And just so its understood how or why you would know I am putting together a proposal, it is the very reason you called me months ago.
Our mutual friend, the former Maplewood ACO asked me to, and asked Furry Hearts. Less than clairvoyant of you as it was announced at the public Town Hall meeting by Debbie, identifying my rescue and Furry Hearts by name.
She also presented it to South Orange.
I was asked to help and I did just as I was asked to help my town SO and the JAC and did.
The rescue and closure spanned the course of a year, but I guess you missed it.
Carry on, I have Criminal Minds episodes to catch up on and kittens to care for.
Purist approach? Hmm well if I followed the Isaac Asimov book of rules on an allowable 10% kill rate, I would have been within my rights to kill 4.7 of the 47 cats that I helped get out of the JAC and still call myself a No Kill Rescue. Somehow the math would not have impressed the cats that were killed and who would have made the choice? Ah yes a certified behavior counselor. I'll run that by the little feral I'm working with who has half of a back leg.
And just so its understood how or why you would know I am putting together a proposal, it is the very reason you called me months ago.
Our mutual friend, the former Maplewood ACO asked me to, and asked Furry Hearts. Less than clairvoyant of you as it was announced at the public Town Hall meeting by Debbie, identifying my rescue and Furry Hearts by name.
She also presented it to South Orange.
I was asked to help and I did just as I was asked to help my town SO and the JAC and did.
The rescue and closure spanned the course of a year, but I guess you missed it.
Carry on, I have Criminal Minds episodes to catch up on and kittens to care for.
Feb 19, 2015 at 12:59pm Edited
Morganna said:
@Copihue, as far as your tirade that the adopter was "Not a certified behavior counselor" you are not exactly correct. He trains therapy animals, does dog rescue and has fostered both dogs and cats for years.
I am sure that these were big animal lovers with huge hearts, however, they did not see the condition of the kittens, and they are not trained and certified to make this extremely important decision. Whoever we bring to SOMa, I would want to see that they have a trained and certified professional who is going to evaluate every shelter pet to determine health and behavior. We didn't have anyone before, because we didn't kill. Now that Mr. Loehner says he is going to approve killing, we need to demand that a qualified person be there making those decisions. That is going to add cost, yes, but if they want to take on the responsibility of putting down animals, they are going to take the accountability part that comes along with it. So, Morganna, we may be on the same band wagon in the future, because I am going to fully support that anyone who is damaged by this new policy if the RFP does not include a qualified professional to make life-and-death decisions for the animals. I will encourage anyone who knows of an animals that should not have been killed to sue the bejesus out of the townships.
I have no personal interest in this issue other than wanting to do what I feel is the best for cats, dogs and their owners in SOMa. I have heard you speaking about your proposal, I think that there is a big difference between a rescue and a shelter, but I don't know any of the details of your new proposal, you may have top qualified partners. I say this about any proposal that is accepted: they need to be professionals in shelter management. If they are veterinarians, rescues or shelter management, they better have the entire suite of services that a state-of-the-art shelter has in 2015. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we have had enough of underfunded animal lovers who want to do the right thing managing animal control in SOMa. Maybe your proposal is the best for SOMa, and maybe it will win the contract, but please don't speak ill of St. Huberts, because from what I have read, they are the best choice that we have at this point in time.
Peace. :*
Who is my competitor? I am a rescue who works with other rescues, I don't compete with them. We just took another cat in from Furry Hearts and are getting the kitty vetted and adopted. I post for other groups as well.
This is not a business.
Win a contract? One doesn't earn a living doing rescue.The only win is when I get a cat adopted.
The proposal that you refer to was from your friend and mine, the former ACO of Maplewood and it was announced publicly, and both you and I were in the audience. Again I was asked as was Furry Hearts, my vet and a trainer that we know. Nothing covert, just stepping up when asked.
Speaking ill? If you suggest that being a polite "business person" since you keep talking about "industry standards", means I should keep my mouth shut that I was told kittens would be killed at St. Hubert's last week, that's not going to happen. I knew I would get slammed by someone just as I did when I warned about AHS last year. Turns out that someone was you, so not so sure I agree that you want what's best for the animals if you considering sharing that information "trashing" as you so eloquently put it.
The advantage to being a rescue instead of a "business" is that I never have to worry about running out of "customers."
This is not a business.
Win a contract? One doesn't earn a living doing rescue.The only win is when I get a cat adopted.
The proposal that you refer to was from your friend and mine, the former ACO of Maplewood and it was announced publicly, and both you and I were in the audience. Again I was asked as was Furry Hearts, my vet and a trainer that we know. Nothing covert, just stepping up when asked.
Speaking ill? If you suggest that being a polite "business person" since you keep talking about "industry standards", means I should keep my mouth shut that I was told kittens would be killed at St. Hubert's last week, that's not going to happen. I knew I would get slammed by someone just as I did when I warned about AHS last year. Turns out that someone was you, so not so sure I agree that you want what's best for the animals if you considering sharing that information "trashing" as you so eloquently put it.
The advantage to being a rescue instead of a "business" is that I never have to worry about running out of "customers."
I think you two both share a common goal. Please focus on that and do your in-fighting privately. Remain professional and things will work out.
Well said Fabulous. I agree. You should.focus on your common goal and anticipate that somewhere during the process there may be the need for accommodation of various opinions.
From the guy who came up with the 90% rule. Bottom line 90% was just a guide, but still does not give you a pass from killing healthy and treatable animals.
Our Eyes on the Real Prize: Reaching Higher and Why I Now Disown My Progeny, the 90% Rule
The City of Irvine’s shelter in California saves 91% of the animals. For people living in communities that kill that percentage, it must sound like nirvana. And there is no question that with shelters in this country killing roughly 40% of animals on average, many killing twice that percentage, and some killing over 90%, the City of Irvine is a better shelter than many, if not most. But is it nirvana for the animals? It is not. Is it No Kill? No.
Rescuers and employees at that shelter have recently come forward and documented abuse and killing of savable animals, including a veterinarian who referred to himself as “Dr. Death.” Why does he call himself that? Because he apparently admits he enjoys killing animals—animals who have adopters waiting, animals with treatable conditions, healthy, full term puppies in utero, and animals such as Lane, a 14 week old kitten. Lane was killed, not only in full view of other cats, but in a manner that caused grave and prolonged suffering. According to an expose of the shelter, “He was underdosed with Fatal Plus by a staff member and placed in a cage where he began seizing. He suffered for 90 minutes before finally being injected with a weight appropriate dose of Fatal Plus.” He is not the only one. The Executive Director has resigned under a cloud of misconduct, “Dr. Death” is on his way out, too, and, thankfully, the City is claiming to be moving forward with reforms.
At another California shelter with a 90% save rate that also calls itself No Kill, a lawsuit will soon be filed alleging, among other things, fraud. According to the complaint, the shelter believes it has carte blanche to call itself No Kill while killing healthy and highly treatable animals so long as the save rate doesn’t drop below 90%. At this shelter, plaintiffs have documented dogs who were killed for arbitrary reasons and cats with minor colds falling to the needle.
There are 90% shelters that kill community cats. Indeed, one such shelter asks people to fill out a “euthanize card” when bringing in feral cats. That way, they do not impact the shelter’s statistics as they are considered turned in for purposes of killing. There are shelters that exclude “owner requested killing” and deaths in kennels as doing so would reduce save rates below 90%. Others that are at 90% kill large, exuberant dogs, pit bulls, or kill healthy and treatable bunnies and other animals. Moreover, some communities use coalition-wide rates which include healthy animals brought in from outside the jurisdiction to keep the save rate up, while treatable animals from their city are still killed, such as occurs in San Francisco.
Despite this, there are some who insist that if a community saves 90% of the animals, it must be classified as “No Kill.” In reality, No Kill has nothing to do with a shelter achieving a 90% save rate, but, rather, ending the killing of all healthy and treatable animals, including all community cats and species beyond dogs and cats as well. While that number should—given advances in veterinary and behavior medicine since the introduction of the 90% threshold—be between 95% and 100% of all animals, varying slightly from year to year, the question we must ask of every shelter claiming to be No Kill is not, did they save 90%? But rather, did they save the lives of every single healthy and treatable animal entering the shelter?
So where did this rubric for determining whether or not a shelter is living up to its responsibilities to the animals and the people it serves come from? It came from me.
Why did I say this and why is this no longer an accurate way to measure success? You can read the answers here: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=14815
Of course, while I celebrate the fact that shelters that use to kill 50% of the animals are now saving 90% and while I celebrate the hundreds that now do so, allowing the last ten percent of animals who are still being killed at these shelters to be swept under the rug was never what I intended when I began promoting the 90% benchmark almost a decade ago. And while, until somewhat recently, the “90% Rule” was an incredibly powerful tool for inspiring change, one that motivated activists, and highlighted—by the sheer contrast it afforded—just how poorly our nation’s shelters were performing, changing circumstances have tragically allowed it to morph into a tool that is being misused and abused by unscrupulous shelter directors to justify needless killing.
For as I believe and I know most animal lovers do, too, I hold this truth to be self-evident: that each and every animal entering a shelter is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not just 90% of them…
Photo: Lane, a kitten who suffered for 90 minutes while being killed in a shelter that some call "No Kill" because it saves 91% of the animals. Why bother with saving the more challenging cases when the movement is willing to say you have already crossed the finish line? The time has come to reach higher.
Our Eyes on the Real Prize: Reaching Higher and Why I Now Disown My Progeny, the 90% Rule
The City of Irvine’s shelter in California saves 91% of the animals. For people living in communities that kill that percentage, it must sound like nirvana. And there is no question that with shelters in this country killing roughly 40% of animals on average, many killing twice that percentage, and some killing over 90%, the City of Irvine is a better shelter than many, if not most. But is it nirvana for the animals? It is not. Is it No Kill? No.
Rescuers and employees at that shelter have recently come forward and documented abuse and killing of savable animals, including a veterinarian who referred to himself as “Dr. Death.” Why does he call himself that? Because he apparently admits he enjoys killing animals—animals who have adopters waiting, animals with treatable conditions, healthy, full term puppies in utero, and animals such as Lane, a 14 week old kitten. Lane was killed, not only in full view of other cats, but in a manner that caused grave and prolonged suffering. According to an expose of the shelter, “He was underdosed with Fatal Plus by a staff member and placed in a cage where he began seizing. He suffered for 90 minutes before finally being injected with a weight appropriate dose of Fatal Plus.” He is not the only one. The Executive Director has resigned under a cloud of misconduct, “Dr. Death” is on his way out, too, and, thankfully, the City is claiming to be moving forward with reforms.
At another California shelter with a 90% save rate that also calls itself No Kill, a lawsuit will soon be filed alleging, among other things, fraud. According to the complaint, the shelter believes it has carte blanche to call itself No Kill while killing healthy and highly treatable animals so long as the save rate doesn’t drop below 90%. At this shelter, plaintiffs have documented dogs who were killed for arbitrary reasons and cats with minor colds falling to the needle.
There are 90% shelters that kill community cats. Indeed, one such shelter asks people to fill out a “euthanize card” when bringing in feral cats. That way, they do not impact the shelter’s statistics as they are considered turned in for purposes of killing. There are shelters that exclude “owner requested killing” and deaths in kennels as doing so would reduce save rates below 90%. Others that are at 90% kill large, exuberant dogs, pit bulls, or kill healthy and treatable bunnies and other animals. Moreover, some communities use coalition-wide rates which include healthy animals brought in from outside the jurisdiction to keep the save rate up, while treatable animals from their city are still killed, such as occurs in San Francisco.
Despite this, there are some who insist that if a community saves 90% of the animals, it must be classified as “No Kill.” In reality, No Kill has nothing to do with a shelter achieving a 90% save rate, but, rather, ending the killing of all healthy and treatable animals, including all community cats and species beyond dogs and cats as well. While that number should—given advances in veterinary and behavior medicine since the introduction of the 90% threshold—be between 95% and 100% of all animals, varying slightly from year to year, the question we must ask of every shelter claiming to be No Kill is not, did they save 90%? But rather, did they save the lives of every single healthy and treatable animal entering the shelter?
So where did this rubric for determining whether or not a shelter is living up to its responsibilities to the animals and the people it serves come from? It came from me.
Why did I say this and why is this no longer an accurate way to measure success? You can read the answers here: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=14815
Of course, while I celebrate the fact that shelters that use to kill 50% of the animals are now saving 90% and while I celebrate the hundreds that now do so, allowing the last ten percent of animals who are still being killed at these shelters to be swept under the rug was never what I intended when I began promoting the 90% benchmark almost a decade ago. And while, until somewhat recently, the “90% Rule” was an incredibly powerful tool for inspiring change, one that motivated activists, and highlighted—by the sheer contrast it afforded—just how poorly our nation’s shelters were performing, changing circumstances have tragically allowed it to morph into a tool that is being misused and abused by unscrupulous shelter directors to justify needless killing.
For as I believe and I know most animal lovers do, too, I hold this truth to be self-evident: that each and every animal entering a shelter is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not just 90% of them…
Photo: Lane, a kitten who suffered for 90 minutes while being killed in a shelter that some call "No Kill" because it saves 91% of the animals. Why bother with saving the more challenging cases when the movement is willing to say you have already crossed the finish line? The time has come to reach higher.
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
The Maplewood Loves Animals Coalition who hopes to become the SOMa Loves Animals Coalition ;-)
Wanna help? contact us at MaplewoodLovesAnimals@yahoo.com