OUT THE FRONT DOOR

It’s too early for 2014 stats to be out, but not too early to look at some No Kill shelters that had very good years in 2014: Lynchburg is a small city of 76,000 people in rural Virginia. The Lynchburg Humane Society (LHS) has a contract with the city of Lynchburg for animal services. The director, Makena Yarbrough, recently posted a blog talking about events in 2014. (The blog is accompanied by a photo of a 12-year-old adoptee who may be the cutest dog ever). The shelter took in over 800 more animals in 2014 than in 2013, including 368 pets saved from neighboring shelters. The brand-new shelter building, paid for by donations that LHS raised (way to go community!) is almost ready and is slated to open in February. They had a very successful special effort during kitten season in 2014 to get kittens out of the old shelter building quickly so they wouldn’t get sick, and this effort sharply decreased their shelter deaths. What a great 2014 – and they are planning to make 2015 even better. Jacksonville also reached out to help neighboring communities in 2014. First Coast No More Homeless Pets (FCNMHP), a Jacksonville non-profit that has been a major part of the city’s success, has been helping neighboring Nassau and Clay counties to sharply reduce their kill rates. Nassau County Animal Services recently announced that they increased their live release rate by 20 points in 2014 and plan to become No Kill in 2015. Rick DuCharme, FCNMHP’s director, wants to expand assistance to additional neighboring counties, including some that are sparsely populated and have few resources. Kansas City, Missouri, is a city of 464,000 people. A group of pet advocates formed the Kansas City Pet Project (KCPP) in 2011 and took over the city pound on January 1, 2012. Brent Toellner, president of the board of directors, posted a retrospective of the last three years. Their staff has grown from 18 to more than 60 and they have opened two satellite adoptions centers. Fosters, volunteers, adopters, and community support have all grown. The shelter has a tradition of being open on New Years Day, as they were on their first day of business in 2012. They did that to show the community that it was not going to be business as usual with KCPP, and they kept their promise. Christie Banduch, the director of the tiny Kirby, Texas, No Kill shelter, developed a very ambitious plan in 2014 to make the unincorporated parts of Bexar County, where Kirby is located, No Kill too. She spotted an opportunity when the city of San Antonio, which is also located in Bexar County, decided to stop providing animal control and sheltering for the county. When that happened the county was left with no shelter. Kirby’s shelter is too small for the number of animals they take in, so an agreement for Kirby and Bexar County to partner, hopefully with Banduch in charge of the whole thing, would be serendipity. And last, but far from least, 2014 may turn out to be the year when the entire state of Colorado went over the 90% live-release-rate mark. The state hit an 89% live release rate for 2013. Unfortunately, if this year is like last year we will be waiting several months on the data. Colorado would be the first No Kill state ever, though, so it will be worth the wait. In addition to saving so many of its own animals, Colorado also saved thousands of animals transferred into the state from kill shelters. In addition to these stories there were hundreds of other communities whose shelters did great things in 2014. 2014 was the best year yet for No Kill, and all indications are that 2015 will be even better.

Getting to and sustaining No Kill is more difficult in some places than others. If I were looking for the easiest place for a No Kill transition, I would pick a small town with a lot of educated or wealthy people – maybe a ski resort or a college town. The town should be in the northern part of the country, the colder the better, and preferably in a mountainous area. The shelter should be owned and managed by a humane society, preferably one with an endowment or income stream that can help fund the transition to No Kill. And it would be a great bonus if the town had a veterinary college nearby with a shelter medicine program. No Kill in those circumstances would probably be easy to achieve and sustain. On the other hand, think about a job as director of a municipal-owned shelter in a big southern city, in a place that has warm weather for most of the year and a long kitten season, with a population that has average or less-than-average levels of wealth and education, and with no subsidized access to advanced veterinary care. That would be tough. There are people who have succeeded in creating No Kill in such circumstances, but it’s hard work. Until the last few years the great majority of No Kill communities have more closely resembled the scenario described in the first paragraph than in the second. But recently we have seen an explosion of cities with live release rates over 80%, in places where it would have seemed impossible just five to ten years ago. We have seen shelter directors taking on No Kill projects in big cities in the south and the midwest, including in states like South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Missouri. Even Mississippi has a No Kill shelter now. That’s great news, but unfortunately some No Kill advocates are not making the distinction between the little resort town in Colorado and the giant metropolis in the south. There have been several reports of shelter directors saving 98%, 99%, or 100% of animals in little county shelters in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, or in wealthy small towns in mountainous areas of Colorado, or in college towns in the northeast, and some advocates seem to have gotten a skewed idea of what is possible in places that look more like average America. Actually, the 98% to 100% save rates seem to be pretty rare even in the small northern towns. Even in those places 90% to 97% yearly save rates are probably more common. The result of the high expectations has been that some shelter directors who are revolutionizing shelters in the south and saving tens of thousands of lives every year are nevertheless being criticized because so far they are “only” at 80% or 85% or 89% instead of 98% to 100%. And the criticisms are not gentle. I was talking to one such shelter director recently who said she and her staff have been called “SOBs” and “murderers.” And those are the printable epithets. This director and her organization stepped in to save a dysfunctional shelter system in a large southern city, and they are raising the live release rate very rapidly. They are working under extremely difficult conditions, with virtually no establishment support, and they are practically killing themselves doing it. The director told me that she had just recently taken her first vacation in five years, and that all she did was sleep. I would defy any of her critics to give up what she has given up to do this work, and I would defy any of them to do a better job. And yet there is a segment of our own No Kill movement that thinks that she and her team are not good enough! Similarly, in another large southern city that has seen many failed past attempts to raise live release rates, the current director of the municipal shelter is slowly and steadily raising live release rates. It’s looking good for his shelter to have a live release rate in the 80% range for 2015. Will he ever get to 90%? I don’t know, but the year before he took over the shelter didn’t even get to 50%. Yet he was the subject of relentless criticism from some local advocates before he even had a chance to get started. In another southern city some local No Kill advocates have been criticizing the shelter even as it has reached and exceeded the 90% standard. They disapproved of the program that shelter management chose to use, because there is a different program that they like better. And in a northwestern city a group of No Kill advocates have been pillorying a No Kill shelter that reports live release rates of over 90%. None of the shelters in the cities and towns I mentioned above are perfect, and criticism can be a good thing when it points out real flaws and urges even better performance. But undeserved criticism can be draining for shelter directors. And calling out shelter directors who are rapidly improving their live releases but are not up to 80% or 90% yet can actually cause harm and slow their momentum by undermining the support and engagement of the community. Unreasonable critics are only part of a larger problem, though, which is that good shelter directors working in the tougher cities are often not seeing enough rewards for a job that can be incredibly difficult and draining. When we fail to appreciate good directors we risk losing some of our best leaders to burnout. Burnout may not be a big problem in the case of directors of small shelters in wealthy northern towns, but it is potentially a problem for the new generation of shelter directors who are taking on tougher challenges. Just offhand, I can think of several No Kill stars who have left positions as municipal shelter directors in recent years. Most of these people have gone on to other important work on the national stage in No Kill, which is a good thing, but we have lost them from the front lines. So what can be done to combat burnout and keep great directors on the job? First, we need to make sure that directors have the help they need. No Kill advocates, instead of standing on the sidelines and demanding that the director work miracles, can get involved themselves. They can approach the city or county government (in a reasonable, respectful way, after doing their homework and keeping in mind that governments have many important priorities) and seek more resources for the shelter, including higher pay for good performers. They can work on revising ordinances, an important task that is often overlooked. Perhaps most of all, No Kill advocates can either start their own organizations to assist shelters, or work on reforming local legacy humane societies that are not doing their part. It is hard to overestimate the importance of supporting organizations in getting to and sustaining high live release rates. For example, two large cities in the south that have live release rates around 95% have been able to reach that level in part because in each of the two cities there are three large organizations that help each other in the No Kill effort. But in some cities there are unhelpful legacy humane societies that are sucking up the lion’s share of local donations and mostly using them to put on a happy face and keep their payroll up. I’m speaking here about some local organizations, not the national organizations. In the last few years the traditional national organizations, with one notable exception, have become very supportive of No Kill and they are now doing some innovative stuff. Both the HSUS and the ASPCA, for example (along with other national organizations that have always supported No Kill), were early supporters of the new cat paradigms, and have used their enormous national influence to gain increasing acceptance for what otherwise could have been a hard sell. Legacy humane societies that haven’t really changed the way they operate in the last 20, 30, or 40 years are a problem. Imagine the difference it would make for the municipal shelter director, on the morning of a puppy mill bust when 40 dogs in poor condition are being impounded, to get a call from the local humane society with an offer to take in the 25 sickest dogs. That type of help from local organizations goes a long way to preventing burnout, and it is really what every municipal shelter director has a right to expect. It might behoove local No Kill advocates to ask what the local humane societies are doing before they go after the municipal shelter director. The work of a No Kill municipal shelter director has a lot of intrinsic rewards. It is important work. It is life-saving. No Kill shelter directors know they are making the world a better place. But a person who has the managerial and people skills and the work ethic needed to succeed as a shelter director in a typical American city is someone who has talents that would be rewarded with a lot more pay and status and a lot less stress in another profession. If we are going to retain our stars and attract other stars to the profession, we need to appreciate them and try to support them rather than make their jobs harder.

If a person walked up to a dog on the street and intentionally hit it with a tire iron in the face, breaking its nose and causing permanent damage, that person could be charged with animal cruelty in any state in the union. Depending on the circumstances of the case, it could easily be a felony charge. Yet dog breeders – including “hobby” breeders – do equivalent acts of cruelty every day, to millions of dogs every year, with no consequences. I’m talking about dog breeders who deliberately and intentionally breed to produce severe genetic deformities, with full knowledge that the animals they are creating will live pain-filled, compromised, and often short lives. One very common example of the type of deformity I’m talking about is brachycephalia. The word brachycephalia means “short head.” Brachycephalic dogs have a shortened skull and a short, often almost non-existent muzzle. This produces a look that many people think is cute. Some of the popular brachycephalic breeds are the Pug, Pekingese, French Bulldog, English Bulldog, Shih Tzu, Lhasa Apso, and Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. Brachycephalia is also a problem in the breeding of cats, although mercifully less so than in the breeding of dogs. There are so many serious health problems created by brachycephalia that I hardly know where to start. The short skull means that the eyes don’t have enough room to sit normally in their sockets. This produces the protruding look that is considered cute, but it also makes the eyes more prone to pop out of their sockets, and it makes the eyes in general more likely to be injured because they have less bone around them. It gets worse. The changes to the brachycephalic dog’s nose and airway are what really makes their lives miserable. We all know that one of the main ways a dog experiences the world is through scent. The brachycephalic dog is much less able to enjoy this sensory experience because he hardly has any muzzle. The short muzzle also gravely affects the dog’s ability to control its body temperature. Dogs control their body temperature by panting to circulate air through their mouths. In the distorted mouth of the brachycephalic dog this air circulation is greatly reduced, with the consequence that the dog easily overheats. A mutt can run after a tennis ball on a summer day, jump up and catch it, and run back to his person. It is hard to imagine a fully brachycephalic dog being able to do this simple thing. Even if he could, he would quickly get overheated and have to stop. The deformities of the skull in the brachycephalic dog mean that the airway is narrowed and compromised, with all the structures that a normal dog has in its throat squished together in a smaller space. This narrowed airway means that brachycephalic dogs often struggle to breathe, sometimes resembling people with COPD. The brachycephalic dog has to work at breathing, which is supposed to be a natural function that the dog doesn’t even have to think about. The labored breathing of the brachycephalic dog can, over time, cause the larynx to collapse, obstructing the airway and causing severe respiratory distress or death. Laryngeal collapse can happen as early as 4 months of age in brachycephalic breeds. The deformed airway causes many secondary problems beyond the primary problem of breathing. Brachycephalic dogs are prone to sleep apnea. Their attempts to get enough oxygen by gulping air may lead to vomiting and regurgitation. Brachycephalic dogs are at risk every time they have anesthesia because the narrowed and compromised airway makes it more difficult to ensure a good oxygen supply both during and after surgery. The unavoidable manipulation of the airway during intubation, as well as the stress associated with surgery, can cause serious complications. Because the muzzles of brachycephalic dogs are so short, their teeth do not have room to grow normally. That means that these dogs often have severe dental problems. But because of the dangers of anesthesia it is difficult to treat their dental problems or even to do routine dental cleaning. Brachycephalic dogs differ in the extent of their symptoms. But even dogs that have fewer symptoms such as wheezing, gasping, and heat intolerance will still experience a greatly diminished quality of life, as they by definition do not experience life the way a normal dog does. In my opinion, deliberately breeding dogs with deformities this severe constitutes animal cruelty. Today we pride ourselves on thinking of our cats and dogs as family members. Pets are like children to many people. Imagine if there was a genetics-engineering company that offered parents an opportunity to make “cuter” children at the cost of compromising their health and their lives. Everyone would be horrified, and if anyone ever actually tried to do that they would be arrested and put in jail. The idea is so absurd that it is hard to even imagine. Yet dog breeders do the equivalent thing every time they breed one brachycephalic dog to another, and no one says a word. In fact, dog breeders have been working hard to make the problem even worse. In just the last 50 years the skull of the British bulldog, for example, has been radically shortened by selective breeding. One particularly gruesome result of the continued breeding for shortened heads is the greatly increased incidence of syringomyelia in brachycephalic dogs, particularly in the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. In these dogs the back of the skull has been so shortened by deliberate breeding that there is not enough room for the brain. The brain in affected dogs is squeezed and affects the flow of cerebrospinal fluid. The syndrome is perhaps best known for the intense pain that it causes its victims. It may progress to paralysis. By some estimates the problem is present in up to half of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. It is scary to think of the pain these dogs may be suffering even when they do not have overt symptoms of the disease.  What is wrong with people who deliberately breed these dogs? Brachycephalia may be the most obvious example of deliberate animal cruelty in dog breeding, but there are many other examples. The giant dog breeds have their own problems, including a greatly reduced life span. The dog’s circulatory system did not evolve to be able to support the height and weight of the giant breeds, and so their expected life span is barely half that of a normal dog. An Irish Wolfhound’s life expectancy is about 7 years, compared to 14 years or so for small mutts. The German Shepherd Dog of today looks bizarre to most people because of the extreme angulation in its rear legs, which makes the dogs unable to stand normally. Many breeds have such extreme hair growth that they require constant grooming to be able to live a normal life. Ironically, the breeding of deformed dogs is more due to hobby “show” breeders than it is to commercial breeders. Show breeders will tell you how different they are from commercial breeders, arguing that commercial breeders just care about making money whereas they care about “improving the breed.” What really happens is this. Hobby breeders are in the dog show “sport” for the purpose of winning trophies and recognition. They breed dogs that they think will appeal to dog show judges. Most dog show judges seem to pay little attention to health, and instead they reward extremes of what they call “type,” which is what most of us would call “deviation from what a normal dog looks like.” These deviations are encouraged by the written standards for breeds. This leads to a vicious circle where, in order to win the coveted trophies, dog breeders produce dogs that deviate further and further from the norm in an effort to catch the eye of the judge. For example, the breed standard for the Akita calls for “much substance and heavy bone.” The result of this standard is that at any dog show you can see Akitas who have so much “substance” that they don’t trot, they trundle. We need to start prosecuting the deliberate breeding of deformed dogs for the crime that it is, particularly in the case of clear-cut and obvious genetic deformities like brachycephalia. Brachycephalic dogs are not “cute.” They are handicapped by their deformity and they suffer — sometimes unimaginably so in the case of those who have syringomyelia. We cannot prevent all deformities and birth defects, but we can certainly stop people from deliberately creating deformities. I don’t know whether hobby breeders really believe that they are “improving” breeds or whether they are so blinded by the gleam from their trophies that they can’t see what’s in front of their face. But whatever their motives, they need to be forced to stop. We need to take the decision out of their hands. The kind of animal cruelty they practice should not be allowed in a civilized country.

Kitsap County is in the state of Washington, right across Puget Sound from Seattle. It’s a large county, with a population of over 250,000 people. The county contains four cities — Bremerton (population of about 40,000), Bainbridge Island (23,000), Port Orchard (11,000), and Poulsbo (9000). Animal control and sheltering services are provided for Kitsap County by the Kitsap Humane Society (KHS), a non-governmental charitable organization. The shelter has an animal control unit which handles stray intake, cruelty investigations, and responding to emergencies and disasters. The shelter takes in owner surrenders with a fee, which is reduced for low-income people, and it requires an appointment. The shelter issues annual reports that include its statistics. In 2010, it reported an intake of 4285 animals and a live release rate of 94%. In 2011, reported intake was 4993 with a live release rate of 95%. The 2012 annual report states that intake was 4703 animals and the live release rate was 94%. The 2012 report also notes that the shelter increased its low-cost spay-neuter surgeries by 67% over 2011. Kitsap County, WA, is counted in the Running Totals as a 90%+ community.

These days, almost everyone involved with trying to increase live release rates for cats supports Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) and Return-To-Field (RTF) programs for community cats. The barriers still in the way of TNR and RTF include old-fashioned ordinances in a lot of localities, and bird conservationists. Advocates for cats are chipping away at the ordinances, but the conservationists are stubborn. Many of them argue that all cats should be kept indoors and that any cat found outdoors should be captured and killed. One of the arguments made by the conservationists is that cats have no place in the outdoors in the United States because they are an “invasive” species (also called “non-native”  or “alien”). Cats first came to the Americas in ships from Europe many centuries ago. The conservationists argue that non-native species such as cats destroy native wildlife because the native wildlife species have not evolved ways to protect themselves from the invaders. The idea that invasive species are bad is deeply ingrained in conservation biology, and it has been a difficult argument for cat advocates to address. A new book by science journalist Fred Pearce calls the traditional thinking about invasive species into question. The book, “The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature’s Salvation” (Beacon Press, 2015), uses the term “green xenophobia” to refer to what Pearce considers to be an overblown concern about damage done by invasive species, and a failure to appreciate their value and their place in nature. He argues that the success of roaming species can be seen as a positive counterweight to environmental destruction caused by humans. One of the non-native species that Pearce mentions is the cat. He challenges a cost-benefit analysis made by one scientist that purported to show that cats cost the United States economy $30 for every bird they kill, or $17 billion total each year. The $17 billion number itself is questionable, but Pearce points out that the considerable benefits to the economy that are provided by cats, including rodent control and the documented health benefits to people who have pet companions, were not weighed against the $17 billion figure. Pearce has an interesting discussion of the unintended consequences of efforts to control invasive species on Macquarie Island, a remote island between Australia and Antarctica that is a nesting place for seabirds. The first invaders on Macquarie Island were rats who had stowed away on sealers’ ships. Then cats were brought in to control the rats, and rabbits were brought in for food for the sealers. Many years later the rabbits were eating a lot of the island’s vegetation, so conservationists wiped out most of the rabbits by introducing a disease. But then the cats, with few rabbits to hunt, started killing the birds. The cats were shot, and then the rats, with no cats to control their population, ate the birds. Meanwhile, the remaining rabbits, with the cats no longer there to keep them in check, began to multiply again. (Today the invasives are thought to be gone, but how long will that last?) Much of the evidence that conservation biologists cite in an attempt to prove that invasive species cause damage to native species comes from islands like Macquarie. It is true that there have been some dramatic examples of bird extinctions caused or aided by non-native species on islands. Pearce notes, however, that new studies indicate that plant diversity of ocean islands usually rises after “invasions” by alien species, even in cases where the number of birds declined. Moreover, what happens on islands cannot and should not be generalized to mainlands. Cat advocates for years now have been pointing out the weaknesses in the argument made by conservationists that cats are doing damage to birds at the species level on the United States mainland. This important new book supports the arguments that have been made by advocates, but it goes beyond them in arguing that the success of invasive species is an example of the power of nature to change and adapt. Something to be welcomed, perhaps, rather than feared.

Mission Viejo is a large planned community southeast of Los Angeles, with a population of about 93,000 people. The cities of Aliso Viejo (population 48,000) and Laguna Niguel (population 62,000) are just southwest of Mission Viejo. Mission Viejo Animal Services (MVAS) is a municipal agency that provides animal control and sheltering services for all three cities. A non-profit, the Dedicated Animal Welfare Group (DAWG), provides substantial support to the shelter, especially for animals requiring medical care. DAWG also pays all expenses for animals transferred in from outside the jurisdiction, so that they will not be a burden on city taxpayers. DAWG’s 20-year anniversary is coming up in 2015. MVAS takes in strays impounded by animal control and accepts owner surrenders. The shelter will take owner surrendered dogs from anywhere as long as they meet health and temperament requirements, but it accepts owner-surrendered cats only from its jurisdiction. The shelter has had a temporary waiting list for cats recently as it completes a new cattery. Once the cattery is opened, MVAS hopes to be able to accept cats from surrounding jurisdictions as well as its own jurisdiction. MVAS will not accept surrenders of aggressive animals or animals who have untreatable medical illnesses. MVAS does not provide owner-requested euthanasia. Mission Viejo is located in Orange County, California, which has a county shelter. The county shelter received some animals in fiscal year 2013-2014 from Mission Viejo, Aliso Viejo, and Laguna Niguel. The county shelter provides owner-requested euthanasia, but the shelter director stated that it is limited to animals who are “irremediably suffering” as verified by a veterinarian or have a history of aggression as defined by state law. The county does not break out owner-requested euthanasias separately from other euthanasias. Sharon Cody, a former city council member for Mission Viejo and the president of DAWG, sent me information and statistics for MVAS and the county shelter for fiscal year 2013-2014. The county shelter report broke out the intake and disposition of animals from the three communities served by MVAS. Therefore, the combined statistics should represent all intake and disposition of domestic pets for the fiscal year for the three jurisdictions. For the 2013-2014 fiscal year, total intake was 1226 for MVAS plus 170 animals taken in by the county from MVAS jurisdictions. The combined live release rate for the fiscal year was 92%, including owner-requested euthanasia. It is not possible to provide a modified live release rate including animals who died in shelter care because MVAS includes those animals in a “miscellaneous release” category that also includes live releases such as transfers to rescue. Based on the information sent to me by Sharon, however, it appears that 3 to 5 animals may have died in shelter care, which would not be enough to change the live release rate. MVAS has an exceptionally high return-to-owner rate. Out of 951 strays impounded in the 2012-2013 fiscal year, the shelter reported returning 524 to their owners for an overall return-to-owner rate of 55%, including cats. In fiscal year 2013-2014 the number of strays taken in was 1061 and the return-to-owner rate was 47% including cats. Sharon told me that the MVAS jurisdictions do have some restrictions on the number of animals per household. She is not aware of any breed restrictions, however, either by the MVAS jurisdictions or the homeowner associations in the area. She said that DAWG provided $80,000 in veterinary treatment during the 2013-2014 fiscal year, “saving every animal that could be treated.” A feral cat program has reduced feral cat euthanasia from 35 two years ago to just 3 in the 2013-2014 fiscal year. Mission Viejo, Aliso Viejo, and Laguna Niguel are counted in the Running Totals as 90%+ communities.

Monmouth County, New Jersey, is in the center of the state and has about 630,000 human residents. It is a county of many small cities and boroughs, with its largest municipality having a population of 67,000. The Monmouth County SPCA (MCSPCA) is a private organization that has contracted with many of the cities and boroughs in Monmouth County to provide animal sheltering services for strays.  The shelter has adoption centers in Eatontown and Freehold. The municipalities served by the MCSPCA are almost all in the eastern part of the county. These municipalities include: Atlantic Highlands (population approximately 4,000), Eatontown (13,000), Fair Haven (6,000), Highlands (5,000), Holmdel (17,000), Little Silver (6,000), Long Branch (31,000), Middletown (67,000), North Middletown (3,000), Ocean Township (27,000), Red Bank (12,000), Rumson (7,000), Sea Bright (1,000), Shrewsbury (4,000), Spring Lake Heights (5,000), and West Long Branch (8,000). There are 12 communities with 5,000 or more population served by the MCSPCA, and each of these communities is listed separately in the sidebar. Adding up the totals of all these communities, the MCSPCA provides animal sheltering services for a population of more than 216,000 people. The MCSPCA also takes in owner surrenders by appointment. I called the shelter to get details on their owner surrender policy, and was told that they do not turn any animal away unless, in their judgment, the animal should be euthanized due to severe behavioral issues or untreatable suffering. In that case they recommend that the owner take the animal to the vet for humane euthanasia. In 2011 the MCSPCA had a live release rate of 94% calculated by comparing live releases to euthanasias, and 90% calculated against total intake. Their intake was over 4500 animals. The shelter’s Annual Report for 2012 showed a 94% live release rate, with a modified live release rate (including died/lost in shelter care) of 93%. Total intake for the year was 4467. The Annual Report recounts how the shelter helped with the Hurricane Sandy relief effort by taking in 150 animals stranded by the storm and by distributing 300,000 pounds of food. In other news for 2012, the shelter opened an offsite adoption center at a mall and adopted out over 700 animals. As of this writing the shelter has not posted an Annual Report for 2013. Statistics reported to the state of New Jersey showed an intake of 3538 animals for 2013 with a live release rate of 93%. Monmouth County, NJ, was originally listed by this blog on April 15, 2013, based on its 2012 statistics. This post is a revision and update with 2013 statistics.

Alger County is a small rural county located on the northern border of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Its population is 9600 people, including the county seat of Munising. Animal sheltering is provided for the county by the Alger County Animal Shelter (ACAS), which is a non-profit organization registered as the Humane Society of Alger County. The shelter stated its primary purpose in a newsletter as: “to receive lost or unwanted animals brought to the shelter, to return them to their owners or place them in a good home, and to educate the public about intelligent and humane treatment of animals.” I spoke to the shelter manager, who told me that the county sheriff answers calls for stray pickup and those animals are brought to the shelter. ACAS accepts owner surrenders (including surrenders from outside the county) except for animals who are vicious or obviously sick. The shelter manager told me that ACAS turns away only about 3 or 4 animals each year under those criteria. ACAS employees or volunteers will drive to meet local owners who want to surrender an animal but cannot come to the shelter during regular business hours. The shelter asks for a $25-$50 contribution for owner surrenders, but does not require it. ACAS leases a building from the county and the county provides utilities, and the city of Munising makes a small payment to the shelter each month, but the shelter is primarily supported by donations and volunteers. Like other Michigan shelters, ACAS reports its statistics to the state of Michigan each year. The shelter has had a high save rate for several years. For 2013, ACAS reported an intake of 254 cats and dogs, with 58 returned to owner, 208 adopted, and no transfers (scroll down in the link to the ACAS page). The live release rate was 99%. The 2013 reporting form for Michigan shelters does not include the categories of owner-requested euthanasia or died/lost in shelter care, so I’m unable to provide a modified live release rate. In 2012, the shelter reported an intake of 308 animals, with 243 adoptions, 57 returned to owner, and 3 euthanasias. This gave the shelter a 99% live release rate for the year . If the 5 animals who died in shelter care are counted in with euthanasias, the live release rate was 97%. ACAS takes in at-risk animals from other shelters when it has room. In 2012, 63 animals from other shelters were assisted by ACAS. (In a 2013 newsletter, ACAS listed somewhat different numbers for 2012 than those reported to the state. I asked the shelter manager about the discrepancy, and she said the statistics in the newsletter were estimates, prepared before the year-end totals were available.) In 2011, the shelter report to the state showed a 94% live release rate with an intake of 240 animals. The Michigan Pet Fund Alliance recognized ACAS with an award for its 2011 live release rate. In 2010, the shelter reported a 94% live release rate with an intake of 190 animals. ACAS also reported high live release rates in previous years. Alger County, MI, was originally listed by this blog on July 31, 2013, based on its 2012 statistics. This post is a revision and update with 2013 statistics.

The animal control and sheltering situation in the state of Delaware is in transition. A private organization named the First State Animal Center and SPCA (formerly the Kent County SPCA), which has been in operation for many years, had acquired animal control and sheltering contracts for Delaware’s three counties (Kent, Sussex, and New Castle) and the city of Wilmington. But the state government decided last year to take over animal control for the entire state, and this past summer it started the process of forming an animal control unit and hiring its own animal control officers. The state takeover of animal control was supposed to be phased in gradually in the different counties as the First State animal control contracts (which still had 6 to 18 months to run at that time) ran out. Then the First State board of directors abruptly voted to cancel all of its animal control contracts effective September 15th. First State reportedly made the decision to end its contracts early because it was concerned that its employees, who had been looking for other jobs since the state announced its intention to take over animal control, would resign and leave it without enough staff to service the contracts. This meant that the state had to implement its plan to take over animal control much sooner than it had expected. September 15th has come and gone, and a temporary plan is now in place. The new state agency, Delaware Animal Services, will handle cruelty cases, rabies enforcement, and animal control calls throughout the state starting January 1, 2016. In the meantime, each county has made its own plans to cover animal control for the rest of the year. Kent County and Wilmington entered into a temporary contract with the Chester County SPCA in Pennsylvania. First State has agreed to cover animal control for Sussex and New Castle counties for the rest of the year. There will be potential advantages to having animal control centralized in the state, but it is not clear at this time where and how strays picked up by animal control in each of the four jurisdictions will be sheltered. In July, First State announced that it was getting out of the business of housing strays, and that after its animal control duties ceased it would take in only owner surrenders and would become a No Kill shelter. First State is also reportedly pushing a bill that would take away or modify the status of cats in Delaware as free-roaming. In other news: The Franklin County Dog Shelter in Ohio (Franklin County contains Columbus and has over 1 million people) is reportedly running at an 87% live release rate. Shelter director Kaye Dickson, who started with the shelter last March, says that only dogs with health and behavior problems are euthanized. Statistics on the website show an 81-82% live release rate for June, July, and August, not counting owner-requested euthanasia. In 2014, owner-requested euthanasias represented about 5% of the 11,000 dogs taken in to the shelter. Maddie’s Fund has an article about how shelters in another Ohio city, Cleveland, have an informal partnership to help each other with emergencies such as hoarding busts. The lesson is that even in cases where the organizations in a city do not want to invest a lot of time in crafting a formal coalition, informal arrangements can accomplish a lot. More from Maddie’s — the Maddie’s Shelter Medicine Program at the University of Florida is reporting a record enrollment in shelter medicine courses of 427 students for 2014-2015, plus 111 students who have completed the certificate program, and the launch of a brand-new Master’s degree in shelter medicine. Here is a report on this and other news from the program. The Million Cat Challenge is closing in on 300,000 cats saved by the shelters enrolled in its program. I still run across people active in animal sheltering who have not heard of the Million Cat Challenge. How can that be? Arin Greenwood reports in the Huffington Post about one smart landlord who has figured out how to acquire long-term, grateful tenants: rent only to people who have pit bulls. With so many landlords reluctant to rent to owners of “pit bulls,” this is a market waiting to be captured. Sarasota County in Florida is discussing a possible law to regulate commercial sale of animals by stores. The most recent commissioners’ meeting on the topic was standing-room only. A public hearing will be held in January.

The Humane Alliance of Western North Carolina, located in Asheville, has provided low-cost spay-neuter in the area since 1994, and reports that it has sterilized 350,000 animals. The Humane Alliance has long been recognized as a national leader in high-volume spaying and neutering, and many veterinarians have trained in its techniques. Now comes word that the ASPCA has acquired the Humane Alliance. The ASPCA has supported the Humane Alliance in the past, and the new arrangement is expected to provide additional ASPCA funding. Site plans for Brother Wolf’s future sanctuary in Asheville are on view today at the city’s VeganFest. In addition to being a leading city for No Kill, Asheville is also one of the most vegetarian- and vegan-friendly cities in the United States. Brother Wolf founder Denise Bitz believes that the vegan lifestyle shows a commitment to compassion for all animals. The Weatherford/Parker County animal shelter in Weatherford, Texas, has announced that it has had a 90%+ save rate for the past year. The shelter participated yesterday in the national Clear the Shelters event. Washington, DC’s cat cafe, Crumbs & Whiskers, continues to get publicity on important mainstream news sites. It was featured in an article on Vox recently, and then a few days ago it was featured in an online article on the WTOP website. It is somewhat unusual for the DC press, which is generally full of political news, to take as much of an interest in a pet-related phenomenon as they have shown in Crumbs & Whiskers. The WTOP article reports that reservations for time with the kitties are in so much demand that they are hard to get on weekends, and even on week nights. The cats at Crumbs & Whiskers come from the Washington Humane Society, and they are fostered at the shop until they are adopted. In seven weeks, the cafe has adopted out 16 adult cats and a couple of kittens. That is a rate of about 135 cats per year, not to mention the publicity for the shelter. The Animal Care Centers of New York City (formerly Animal Care and Control) are getting a new adoption partner. Best Friends will open an adoption center in the SoHo neighborhood in early 2016. Broward County, Florida, commissioners will consider a measure on September 10 to amend county law to allow the release back into the community of sterilized feral cats (scroll down to “other action” in the link). This could be a big step in the right direction for Broward County’s flailing No Kill effort. Here’s an article from someone who is concerned that the “crazy cat lady” stereotype may be hurting the adoption chances of cats. The stereotype is certainly offensive, but is it affecting adoption rates for cats? I tend to doubt it. The effect, if it exists at all, must be very small because I don’t recall it ever turning up in research on why people do or do not adopt. The 2015 Veterinary Behavior Symposium, put on by the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, was on July 10th this year, the day before the AVMA’s yearly convention. Steve Dale offers a brief look at some of the presentations at the symposium in this article. One of the presentations addressed how leashed dogs may interact differently in dog greetings than unleashed dogs, and how this may have a bad effect on some dogs’ social skills. There has been a lot of interest lately in the health and behavior effects of spaying and neutering (see this roundable as one example), with studies suggesting that there may be both good and bad effects from the procedures. The discussions are especially pertinent to early-age sterilization. This is an important topic for animal shelters, as there is no way to guarantee that adoptive owners will sterilize their pets if it is not done before the pet leaves the shelter. And before pediatric sterilization became accepted in the 1990s, shelters were sometimes reluctant to adopt out puppies and kittens less than 6 months of age (the traditional minimum age for sterilization surgery) because so few adopters followed up on sterilization, even when it was free. So shelters have a big stake in pediatric sterilization. A 2014 study provides some favorable news for early-age sterilization, finding that cats did not show behavior differences based on whether they were sterilized early or at 6 months. Follow up was for 2 years. There has been renewed interest in chemical sterilization in recent years, driven mostly by the expense and invasiveness of traditional surgical sterilization, but also to some extent by concern with the side effects of surgery. This article in Cat Watch provides a summary of where we are with alternatives to the traditional surgical methods of sterilization. Animal shelters and rescues transport animals all the time, and at last we have a study on the safety of crates and carriers in accidents. The bad news is that most of the crates and carriers tested failed to meet the successful-outcome standard for the test. The good news is that some did. More good news is that standardized tests like this will no doubt encourage manufacturers to make safer crates and carriers in the future. The Animal Compassion Team (ACT), a No Kill group in Fresno County, California, that currently runs a No Kill shelter, is expected to be approved soon to take over the contract for animal control and sheltering for the county. Brenda Mitchell, who is the director of ACT, says that achieving No Kill for the county will not happen overnight, but she is optimistic for the future. The county badly needs a new shelter, and a county supervisor says one may be constructed within two years. Animal Rescue Rhode Island is helping to make a South Carolina shelter No Kill with its Bark and Ride transportation program. Since the program started it has saved over 700 dogs. Canine flu (H3N2 variety) has appeared in Atlanta. Vaccines against the flu are being developed. The appearance of the H3N2 virus, which is thought to have originated in Asia, stimulated this article about dog importation in the Clinician’s Brief. The author of the article appears to be unaware that the number of homeless dogs in the United States is rapidly coming into balance with the number of homes available. Even so, the article is a timely reminder that, if rescuers are going to increase importation of homeless dogs from other countries in the future (as I believe we should), we need to pay very careful attention to quarantine and vaccinations to make sure that imported dogs do not pose a health risk to dogs in the United States. A New Jersey shelter that had its water cut off asked the community for help and the community literally lined up to answer the call. Problem solved.

There was an interesting conversation a few days ago on the YesBiscuit! blog about whether the 90% live release rate standard for shelters isn’t enough and shelters should be saving a higher percentage. The conversation got me wondering whether the statistics for the 90%+ shelters listed by this blog could shed some light on the question. With almost 200 communities listed at this point, we have a pretty good sample size to work with. Quite a few communities have live release rates in the 95% to 100% range. So one question is whether there are characteristics of communities that affect how difficult it is to go beyond 90% to 95% or higher. The first thing I checked was whether climate has any effect on the number of shelters at 90%-94% versus 95%-100%.  Over the years that I’ve been researching shelters I’ve gotten an impression that shelters in colder climates, on average, have higher live release rates than shelters in warmer climates. Even so, I was surprised at how great the discrepancy was when I ran the numbers. I found a chart that ranks each U.S. state by average temperature, then counted how many communities in the blog’s right sidebar are located in the warmest 25 states versus the coldest 25 states. Out of the 184 communities currently listed, fully 131 (71%) were in the 25 colder states, while only 53 (29%) were in the 25 warmer states. The 20 coldest states had a breakdown of 30 shelters that were at 95% to 100% versus 9 that were at 90% to 94%, whereas the 20 warmest states had 12 shelters at 95% to 100% versus 9 shelters at 90% to 94%. I don’t think these numbers are being distorted by any differential in north-south population distribution: check out this map, which shows a rather even population distribution between north and south. So, if you are running a shelter in a warmer state, you have your work cut out for you. Another impression I had was that there were fewer large jurisdictions with 95% to 100% live release rates. We have to be careful in evaluating large versus small jurisdictions, though, because most jurisdictions are small (median size of 25,000 people). So, I looked at live release rates for communities under 25,000 in population versus communities over 25,000. I found a huge discrepancy in live release rates based on community size. The shelters listed by this blog that serve a population of under 25,000 people overwhelmingly have live release rates of 95% to 100% (21 to 2). Shelters in communities of over 25,000 people, by contrast, were almost evenly divided, with 23 having live release rates in the 90% to 94% range and 22 having rates of 95% to 100%. Overall, we have a striking pattern where smaller jurisdictions are more successful in getting to 95% and above.  (Interestingly, a previous statistical study I did showed minimal effect of population size on the ability of a shelter to get to the 90% threshold; thus, the effect of population size seems to pertain only to live release rates of 95% to 100%.) One of the issues brought up in the YesBiscuit! discussion was whether it’s helpful for advocates to criticize shelters that have live release rates in the 90-95% range, or whether such criticism is setting the bar too high and actually hurting the shelter reform movement. Austin was brought up as an example of a community that has taken severe criticism from advocates for killing some animals that advocates believed were savable. Austin is in the deep south, and it is the largest city in the U.S. that has achieved a 90% or more save rate.  Austin’s live release rate was 91% in 2011. I’ve not been able to find full 2012 calendar year statistics for the Austin Animal Center, but Austin Pets Alive! reported that the city had close to a 95% live release rate in fiscal year 2011-2012. Given that Austin is a big city in the deep South, the city’s attainment of a live release rate of close to 95% seems to me like a pretty awesome accomplishment. In fact, it’s unprecedented. I can’t see how criticizing Austin does the movement any good. Going beyond the head-to-head comparisons of shelter live release rates, there are several strategic considerations that are illuminated by the 184 successful communities identified thus far. One of those considerations is that the the U.S. population living in identified 90%+ communities is about 6.8 million, which is only a little more than 2% of the total U.S. population. We can probably safely double that number due to the fact that not all of the 90%+ communities have been identified, but that still leaves about 96% of the U.S. population served by shelters saving less than 90%. In these circumstances, if advocates claim that a standard that only about 4% of the population has attained isn’t good enough, it might discourage more communities than it encourages. Another consideration is that raising the bar to 95%+ could serve as an incentive for shelters to report their data in ways selected to maximize their live release rates. As of now, there is no standardized reporting system for U.S. shelters. Shelters are free to choose how they report animals in foster care, cats who have received TNR, neonatal dogs and cats, etc. A shelter that wants to make its live release rate look as good as possible can do so without being dishonest or fraudulent, simply because of the lack of any set reporting standards. One concern I have is that if unrealistic standards are set for shelter performance, shelters may start to change their reporting standards to present a rosier scenario, simply out of fear that they will be dragged through the mud by local advocates if they don’t. One final strategic consideration is that shelters that have highly effective pet retention programs will show somewhat lower live release rates than shelters that do not have such programs. This is because the animals that are retained by their owners (and thus not counted at all in shelter statistics) are ones that likely would not have been euthanized by the shelter and would have been live releases. Thus, the shelter is left with a population of animals that on average will need more rehabilitation and be harder to adopt, thereby having a higher euthanasia rate. If we insist on live release rates of 95% or more, it may have the unintended consequence of discouraging pet retention programs. I draw two conclusions from the factors outlined above. First, there are several strategic reasons having to do with performance incentives to stick with the 90% standard rather than moving to a 95% to 100% standard. Second, it’s unfair to judge all shelters by the same standard. The fact that rural shelters in the upper peninsula of Michigan can frequently put up numbers in the 95-100% range does not mean that city shelters in the warmer parts of the country can also do so, at least under the current state of things. Sticking with the 90% standard for now wouldn’t mean forever — once it becomes routine and expected for shelters to achieve 90%, then expectations could be increased. By that time we will have a much better professional infrastructure to help shelters, and communities will have been able to build large coalitions that will help them save the last 10%.

Pflugerville is a rapidly growing city in the Austin metro area. Its current population is 52,000, up from 16,000 in the year 2000. It is located north of Austin on the border of Travis and Williamson counties. The city has its own animal control division and municipal animal shelter that are collectively known as Pflugerville Animal Control (PAC). Animals are spayed or neutered before adoption (subject to exceptions for the welfare of the animal) and microchipped. I spoke with the director of the shelter, Rhonda McLendon, and she told me that the shelter accepts any owner surrender from the city with no appointment required, no fee, and no waiting list. McLendon mentioned two private organizations that have been especially helpful to the shelter, Pflugerville’s Pfurry Pfriends (PPP) and Pflugerville Pets Alive! (PPA!). Plugerville city ordinances prohibit feral cats being returned to colonies, so PPP partners with PAC to place ferals as barn cats. The cats are spayed or neutered and vaccinated. PPP donated outdoor runs for an exercise area at the shelter, and also supplies funds for heartworm treatments and complex surgeries. PPA! promotes the shelter’s pets, and has a popular Facebook page. Early in 2013, The shelter renovated a building next to its facility to increase the number of cats who can be accommodated and to house an intake center and medical facility. The PPP website has photos of the shelter’s new Cat Adoption Center, which has cat condos. The city also purchased a vehicle to use for large adoption events and emergency management. In March of 2013, the shelter’s director issued a press release noting that the shelter had a 97% live release rate in 2012. I contacted the shelter for the full statistics, and by the method I use for this blog the live release rate for 2012 was 98%. McLendon reported that PAC had a 47% reclaim rate in 2012 due in part to officers’ success at returning stray animals to their homes in the field, without bringing them to the shelter. McLendon told me that the 47% reclaim rate includes cats. When I asked how they managed to return so many cats, McLendon told me that officers will go door-to-door to try to find an animal’s home. Animals returned in the field are not counted as intake, so PAC actually served many more animals than the 982 who were impounded in 2012. Pflugerville, TX, is counted in the Running Totals as a 90%+ community.