Then one day while she was at home she heard loud howling. She went out to investigate and found a stray dog on a neighbor’s property with his paw trapped in a fence. Guinn did what most people would have done – she called animal control and asked them to come help the dog. Animal control officers arrived and were able to free the dog. Then they loaded him on a truck to take him to the shelter. Guinn asked what would happen to him and was shocked when they told her that if no owner claimed him within his 5-day stray hold period he would be killed. She felt remorseful thinking that she had taken an action trying to help the dog, only to find that it might result in his death. Guinn called the shelter and asked them to allow her to adopt the dog if his owners did not reclaim him. They told her if she wanted to adopt the dog she had to come to the shelter in person and write her name on his card. So she made time in her busy day to go to the shelter to do what easily could have been done over the phone. When she walked into the shelter she was overwhelmed to see hundreds of dogs, several to a cage. She found “her” dog, wrote her name on his kennel card, and arranged to come back to pick him up as soon as he was off stray hold. That was on a Friday and she was told she could pick him up on Monday. When Guinn returned on Monday afternoon, she walked into a nearly empty shelter. They had just finished killing, and almost all the dogs she had seen on Friday were dead. As she stood there in the shelter looking around at the empty runs, she was devastated. In that moment, she decided that what she was seeing was wrong and that she wanted to change it. Her dog, one of the few left alive, was waiting, and she went through the adoption procedure with him. She left the shelter determined to do something to stop the slaughter. Guinn began to educate herself about animal shelters, and one of the things she did was attend the 2002 Best Friends conference. She met the leaders of Best Friends there and was inspired by their ideas and encouragement. Soon after, she formed a non-profit, LifeLine Animal Project, to put some of the things she had learned into practice. One of the first LifeLine initiatives was Catlanta, a TNR program for feral cats. Best Friends continued to offer assistance and mentoring, and she even worked for Best Friends at one point. It wasn’t long before she quit her job, took a giant pay cut, and started working on LifeLine full time. LifeLine started a private shelter that took in cruelty cases and special-needs animals needing rehabilitation. Their first spay-neuter clinic, founded in 2005, provided reduced-cost and free sterilizations. They offered vaccination clinics. Guinn’s philosophy was to work with the existing institutions in the community, and she tried to help the local shelters in any way that she could. In 2010, LifeLine opened its second spay-neuter clinic. That same year saw passage of a law Guinn had helped draft that banned gas chambers as a method of shelter killing in Georgia. The Atlanta area has a county-based shelter system, with each county having its own shelter. Most of Atlanta is located in Fulton County, with a small part in DeKalb County. The combined population of the two counties is about 1.7 million people. In Fulton, various non-profits had contracted to run the shelter over the years, and in DeKalb the county ran the shelter. Guinn and LifeLine worked primarily with these two shelters. In 2012, Fulton had a live release rate of about 35%. As Guinn put it, she had been working to support the shelter for 10 years doing everything she could, and yet had seen it go the wrong way. DeKalb was better at about a 55-60% live release rate, due largely to LifeLine having partnered with the shelter to run a feral cat program. Guinn decided to put in a bid to run the DeKalb shelter, not knowing if the bid would even be considered, much less granted. Shortly thereafter, the Fulton contract went up for bid, and LifeLine bid on that as well. Time went by and Guinn had not heard on either bid. Then, in January 2013, she was notified within the space of two days that LifeLine had won both bids. LifeLine took over in Fulton on March 15, 2013, and in DeKalb on July 1, 2013. The last two years have been a whirlwind for Guinn and the LifeLine staff, but it has been time well spent. The live release rate for Fulton County in 2014, in their first full year of running the shelter, was 76%, an increase of over 40 points, and in DeKalb County it was 80%. Intake at the two shelters was over 15,500 animals in 2014. Right now, going into kitten season, both shelters are running at a rolling live release rate in the mid-to-upper 80s. They have accomplished this in spite of the fact that both shelter buildings are old and outdated. LifeLine has made many improvements at the Fulton and DeKalb shelters in the last two years. These include a cat room and adoption area, pet retention programs,  and a streamlined adoption process. The Fulton County contract includes animal control, and the officers can now check for microchips and return animals in the field. The shelters treat the treatables, spending about $10,000 per month on animals who are sent to private veterinarians. LifeLine transports some animals to the north. It is continuing its anti-cruelty, pet health, and spay-neuter efforts in the community, and has sterilized over 80,000 animals. Rebecca Guinn is an example of the “do it yourself” ethic that we are seeing more and more in No Kill sheltering today. In both Fulton and DeKalb counties, outside pressure had made officials aware of the problems with the shelters. It seems very unlikely that significant positive change would have happened in either county, though, without LifeLine stepping up and making proposals to run the shelters. The do-it-yourself approach allows people who do not have a background in traditional animal shelter management or animal control to take over leadership of large city and county shelter systems. If someone with a non-shelter background applied for a job as a shelter director through the usual municipal-government process, that person would probably not be seriously considered. As the head of a non-profit with a track record of actively assisting the shelter, though, such a person is in a good position to bid on a shelter contract. The Atlanta community has been very appreciative of what Guinn and LifeLine have done. Guinn was selected as the recipient of the 2013 Leadership DeKalb’s Sue Ellen Owens Award “for creating a permanent and positive legacy of initiative and vision in the community.” Guinn defines No Kill as saving every savable animal, and she has a goal for both shelters to meet that standard in 2016. This is the first in an occasional series of blog posts on successful shelter directors.

McIntosh County lies along the Atlantic Ocean coastline of Georgia, about 50 miles south of Savannah. It is a rural county with a population of 14,000 people. The county seat and only incorporated city is Darien, which has 2000 residents. The county shelter has been managed under contract by a non-profit, the Humane Animal Resource Team (HART) of McIntosh County, since October 1, 2012. I called the shelter to get additional information on animal control in the county, and was told that when HART took over operation of the shelter animal control remained with the sheriff’s office. All animals picked up by the sheriff are brought to the shelter. Only the shelter does euthanasia. Beth Kleymeyer, a board member of HART, and shelter director Jennifer Wrenn sent me the following information on HART. The shelter accepts owner surrenders with no appointment necessary. They may occasionally ask if an owner can hold a dog for a week or so when they are full, but they will take the animal immediately if the owner cannot wait. They ask for a fee for surrenders. Cats are transferred from the shelter managed by HART to HART the 501(c)(3), which adopts them out at PetSmart. Many dogs were transported to the northeast in 2013, and the shelter hopes to keep that option open in 2014. HART has been working on increasing adoptions, and recently adopted out 39 animals in one week. HART spent over $30,000 in 2013 on spay-neuter, TNR, and low- and no-cost community surgeries. In 2013 the shelter took in 479 dogs and 342 cats for a total of 821 animals, which is an intake of 59 animals per 1000 people. The live release rate (LRR) for 2013 was 94%. If the 73 cats who had TNR are included as live releases, the LRR was 95%. The shelter refers owner requests for euthanasia to a veterinarian. The modified LRR, including animals who died or were lost in shelter care with euthanasias, was 91%. The shelter’s reports of the statistics are linked here: Cat Statistics for 2013 Dog Statistics for 2013

[NOTE: The Worth Watching category lists communities whose animal shelter systems are doing substantially better than average, but have not reported a sustained (for one year or more) 90%+ live release rate. These communities are not counted in the running total in the blog’s subtitle. For more about the Worth Watching category, see the Worth Watching page link in the blog’s header.] Star Valley is made up up several small communities located along a river valley that is primarily in Wyoming. The communities range in size from about 100 to 2000 people. The area is just to the south of the city of Jackson and Teton County. Most of the Star Valley communities are in Lincoln County, Wyoming, which does not have a municipal shelter. Animal sheltering is provided by a private non-profit called the Animal Humane Association of Star Valley (AHASV). AHASV was founded in 2002, and it has a shelter called Lucky’s Place that was built on land donated by the county. AHASV places several hundred animals each year. It takes in owner surrenders, but sometimes has a waiting list. A 2012 article about AHASV said: “Before this group was incorporated, the 11 small communities that comprise the Star Valley area had no companion animal rescue, sanctuary, emergency medical assistance, or subsidized spay/neuter services. Barn cats and ranch dogs were often considered to reproduce about as quickly as they were killed by vehicles, diseases, wildlife or complications from birthing. If they did happen to survive in numbers that became larger than someone cared to feed, the less-desirable ones could be shot or drowned.” AHASV changed all that. They spay/neuter all pets before they are adopted out and get them current on shots. If they are sick and can be treated, then “they are treated until they are completely well,” and terminally ill pets are treated as long as possible. Pets do not have a deadline for adoption and they stay at Lucky’s Place or in foster care until adopted. I could not find full statistics for Lincoln County for 2012 online. Therefore, I am listing the community as Worth Watching.

Erie County, on the western edge of New York state and bordering Lake Erie, has 919,000 residents. Buffalo, the county seat, has 261,000 people. Maddie’s Fund started a project in 2009 to increase live outcomes for shelter animals in the county, and the project is slated to run through September 30, 2014. The project has enlisted a coalition of six agencies. The lead agency for the coalition is the “SPCA Serving Erie County” (SPCASEC), a private, independent organization,  which takes in strays impounded by county animal control agencies and accepts owner surrenders. The shelter has a waiting list for cat surrenders. The other members of the coalition are the City of Buffalo Animal Shelter and four private rescues: HEART; Second Chance Sheltering Network; Black Dog (Second Chance); and Ten Lives Club. Maddie’s Fund reported that the coalition achieved a live release rate of 82% for year 3 of the project, the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2012. SPCASEC has posted calendar year statistics on its website for itself and for the county for 2012. The SPCASEC live release rate for calendar year 2012 was 82%, and the county coalition live release rate was 85%. These figures do not include owner-requested euthanasia or animals who died or were lost in shelter care. Total intake for the county for 2012 was 15,261 animals. Erie County is counted in the Running Totals as an 80%+ community.

The last few years have been a very exciting time for cat advocates because the new community cat paradigms are revolutionizing how shelters deal with cats. Problems can arise in fully implementing community cat programs, though, including ordinances that restrict trap-neuter-return (TNR) or return-to-field (RTF). Just recently we have had a threat to the TNR program in Washington, DC and a scare as to the TNR and RTF programs in Jacksonville, Florida. We never know when or where the bird conservationists are going to pop up and propose a restrictive ordinance to stop TNR and RTF, or try to persuade government officials to adopt a trap-and-kill program. Community cat advocates are fortunate to have great sources of help and information such as Alley Cat Allies and the Million Cat Challenge. Peter Wolf’s blog Vox Felina has many articles deconstructing the research that bird conservationists cite as support for their trap-and-kill agenda. In addition to those great resources, I thought it might be handy to have a short guide to the true state of knowledge about feral and community cats today. Here are some facts that sometimes get buried in the rhetoric about free-roaming cats . We have no idea how many free-roaming cats there are in the United States. In 2013, a meta-analysis of cat predation on wildlife that came to be known as the Smithsonian study was published by three conservationists.* The paper received a great deal of attention and has been frequently cited by bird conservationists in arguing for trap-and-kill programs. The authors admitted, however, that the number of free-roaming cats in the United States is not known. In their words: “No empirically-derived estimate of un-owned cat abundance exists for the contiguous U.S.” What this means in plain English is that no one has ever done an evidence-based study on the number of outdoor cats in the United States. The authors then went on to acknowledge that the guesses people have made as to the number of feral cats range from 20 million to 120 million. So if you are ever at a city council hearing and a bird conservationist says that “there are 60 million feral cats in the United States,” feel free to correct them by citing their own flagship study. The fact is that whenever anyone claims there are “x” number of feral or free-roaming cats in the United States, they are purely guessing. Cats are a commensal species.** That means that they live primarily in and near human habitations, much like squirrels, raccoons, and opposums. Commensal species are dependent on humans for food and shelter. There is no evidence whatsoever that significant numbers of feral cats live in wilderness areas in the continental United States. There is no evidence whatsoever that the number of unowned cats in the United States as a whole is increasing. In fact, the evidence we have indicates that the number of free-roaming cats is decreasing. Bird conservationists often argue that cats are an “invasive” species. It is true that the domestic cat is not native to the Americas, but there is no evidence that cats are an “invasive” species in the sense of rapidly multiplying and taking over habitats. Cats were introduced to the United States before the Pilgrims arrived, and if they were a classic invasive species the country would be chock-a-block with cats by now. Instead of increasing, cat populations in cities, measured by shelter intake and anecdotal evidence of the number of cats on the street, appear to have been declining for the last 75 years. And since cats, as commensal animals, live mostly in cities, then if cat numbers are declining in cities they are probably declining overall. There is no evidence that cat predation harms bird species at the population level, or that cat predation has ever affected the survival of an endangered bird species in the continental United States. The authors of the Smithsonian study attached a supplemental table where they listed bird mortality by species as found in various studies. As Peter Wolf pointed out in a blog post on Vox Felina, of the 58 species cited, 57 are plentiful. One, the Northern Bobwhite, is listed as “near threatened,” but its status is attributed to habitat destruction and sport hunting. No one knows how many birds a typical outdoor cat kills. Studies that have been done in the United States have found everything from 1.64 birds per cat per year to 186.47 birds per cat per year (see Supplementary Table S1 in the Smithsonian study). With such a gigantic variation in study results, the only reasonable conclusion we can come to is that scientists have not yet discovered how to set proper parameters for effectively measuring cat predation on birds in the field. Owned cats kill fewer birds than unowned cats. Although the studies cited in Supplementary Table S1 of the Smithsonian paper are extremely inconsistent as to the number of birds killed by individual cats, the studies are very consistent in concluding that owned cats kill far fewer birds than unowned cats. Owned cats are fed, so it is not surprising that they hunt less. Feral cats who have a colony caregiver are also fed. Therefore, the Smithsonian study provides strong support for the argument that TNR, with ongoing colony care, will lead to less predation on birds. The trap-and-kill methods pushed by bird conservationists have never been shown to work. In order for trap-and-kill to work, the generally accepted view is that at least 70% of the target population has to be killed, and this has to be repeated every two years. Because cats live mostly in urban and suburban areas, especially in alleys and vacant houses and outbuildings where they can find shelter, extermination programs would have to trap cats in people’s neighborhoods. I am not aware of any city that has ever tried a mass trap-and-kill program, and I cannot imagine how such a program would succeed. First, it would be very expensive because it would require the purchase of a large number of traps and the employment of a large number of people to set and monitor the traps and kill the cats. Second, catching feral cats is not easy, and the people who know how to do it would not be assisting the city. Third, the traps would catch more pet cats and small dogs than feral cats, and it would be very expensive to house those animals for return to their owners. Fourth, there would be many highly publicized horror stories of pet cats who were caught and killed by the trappers. Fifth, people who sympathized with the cats would sabotage the traps and would not allow traps to be placed on their private property. Sixth, the bird conservationists are not offering to fund or carry out these extermination programs themselves, and instead urge the cities to pay for it and to take the heat. Advocates should make sure that city officials see the contrast between TNR/RTF programs, which are paid for with donations and carried out by volunteers, and trap-and-kill programs which would have to be carried out by hired help and funded by the taxpayers. And we should use every opportunity to point out that bird conservationists who argue against TNR and RTF are trying to destroy existing programs without having any practical solution to put in their place. Our message is not “just leave the cute kitties alone.” Bird conservationists often try to paint cat advocates as irrational and sentimental people, and they sometimes invoke or hint at the “cat lady” stereotype. They try to portray cat advocates as supporters of an untenable status quo. We need to make sure that government officials know that TNR and RTF are programs that are designed to change the status quo. In fact, the purpose of TNR and RTF is to do exactly what bird conservationists say they want, which is to reduce the number of free-roaming cats. Government officials love to find a middle ground on contentious issues, and TNR and RTF provide such a middle ground. CITATIONS: * “The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States,” Scott R. Loss, Tom Will, and Peter P. Marra, Nature Communications 4, January 29, 2013, doi:10.1038/ncomms2380. ** Terry O’Connor, Animals as Neighbors: The Past and Present of Commensal Animals (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2013).

Lynchburg is an independent city of about 76,000 people in Virginia, located southwest of Charlottesville and east of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Lynchburg Humane Society (LHS), is a non-profit that has a contract with the city of Lynchburg for animal services. LHS requires an appointment for owner surrenders and charges a small fee, but states that it will make exceptions for people who need to surrender a pet immediately or cannot pay the fee. The shelter reported a 90% live release rate for the year 2011. LHS did not do quite as well in 2012, when it had an 87% live release rate. For 2013, LHS was back over 90%, reporting a live release rate of 92% for the year, with an intake of 1537 animals. The city of Lynchburg animal control euthanized 25 animals, and the live release rate for the community as a whole in 2013 was 90%. LHS has been struggling with a relatively high number of shelter deaths. They attribute this in large part to their badly outdated shelter building, which has made it difficult to control infectious diseases. If animals who died in shelter care are counted in with euthanasias, the modified live release rate for 2013 drops to 83%. There is hope on the horizon, though, because LHS has almost completed its fundraising for a new building, which they expect will be completed this fall. In 2013 LHS transferred only 15 animals, a relatively small number. This is a good sign because it means the shelter is finding permanent homes for animals rather than transporting them to other states or to rescues. LHS is thus freeing up capacity for transporters and rescues by taking care of its animals within the community. Many shelters have blogs, but the LHS blog is particularly worth following because it occasionally has posts that analyze its programs from a statistical or outcomes point of view. Three posts that are worth reading for their statistical analyses are linked here: Owners Are Helping Us Save Lives By Waiting TNR Opinion – It Is Time We Fix The Problem Can You Wait Please? It Means Life To Us!

Powhatan County, Virginia, has about 28,000 residents and is part of the Richmond metropolitan area. Animal control and sheltering are handled by the county through a municipal office, Powhatan Animal Control, that has four employees and a small shelter. The shelter takes in strays and owner surrenders. The web site for the shelter does not mention any restrictions on owner surrenders. The animal control officers do not impound cats except for owner surrenders and injured stray cats — cats are considered free roaming. In 2010, the county shelter took in 594 animals and had a live release rate of 83%. The live release rate rose to 96% in 2011, and remained at 96% in 2012 and 2013. Intake has been steadily falling, going from 595 animals in 2010 to 505 animals in 2011, to 437 in 2012 and 413 in 2013. The Virginia state database from which these statistics are taken does not break out owner-requested euthanasias. If the category of “died in facility” is added to euthanasias, the shelter had a 95% live release rate in both 2012 and 2013. The shelter’s high live release rate is due in part to its participation in adoption events with Metro Richmond Pet Savers. It also transfers many of its animals to rescues, including FLAG and BARK. The shelter typically transfers over 200 animals per year to rescues. Powhatan County, Virginia, was originally listed by this blog on May 2, 2013, based on its 2012 statistics. This post is a revision and update with 2013 statistics.

Washoe County in Nevada (population 421,000), includes the cities of Reno (population 225,000) and Sparks (90,000). The three jurisdictions have a public-private partnership for animal control and sheltering. The municipal Washoe County Regional Animal Services (WCRAS) handles animal control for all three jurisdictions. WCRAS is known for its very successful return-to-owner program, which re-homes a high percentage of animals in the field and actively seeks to find the owners of impounded animals. The great majority of animals not returned to their owners are transferred to the private, non-profit Nevada Humane Society (NHS) for placement. NHS also handles intake of owner surrenders from Washoe County residents. The shelter requires an appointment and a small fee. NHS has posted the partnership’s summary statistics for 2012 on its website (scroll down the page in the previous link to “Statistics” in the left sidebar), consisting of intake and euthanasia figures. The coalition euthanized 8% of intake in 2012 according to these figures. WCRAS and NHS have provided separate full statistical reports for 2011, allowing a calculation of their live release rates separately for that year. WCRAS had a 94% live release rate (click on “Maddie’s Fund Report 2011″ for the full statistics), counting transferred animals as live releases. NHS also reported a 94% live release rate for 2011, based on transfers and owner surrenders. If owner requested euthanasia and died/lost in shelter care are included in euthanasias, each organization had a 92% live release rate in 2011. I was not able to find a full statistical report online combining WCRAS and NHS numbers for 2011, but we can approximate a kill rate by adding the number of animals surrendered to NHS by owners to the number impounded by WCRAS, and comparing that to the total animals euthanized by both agencies. This yields an approximate 8% kill rate for the community as a whole in 2011. (The kill rate for 2011 by this method is 10% if the categories of owner requested euthanasia and died/lost in shelter care are counted in with euthanasias.) A Best Friends blog from July 2011 provides a look at how the NHS director, Bonney Brown, transformed the shelter after she took over in 2007. The blog describes how Brown has succeeded in reducing intake through pet retention programs and has increased adoptions through creative marketing.

Seagoville is a suburb of Dallas, Texas, and has about 15,000 inhabitants. The Seagoville Animal Shelter, a municipal shelter, handles animal control and sheltering for the city. The shelter published its statistics for 2011 online, reporting a 97% live release rate. The shelter’s intake for 2011 was 568 cats and dogs. Most of the animals — 327 — left the shelter through adoption. The shelter transferred 192 cats and dogs to rescues and returned 47 to their owners. Twelve dogs and 3 cats were euthanized, and those euthanasias were for reportedly for illness, injury, or aggression. The shelter director e-mailed me the statistics for 2012, and they show a 98% live release rate with an intake of 798 dogs and cats. There were 537 adoptions, 76 returned to owner, 124 sent to rescue, and TNR for 19 feral cats. There were no owner-requested euthanasias reported. The number of animals who died or were lost in shelter care was 12, and with that number included as part of euthanasias, the live release rate was 97%. This video describes how Seagoville was able to achieve its high live release rate. In addition to taking in strays, the Seagoville shelter counsels owners to try to prevent surrender. The shelter accepts owner surrenders only if there is no alternative placement available. Seagoville, TX, is counting in the Running Totals as a 90%+ community.

By now you have probably heard about “cat cafes,” which are the latest rage in the cat world. Cat cafes are coffee shops with cats. To keep public health officials happy they are often divided into two rooms, one where you buy coffee and pastries and the other where you can mingle with the cats. In some places, depending on local regulations, the cafes can have the food and drinks and cats all in one space by serving only drinks and packaged snacks. There is usually a small cover charge. This article describes one person’s experience with the cat cafe in Washington, DC, which is called Crumbs and Whiskers. Cat cafes generally select outgoing cats who are not stressed by interactions with people, and they have one or more areas where cats can retreat to get away from the patrons if they are not feeling social. The cafe may rotate cats so they don’t get burned out by too much human contact. The cat cafe concept originated in Asia, and reportedly goes back to Taiwan in 1998, which had a cat cafe called the Cat Flower Garden. Cat cafes really took off in Japan starting about 10 years ago. Most apartments in Tokyo do not allow pets, and the idea behind the Japanese cafes was to allow apartment-dwelling young professionals to have some time with cats without actually owning them. Neko no Mise (“Cat Shop”), which opened in Tokyo in 2005, was reportedly the first cat cafe in Japan. Today Tokyo has so many cat cafes that there are guides to the most notable ones. Cat cafes have spread to London, Lithuania, Singapore, and Budapest, among many other places. The cat cafe phenomenon did not reach the United States until last year, but when it finally got here it was an instant hit. The first permanent cat cafe in the United States, Cat Town Cafe in Oakland, opened on October 25, 2014. It was followed by Planet Tails in Naples, the Denver Cat Company , and Meow Parlour in New York City, which all opened in December 2014. Since then we have had so many cat cafes springing up that it is hard to keep track. Recently established or planned cat cafe locations include Sacramento, Chicago, San Jose, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Asheville, San Diego, and Lincoln, Nebraska.  Montreal gets credit for the first vegan cat cafe in North America. Not all cat cafes are permanent – some are temporary pop-ups, likes ones that opened in New York City (way back in April of 2014) and Los Angeles. The idea behind the pop-up cat cafe, as with any pop-up restaurant, is that it can showcase the concept without the type of investment needed for a permanent establishment. Los Angeles also had a Pup-Up Cafe. Cat cafes in the United States are designed to promote adoptions, and the kitty residents are generally from local shelters or rescues. Cat cafes are similar to offsite adoption venues in that they bring adoptable animals to places where the people are, but they serve a somewhat different function. Offsite adoption venues tend to attract people who have already decided to adopt or are thinking about possibly adopting, whereas cat cafes appeal to everyone who likes cats. The cafes can raise the profile of the shelter and help with fundraising and volunteer recruitment. Even people who never visit the cafe will hear about it and the shelter. The way the cat cafe phenomenon has taken hold and spread is little short of amazing. It is less than a year since the first permanent cat cafe opened in the U.S., and already it seems like there is a new one every week. We may soon catch up with Japan, which reportedly has about 100 cat cafes.

Fort Morgan is a city of 11,000 people located in the northeastern part of Colorado. It is the county seat of Morgan County, which has a population of 28,000. The area is mostly devoted to farming. The city has an animal control service, but animals are impounded by a private agency, the Fort Morgan Humane Society (FMHS). I spoke to the shelter’s operations manager, Tina Gutierrez, who told me that the shelter has contracts with Fort Morgan, Morgan County, Log Lane and Wiggins for stray intake. She said that the county has a deputy assigned to animal control. The shelter accepts owner surrenders subject to a waiting list. Gutierrez told me that she is generally able to counsel owners to be able to keep their pets or, if that is not possible, to find a rescue placement for them. Gutierrez told me that transfers from FMHS go to approved rescues. One rescue she mentioned that has been of assistance to the shelter is Furever Friends, which does adoptions and has a lost and found service. FMHS has a trap-neuter-return program for feral cats. They are neutered and given vaccinations and a full examination. The shelter does not offer owner-requested euthanasia. The state of Colorado collects statistics on animal shelters. According to those statistics, FMHS took in 1302 animals in 2012, which is an intake of 47 animals per 1000 people in the county. The live release rate for 2012 was 92%. If the number of animals who died or were lost in shelter care is counted in with euthanasias, the live release rate was 90%. Gutierrez told me that she had instituted new medical protocols since she took over earlier this year, and she expects the 2013 statistics to be even better. The city of Brush (population 5000), is located in Morgan County, and it has its own shelter and an animal control unit run by the police department. The Brush shelter does not accept owner surrenders. FMHS takes in many animals from Brush who are not reclaimed within the 5-day hold period. Brush is not listed as a 90% community, however, because the Brush Animal Shelter reported killing 56 of the 111 cats they took in during 2012.

[For today’s News Bit and the Running Totals, click here.] Culpeper County is a community of about 47,000 people located in north central Virginia not far from Washington, DC. Its county seat is the town of Culpeper. Culpeper County Animal Services and the Culpeper County Animal Shelter provide animal control and sheltering for the city and county of Culpeper. The shelter’s petfinder listing states that it takes in owner surrenders and does not mention any conditions. I was told in a phonecall to Animal Services that the organizations report combined statistics to the state of Virginia. The shelter transfers a high percentage of its cats to Culpeper Felines and Friends, a local non-profit which also reports to the state. The combined statistics for the three organizations showed an 80% live release rate for 2014. Another local organization, the Humane Society of Culpeper, has a trap-neuter-return (TNR) program that has provided TNR services to the county for over five years. The Culpeper Animal Shelter refers feral cats to this TNR program. Culpeper County, VA, is counted in the Running Totals as an 80%+ community.