OUT THE FRONT DOOR

2016 UPDATE: Director Ron Edwards has posted statistics going back to 2005 on the Ames Animal Shelter’s website. The live release rate for fiscal year 2014/2015 was 96% for cats and dogs. Ames is a city of about 60,000 people located in the center of Iowa. It is an education and technology powerhouse for a city its size. Animal control and sheltering are provided by the municipal Ames Animal Shelter. The shelter takes in both strays and owner surrenders. The shelter describes itself this way: “The Ames Animal Shelter is a safe[,] humane place for the care of homeless, unwanted, lost, injured and many other animals, while owners are sought. At the Ames Animal Shelter we promise to love and care for the pets brought to us to the best of our abilities; we promise to make them as comfortable as possible in a difficult situation; we will work responsibly to maintain our 90%+ reclaim and adoption rate!” The shelter lists its statistics for 2010 on its website. The statistics show an intake of almost 800 animals in 2010, with 400 adopted, 307 returned to owner, 8 transferred, and 76 euthanized, for a live release rate of 90%. I could not find statistics for 2011 or 2012, but the shelter stated in a 2012 newsletter that its goal was to “maintain” its “90% or higher reclaim and adoption rate.” I am listing this community as 90% Reported because I was not able to locate or obtain a full listing of statistics online as required for the right sidebar. Ames, Iowa, is counted in the Running Totals as a 90%+ community.

Benzie County is in western Michigan, along the shore of Lake Michigan. It is a rural county with lots of parks and trails, and has a population of about 16,000 people. The county has the distinction of being the smallest in Michigan in land area, and it has a correspondingly small animal shelter. Benzie County Animal Control provides both animal control and sheltering services for the county. It accepts owner surrenders for a small fee. A non-profit, the Animal Welfare League of Benzie County, has spay-neuter and education programs and provides medical care for injured animals. In 2009, the shelter took in 538 animals and had an 80% live release rate. In 2010, it took in 381 animals and improved to a live release rate of 93%.  In 2011, the live release rate was 92% with an intake of 428 cats and dogs. Intake was 359 in 2012, with a live release rate of 92%.

Hamilton County is located in the middle of Indiana, north of Indianapolis. It has a population of about 275,000 people, and is one of the most rapidly growing counties in the United States. The Humane Society for Hamilton County (HSHC) is a private organization that contracts to provide animal sheltering services for the county. The contract includes animal sheltering services for the municipalities of Fishers (population 77,000), Carmel (79,000), Noblesville (52,000), and Westfield (30,000 ). The shelter takes in owner surrenders from residents of its service area. It asks owners to call first. There is no charge for surrenders from the shelter’s jurisdiction, but residents of the municipalities in the county that do not contract with HSHC must pay a fee for surrenders. HSHC posted partial statistics for 2011 in a newsletter that is no longer online. Those statistics showed an intake of 3461 animals in 2011, with 501 animals already on hand. 145 of those animals died in shelter care or were euthanized during the year, and the shelter placed 3700 animals. The live release rate was 96% for the year calculated as the inverse of 145 divided by 3461. I could not locate full 2012 statistics posted online, but HSHC reports a 90.3% live release rate for 2012, calculated as live releases divided by total intake. They report that total intake for 2012 was 3220. HSHC’s website documents their programs for pit-bull adoptions, spay-neuter assistance, and pet retention, as well as foster and volunteer outreach. Trap-Neuter-Return for feral cats is provided by an independent low-cost spay-neuter clinic located next to the shelter. Hamilton County is counted in the Running Totals as a 90%+ community.

[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.] Savannah is a small town of about 7,000 people located in a rural area in the western part of Tennessee. It is the county seat of Hardin County, which has a population of about 46,000 people. Animal control and sheltering for Savannah has been provided by Savannah Animal Services, a municipal department run by the town. An article in the Jackson Sun that is no longer available online reported that from November 1, 2011 to November 1, 2012 the shelter took in 657 animals and euthanized 29 of them. The live release rate calculated on this limited data is 96%. I spoke to the shelter’s director, Charlie Nickle, about the shelter’s history. Nickle told me that when he was appointed director of the shelter about four years ago he immediately began working to improve the live release rate because he believed that the pets who came into the shelter had a right to live. Nickle said that the shelter accepts owner surrenders from people who live in the city, and the only conditions are a photo ID to prove residence and a $10 fee. Nickle said that in the past they were not able to adopt out many animals locally and their primary means of placing animals was by transport to approved rescues all over the United States. In 2012 the shelter moved into a new building which is much more conducive to adoptions, and the shelter had 10 local adoptions in its first week. Nickle said that they do not have a TNR program because there are no feral cat colonies in the city, and all the cats they take in are domesticated. I’ve placed this shelter in the Worth Watching category instead of listing it in the right sidebar because Hardin County has purchased the new shelter building and equipment in order to unify operations with the city of Savannah. Nickle has stated that the euthanasia rate may rise with the influx of animals from the county.

Garfield County has a large landmass that stretches from west of Denver to the western border of Colorado. It has a population of over 56,000 people. The county seat is Glenwood Springs, which has a population of about 10,000. Colorado Animal Rescue (CAS) is a non-profit that has animal sheltering contracts with the county and Glenwood Springs. (The city of Rifle is located in Garfield County, but it has its own animal shelter that reports separately.) CAS takes in strays and owner surrenders, but has a waiting list for owner surrenders and charges a fee. CAS reported a 96% live release rate to Maddie’s Fund in 2010, with an intake of 931 animals (scroll down in the link). In 2011, the shelter reported a live release rate of 97% with an intake of 992. The shelter did not report any owner-requested euthanasias, and the live release rate with animals who died or were lost in shelter care included with euthanasias was 96%. CAS also reports its statistics each year to the state of Colorado. In 2012, it reported an intake of 1098 animals. The live release rate was 97%. Garfield County and Glenwood Springs are two of a group of communities in the area west of Denver that report to Maddie’s Fund and the Asilomar Accords as part of the Northwestern Colorado Coalition. Other members of the coalition are Summit, Pitkin, and Eagle counties and the cities of Aspen and Rifle. The coalition reported an overall 97% live release rate in 2010 and 98% in 2011 (see pages 1-2 in the links).

The city of Brookfield is a suburb of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that has about 38,000 human residents. It is the location of the Elmbrook Humane Society (EHS), which provides animal control and sheltering services for the city of Brookfield and accepts owner surrenders. EHS also provides animal control and sheltering for several nearby communities, including the villages of Lannon, Chenequa, Elm Grove (population 6000) and Natosha, and the towns of Brookfield (population 6000) and Delafield (population 7000). The shelter takes in owner surrenders from outside its area when it can, and pulls animals from other animal control facilities, including Milwaukee. In total, the shelter takes in about 2500 domestic and wild animals per year. The shelter has posted graphs on its website to summarize statistical outcomes for 2011, 2012, and 2013 for dogs and cats. The live release rate for 2011 was 89%. For 2012 EHS reported a 98% live release. For 2013, the live release rate was 97%. The shelter does not report any owner-requested euthanasias. For each year the live release rate is about 1% lower if animals who died in shelter care are included with euthanasias. Total intake in 2013 was 1867 dogs and cats, which is 33 animals per 1000 residents in the EHS service area. Brookfield, Wisconsin, was originally listed by this blog on April 20, 2013, based on its 2012 statistics. This post is a revision and update with 2013 statistics.

One of the biggest controversies in animal sheltering today is the question of whether public animal shelters can adopt their way out of killing. Yesterday I posted consolidated statistics for Colorado animal shelters for 2012. As I will explain in today’s post, I think the Colorado data provides very strong evidence that shelters can adopt their way out of killing. One caveat — the Colorado data is based on self-reporting by the shelters in the state. I did not see any red flags in the data and it correlates very well with what I heard in my extensive interviews with shelter officials in the state, but I cannot promise that the data is flawless. First some background. For years now the animal shelter reform movement has had a deep and sometimes bitter division between what I will call the supply-side faction and the demand-side faction. The supply-side faction thinks that we have a pet overpopulation problem and that we will never be able to find enough adoptive homes for shelter animals until we reduce the supply through spay-neuter programs. The demand-side faction believes that there are currently enough homes to save virtually all shelter animals, and that shelters should use marketing and community engagement techniques to increase market share among those who acquire pets. There is no easy compromise between these two factions because they represent two different world views about shelter animals and the general public. The supply siders think that most people want to adopt young, healthy animals and that they will never adopt the pit bulls and older cats in shelters, no matter how much the shelter promotes them. The demand siders think that although spay-neuter programs are a good thing, they take years to work and will never completely solve the problem, whereas marketing techniques can save virtually all shelter animals right now. Where you stand on this question inevitably affects your beliefs as to shelter policy. The supply-side faction does not see a need to change the way that traditional, high-kill animal shelters operate because they think the problem originates outside the shelter with members of the “irresponsible public” who fail to spay and neuter their pets. The demand-side faction believes that it is essential to change shelter operations from the ground up to emphasize marketing and community outreach. Each side in this battle cites statistics. The supply-side faction often cites Peter Marsh, who has written a treatise called “Replacing Myth With Math.” Marsh argues that statistics show that euthanasia rates track animal shelter intakes rather than adoptions, and that adoption rates in California over a 25-year period from 1970 to 1995 stayed about the same while euthanasia and intake rates first peaked and then declined. Marsh concludes that the data means that we will make more progress in ending animal homelessness by reducing intake rather than by trying to increase adoptions. Conversely, the demand-side faction cites the ever-growing number of communities that are saving 90% or more of their shelter animals by changing their shelters and using marketing and community outreach. The supply-side faction argues that 90% save rates either are not sustainable or are not generalizable. How can we settle this question? It’s very simple. The central mantra of the supply-side faction is that the only way to reduce euthanasia is to reduce intake. Therefore, if there is a representative sample of communities that have achieved and sustained a high save rate without reducing intake, then the supply-side argument is effectively countered. Yesterday I posted a blog about the state of Colorado’s shelter statistics for the year 2012. The total intake of cats and dogs for the year was 159,183, and the 2012 estimate for the state’s population was 5.2 million people, so the rate of intake for dogs and cats in 2012 in Colorado was 31 animals per 1000 people. Colorado is a destination state for animal transports, but even if you subtract out-of-state incoming transfers from the intake numbers, the intake per 1000 people was 28 in 2012. HSUS estimates that average intake of shelter animals for communities in the United States is 30 per 1000 people. Another commonly cited estimate for average intake is 15 per 1000 people. Depending on which number you use — 30 or 15 — Colorado is either at the high end of average intake or considerably over average intake. Colorado is a typical state in other important ways as well. The state ranks near the middle of the pack for human population, with a population of 5.2 million people. It has lots of tiny, isolated rural towns, but it also has a very large metro area in Denver. The median annual household income for Colorado is about $58,000 per household, compared with about $51,000 for the entire United States. Even the location is average, since it is near the middle of the country. A supply sider would predict that because Colorado has high intake, it would be impossible for Colorado to achieve and sustain a high save rate without reducing intake. As we saw yesterday, though, Colorado has in fact reported an 85.5% save rate sustained for the entire year in 2012. Colorado’s save rate is much higher than that for the United States as a whole, which is only about 50%. Colorado’s adoption rate for cats and dogs was 52% of all intake and 64% of unreclaimed intake (59% of stray dogs were returned to their owners and 22% of cats were returned to owners or colonies). Unless there is some huge flaw in the data collected by the state, Colorado in 2012 proved that you do not have to have low intake in order to have a high save rate. The Colorado statistics run counter to another claim often made by supply siders, which is that there has never been a community in the United States that was able to sustain an adoption rate higher than 10 shelter animals per 1000 people. Colorado’s population is 5.2 million. In 2012, Colorado shelters reported adoptions of 82,605 dogs and cats. This is a rate of 16 shelter animal adoptions per 1000 population, and it was sustained over an entire year. What about the data that Peter Marsh cites, that show flat adoption rates and euthanasias tracking intake rather than outflow? Most of Marsh’s data is old, and his more recent data does not come from communities like Austin, Reno, Charlottesville, and the state of Colorado that have high live release rates and high intake. In short, Marsh looked at old-fashioned, traditional shelters that did not have modern marketing and community engagement programs, and incorrectly concluded from that data that because he had not seen any successful marketing programs, attempts to increase adoptions would be ineffectual. In addition to the Colorado statewide data, we also have the data from well over 200 individual communities throughout the United States showing that communities can achieve and maintain 90% and higher live release rates. The supply-side faction has argued that these 200+ communities represent only a few percent of the United States population, that they have favorable demographics, or that they are pushing intake off onto other communities. None of those arguments can be made about the entire state of Colorado. In particular, the fact that an entire state has achieved an 85% live release rate refutes the argument that high live release rates can only be achieved by pushing intake to other communities. Colorado is a well-known destination state for transports from other states. Far from pushing intake off onto its neighbors, it is helping its neighbors by taking in thousands of animals per year from other states. I feel that the data we have so far from Colorado and many individual communities is sufficient to show that communities can adopt (and reclaim) their way out of killing. Although spay-neuter programs are valuable, communities can save 90% or more of their shelter animals right now by reforming their shelters, without waiting for everyone to spay and neuter their pets.

[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.] Santa Paula is a city of about 30,000 people located in Ventura County northwest of Los Angeles, California. In March of 2012, a non-profit called the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center was formed for the purpose of saving the city’s stray and surrendered pets. The shelter accepts strays and owner surrenders from city residents, with a small fee to relinquish an animal. The shelter states on its website that it does not kill any “healthy adoptable animal . . . due to lack of space or time spent at the shelter.” I was not able to find statistics for the shelter’s first year in operation either on the shelter’s website or in publicly available news reports. Therefore, I am listing the shelter as “Worth Watching” rather than a 90%+ community.

Marquette County is located in the upper peninsula of Michigan and has about 67,000 residents. The city of Marquette, with about 21,000 people, is the county seat. The Upper Peninsula Animal Welfare Shelter (UPAWS) is a private non-profit organization located in Marquette County. I was told in an e-mail from a shelter representative that UPAWS provides animal sheltering for the entire county except for the town of Negaunee, which has a veterinary clinic that takes in strays. I was also told that UPAWS takes in owner surrenders. They encourage appointments for surrenders and ask for a small fee, but do not require either an appointment or a fee. UPAWS reports to the Michigan Department of Agriculture shelter statistics database under its former name of Marquette County Humane Society. In 2011, UPAWS reported a 97% live release rate. The 2011-2012 Annual Report posted on the UPAWS website recorded an intake of 1936, with 79% adopted, 16% returned to owner, 1% transferred, and 4% euthanized. The euthanasia statistic includes owner-requested euthanasias. The 2012-2013 Annual Report recorded a 98% live release rate.

[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.] Linn County, located in east central Iowa, has a population of over 210,000 people. Its county seat, Cedar Rapids, has 126,000 people. The Cedar Valley Humane Society (CVHS), which is headquartered in Cedar Rapids, decribes itself as follows: “The Cedar Valley Humane Society is a private nonprofit animal shelter. We are responsible for animal control services in unincorporated Linn County and its municipalities, with the exception of Cedar Rapids, Marion, and Center Point. We also provide animal control services for North Liberty, Swisher, Tiffin, Shueyville, Oxford, and Solon. The Cedar Valley Humane Society is funded solely by donations, adoptions, and the services we provide.” CVHS has a small fee for owner surrenders, but states “we accept all animals regardless of health or temperament, and we will never turn away an animal in need.” CVHS is not to be confused with Cedar Rapids Animal Care and Control (CRACC) which provides animal control and sheltering for Cedar Rapids and animal sheltering for the city of Marion. CRACC accepts owner surrenders on a space-available basis. Chuck Tourtillott took over as executive director of CVHS on September 1, 2012. In a recent e-mail, Tourtillott told me that the shelter has been running at an 82-87% live release rate since he took over. CVHS has an intake of nearly 2000 animals per year.

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.