Monday, September 13, 2010

Here's How Austin Did It, Winograd. Same Old Numbers Game

UPDATE: What the hell is Winograd bragging about here?

""The animal shelter last reported a 67.4 percent live release rate for August 2010 in comparison to 64.7 percent in August 2009. The rate refers to the percentage of animals that leave the shelter alive through adoptions, transfers and owner redemptions. The adoption rate for the shelter was at its highest for 2010, hitting 32 percent of total intake. ""

A lousy 3% and he is bragging like something great has happened? Note that he didn't bother to report this record setting 3%, just referring to the best ever month for "live releases". That 3% probably has ended up with hoarders.

Anyone drunk enough to read the latest post on the Whino's blog sees that he is right up on his bragging rights for Austin. Word has it that the officials in Austin are seeing through this game and Austin hasn't quite fell into the quagmire of Nathan Winograd yet. This article was written over a year ago but rings quite true today and the way that the Whino gets to his "figures" that he thinks justifies "No Kill". It is and always has been a numbers game with him.

Web Posted: 05/15/2009 12:00 CDT
""ACS policy only masks problem
If a basketball team lowered its goal from 10 feet to 8 feet, it would certainly generate some impressive offensive numbers. But those numbers would be meaningless to a real understanding of the team's true ability. Changing the parameters changes the results.

But that's exactly what Animal Care Services has been doing to help generate numbers that show San Antonio making progress toward its no-kill goal in 2012.

The city's euthanasia numbers have dropped by almost half in recent years, from nearly 50,000 dogs and cats in 2004 to about 26,000 animals last year. That decrease is due in part to more aggressive efforts at adoption and a campaign to increase the number of spayed and neutered animals.

But as Express-News reporter Brian Chasnoff revealed last week, the lower number of euthanized animals is also the result of a policy to limit the amount of strays ACS accepts.

Sources told the newspaper ACS officers routinely pick up only sick, injured or aggressive strays.
Residents who try to leave animals at the ACS facility are discouraged or turned away.

The focus on lowering a number, rather than dealing comprehensively with the animal control problem, has some predictable consequences. One is that more, healthy, breeding animals are running loose in the streets. Another is that, according to ACS, reported animal bites doubled over the course of a year from about 2,400 to 4,800.

Gary Hendel, the new ACS director, had some encouraging comments on the numbers game. Public safety should be the priority, he said. “The citizens are paying for animal control.”

Hendel is correct.

San Antonio has a huge animal-population problem, one that is the result of irresponsible pet owners. Masking it by limiting the intake of strays may temporarily generate some positive euthanasia numbers. But it does nothing to solve the problem.""

I think this says it all.


I See The Light said...

San Antonio is not the only ones doing this game. Remember that Doug Rae in Indy told his ACO's to not pick up strays because it "would affect the numbers". He should have known better than to tell union workers that, they reported it.

Rancho Cucamonga was turning away owners but denied it. However, the surrounding shelters were getting the turnaways. Those shelters couldn't take pets from residents outside their area so they had to turn people away too.

As a result Rancho's "public" surrenders were more than the entire County's shelter which handled twice as many pets. People were reporting their own pets as strays (that is a public surrender, a good samaritian picking up an animal from the streets and bringing it to the shelter) because the shelter is not supposed to turn strays away. So these poor pets not only had to suffer the abandonment of their owners, they also didn't have the comfort of anyone knowing their name which could make them feel a little less anxious. They were left with no history like a medical condition, etc.

The ugly, hardhearted face of No Kill just so Winograd can play his numbers game.

HonestyHelps said...

Yes indeed, the evil, ugly face of "No Kill" is alive and well in Austin. They'll learn just like all the rest. It's just sickening that the animals will have to suffer thru it.

Happy Camper said...

I hope "see the light" will read The Final Betrayal, on advice from oreo, it's in the favorites section on the right. It covers all those issues. WCRAS is claiming owner abandoned animals are up. They are only supposed to take strays, so unless they meant animals with ID are not redemed, I don't undestand what they mean.

HonestyHelps said...

Happy Camper, here is the link

Especially in these hard economic times when families are losing their jobs, their homes, everything they know and they need to surrender their pets. It comes down to a choice between their children or their pets. I can't hold that against them when the choice is their family. It is rubbing salt into the wound when a shelter won't take the pet. What does that shelter think will happen? Do they think a lecture will help this poor family? It is cruel to treat people like that and even more cruel for an animal to be dumped on the streets because of a shelter's policy.

Anonymous said...

Honesty, do you know anything about this group? Sounds like No Kill trying to kill the animal control pets on the taxpayer's money

dumbfounded said...

anon, looks to me like just another stupid jurisdiction trying to save a buck and not aware of the unintended consequences.

HonestyHelps said...

You can never save a buck with "No kill". Rancho learned that lesson. Although the Whino told them that if they build it, they will come, speaking of volunteers. Well, the volunteers all ended up having to bring mommy and daddy with them. So Rancho had to dig into the budget to hire more employees. Not even to mention the additional funds for medical. Right now the taxpayers of Rancho are paying almost $13 per person per year for animal control when HSUS recommends for the best of service $5-7 per person per year.