Here are some interesting figures you might want to mull over. Austin isn't quite doing as well as they would like to claim. Let's keep in mind that a tactic used by the Whinonettes is to withhold taking animals from the shelter in order to make the shelter's euthanasia numbers go up, to force the issue of adopting "No Kill". So now these same groups are scrambling to get the animals out in order to make it look good but this can't go on forever. They will become full themselves and will have to stop taking the animals. It's funny how all this fits together when you take off those rose colored "No Kill" glasses. The problem is that the owner surrenders, strays, and DOA's will continue.
Sept. 10 Sept. 09
Owner Surrenders 554 485
Strays 1387 1254
Euthanized 609 641
DOA 113 91
Requested Euth. 17 19
Aug. 10 Aug. 09
Owner Surrenders 626 595
Strays 1267 1182
Euthanized 477 657
DOA 121 108
Requested Euth. 17 32
July 10 July 09
Owner Surrenders 633 534
Strays 1467 1231
Euthanized 706 737
DOA 81 104
Requested Euth. 20 45
June 10 June 09
Owner Surrenders 799 610
Strays 1578 1275
Euthanized 936 843
DOA 50 96
Requested Euth. 24 39
May 10 May 09
Owner Surrenders 669 599
Strays 1488 1445
Euthanized 632 763
DOA 84 62
Requested Euth. 20 30
Now that you have "mulled" over those figures, let me point out some interesting points. Note how since they have gone "No Kill" the owner surrenders have increased. Duh. Their strays have also increased. Duh. For the most part, their DOA's have increased. The strays probably are increasing because the owners were turned away from the shelter and just dumped them on the streets. Out of five months, the DOA's increased in conjunction with the strays increasing.
But their requested euthanization has decreased, in other words, they are turning away those who need their pets euthanized. Usually this means pets that are suffering, so does this mean that Austin believes in letting pets suffer and they are turning them away?
But the most interesting is how owner surrenders increased which is usually the case when a shelter declares that they won't kill them. Then comes in the increase in strays and DOAs. If you take these numbers and work them the right way, Austin was doing a better job BEFORE their taking the "No Kill" road. It's nothing more than a numbers game, folks.
Owner Surrenders 554 485
Strays 1387 1254
Euthanized 609 641
DOA 113 91
Requested Euth. 17 19
Aug. 10 Aug. 09
Owner Surrenders 626 595
Strays 1267 1182
Euthanized 477 657
DOA 121 108
Requested Euth. 17 32
July 10 July 09
Owner Surrenders 633 534
Strays 1467 1231
Euthanized 706 737
DOA 81 104
Requested Euth. 20 45
June 10 June 09
Owner Surrenders 799 610
Strays 1578 1275
Euthanized 936 843
DOA 50 96
Requested Euth. 24 39
May 10 May 09
Owner Surrenders 669 599
Strays 1488 1445
Euthanized 632 763
DOA 84 62
Requested Euth. 20 30
Now that you have "mulled" over those figures, let me point out some interesting points. Note how since they have gone "No Kill" the owner surrenders have increased. Duh. Their strays have also increased. Duh. For the most part, their DOA's have increased. The strays probably are increasing because the owners were turned away from the shelter and just dumped them on the streets. Out of five months, the DOA's increased in conjunction with the strays increasing.
But their requested euthanization has decreased, in other words, they are turning away those who need their pets euthanized. Usually this means pets that are suffering, so does this mean that Austin believes in letting pets suffer and they are turning them away?
But the most interesting is how owner surrenders increased which is usually the case when a shelter declares that they won't kill them. Then comes in the increase in strays and DOAs. If you take these numbers and work them the right way, Austin was doing a better job BEFORE their taking the "No Kill" road. It's nothing more than a numbers game, folks.
12 comments:
Brilliant as usual HH !!
pah
Some insight here. When people come into a shelter and are given a lecture about keeping their pets, it will mean their taking another course of action. They will say that their pet stands a better chance as a stray. Those that do reclaim their pets will also throw the pet out. I've studied this with other shelters and the answer is always the same. Just like in Austin, the strays are going up or the owners will turn them in as a stray. Leave them at the shelter with no history or no name. When people are ready for their pets to go, they go, don't kid yourself, they will find a way.
All the "no kill" shelters claim they don't turn them away but all one has to do is call the surrounding shelters to see that these turnaways are showing up at those shelters. All one has to do is look at the increase of strays as well. How many times have I heard someone say that their pet stands a better chance of living if just thrown out.
Austin is following the same stats as others who have adopted this program. We have a lousy economy, people can't afford their pets, they have to make the hard choices. When it comes to having a roof over their heads or their pet, guess who loses. Your numbers are telling the tale.
Let me start by saying that it would help if 'Honesty Helps' would do some research before you post information that is incorrect. The Austin Animal Shelter is an open intake shelter and they CAN'T turn animals away no matter that the circumstances are. They absolutely DON’T turn owner request euthanasia animals away. And they also DON’T tell anyone that their animals won’t be euthanized. Every person that walks through the door is told that the shelter cannot guarantee the animal will not be euthanized. The numbers of owner request euthanasia’s has decreased because the city council passed a moratorium in March of 2010 stating that the shelter cannot euthanize if there is space available, the animal is suffering, or has been determinded aggressive by a behaviorist. If an animal is surrendered and the owner requests euthanasia because it has a bad UTI – they can’t euthanize it right away unless the vet says that it is absolutely suffering – and even then, rescue groups have to be called and notified that the animal is there and if they want it. You can thank the animal activists in the community for that.
The shelter actually takes in animals from the surrounding counties (Williamson, Hays, and Bastrop) that are not open intake.
The intake hours have changed but they still intake any animal that comes through the door if they are open.
None of the numbers at the Austin Shelter are fudged in anyway – there are no secrets. Anyone can walk in and request any of that information.
Let me ask, where did you get your information? Have you ever talked to any of the staff that works at the shelter? I seriously doubt it or you would not have posted what you did. The “shelter” and the people that work there and bust their tails everyday are not the ones that said “ooh let’s jump on the Winograd bandwagon!” The Austin City Council, Animal Advisory Commission, and APA! are the ones that said Austin has to be “No Kill” and asked for the moratorium. Know this - the shelter employees certainly don’t want to have to euthanize any animal but they are also realistic and know that it is inevitable. They certainly don’t like seeing or agree with dogs/cats sitting in kennels for weeks on end that customers don’t want to adopt and rescue groups, and even APA! has turned down – but thanks to the folks that did jump on the Winograd bandwagon and pushed for the moratorium – that is what is happening.
There is nothing wrong with posting information – just make sure that your facts are correct! I would invite you to go to Town Lake Animal Shelter and see for your self.
Sorry Slick, but those numbers came from the City of Austin, I didn't make them up. And numbers speak for themselves
And yes, I have spoken with a couple of employees there. I've also received many emails and that is the reason for the posting. They tell me that staff isn't happy with "No Kill". I'm not condemning staff because I know they are following the stupidity of the officials. In fact these numbers are meant to show the stupidity of the "No Kill" program, not a reflection of the staff. If you are a reader of this blog, you would know that if anything I could be called pro-animal control/shelters.
Any time you refuse either a surrender or owner requested euthanasia, then that animal stands a great chance of being dumped. And you know what happens to dumped animals, they die inhumanely. I am against any shelter that refuses the intake of an animal for any reason. Those 3 counties, what do you think happens to those animals you refuse.
Limiting the hours for surrenders is wrong too. Either a shelter is open to all or it is failing the community and the animals it serves.
So next time you check with the City before jumping me. I don't make things up, I always do the research.
And I have a friend, actually two friends, in Austin that have visited the shelter for me and reported back.
Just in:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/animal-shelter-may-deviate-from-no-kill-policy-1154891.html
"The moratorium on euthanizations applies only if there is enough space in the shelter to house all the animals that are brought to the shelter, Morrison said."
That paragraph right there backs up what I say, that Austin is refusing intake of animals so they don't break that "moratorium". In other words you're playing to the officials and to hell with the animals. Who cares what happens to those refused by the shelter just as long as you can say that you are "No Kill".
Another one:
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/pets-run-away-from-fireworks-on-nye
“We could very well reach capacity if you’re able to keep a lost pet in your home, you may be saving a life,” she said."
In other words, force the public to do the shelter's job. This is disgusting that you care more for your damn "No Kill" program than you care for the animals.
I know the numbers came from Austin. I wasn't arguing that they didn't. I said they aren't fudged. I know the numbers are real. The owner surrenders did jump to a huge number after the moratorium. I am not disagreeing with that at all.
What my concern with what you posted is that TLAC turns away animals - they do not and they can't. They take in animals from the 3 other counties - they are NOT turned away. Again - TLAC doens't refuse any animals no matter what county or city they are coming from.
I'm glad you did talk to some staff members. Many of the people that are posting information on blogs about our wonderful little shelter don't.
I see you just posted a snippet from the statesman. Like the article says, "If the shelter experiences a similar spike, it might run out of space and be forced to euthanize some of the animals there.
The moratorium on euthanizations applies only if there is enough space in the shelter to house all the animals that are brought to the shelter, Morrison said."
How do you get that it means the shelter turns animals away??? What that means is that if we get a huge influx of animals like we did last year that we will have to euthanize a bunch of animals. Morison's comment is explaining that the moratorium is only in place if we have available space. The moratorium that was passed back in March states that we cannot euthanize animals unless they are suffering, aggressive (as deemed by a behaviorist) or we are out of space. There is nothing stated anywhere that we refuse to take in any animals.
I can tell you for CERTAIN that we DO NOT TURN ANY ANIMAL AWAY!!!
Please understand that I like much of what you post and agree with you and maybe I’m a little sensitive to information that is posted about the place that I pour my blood, sweat, and tears into. You have to understand that a lot of negative talk and information is posted about us (the hard working staff) and we have all become a little defensive. Most of us here DON’T like the way things have been changed concerning the “no kill” and I know that you know it wasn’t a decision by staff but by city leaders. Unfortunately – most of the community we live in doesn’t and we can’t tell them either. Ultimately when this thing backfires – it will get put on us and we will take the blame and the beating and those that actually made the rules will turn away as though nothing ever happened……
~Slick
First of all, this post was never meant to condemn the staff at the shelter, it is meant to condemn the decision to adopt "No Kill".
The numbers don't lie, they tell a tale, but you have to have the knowledge to understand them. I deal with shelters all over the country and the story is always the same when no kill is on the table. People hear that term and go running to surrender their pets.
When I use "you", it is not directed toward staff, it is meant for the city, the officials who are drinking that koolaid. In fact, I am hoping that it can help the staff because I have received enough correspondence to know that the majority of staff doesn't like what is happening.
But you can't argue when the numbers are showing what they show. But you do have to have some knowledge on how to interpret those numbers and you probably don't because you don't deal with no kill like I do. Yes, I am well aware of who takes the blame when no kill doesn't work, it is you and the employees. That's not fair because you are only carrying out orders for a flawed program forced on you by people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground about sheltering. If you don't like what is happening, then let me know about it. But the numbers show that something is wrong and I've seen enough to know that it relates back to turning away.
Post a Comment