# Kill Shelters: Useful, Not Useful, Needed, Cruel



## GSDLover2000 (Jul 9, 2013)

What do you guys think?? I know it probably won't happen, but it is my goal to get kill shelters illegal in America


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

I think it's important to volunteer in a kill shelter to understand the magnitude of the problem. You are in California, which has a problem of epic proportions -- spend some time working in the shelter to see what they are up against. I didn't really understand it until I started volunteering in a public shelter and got to know the staff and management well. It's given me a very different perspective.

In my small city, on a busy day, 20-30 dogs come in through intake. A _great _day of adoptions is 10, but most days just 2-3. With these numbers, we're at capacity quickly. There's only one way to make space: euth dogs to make space for other dogs. 

This is a hard, hard thing. My city briefly tried to go no-kill overnight in a very poorly thought-out attempt to wish the problem away. Dogs stacked up in hallways, bathrooms, closets, on top of each other -- it was awful. I wasn't volunteering back then, so I didn't see it, but the stories of them packed into kennels and fighting for space horrifying. That lasted just a couple of weeks, then they started euthing again because the situation was inhumane.

Then there's the pit bull and feral cat problem. About 7 out of 10 dogs impounded are likely pit bulls--and probably just 1 out of 10 adopted out (I'm guessing, based on what I've observed at the shelter as a volunteer). The PB rescues are all full, always. So what do you do with them? Keep them in a small kennel with minimal care forever? The most creative solution I've heard for the feral cats is to neuter and vax them and release them back to be community cats. You can't exactly do that with pit bulls though. 

We are currently looking at a 3-5 year, or more, journey to becoming no kill. (And "no kill" by the way, means a kill-rate of 10% or less, not truly no kill. The 10% includes dogs with aggressive temperaments and health issues that make them unadoptable.)

Target Zero Institute in Jacksonville (a non-profit org.) advises cities on how to do it, and I've looked carefully at their plan. The plan is very, very controversial. As worthy as the goal is, parts of it really make me queasy.

First, the plan requires a _massive _increase in free/low-cost speutering--including control of feral cats. The benefits of that in cutting the numbers of strays are realized a few years out with a sharp drop in shelter population, but it has to happen before the no-kill goal is feasible. This means most animals in the community need to be fixed. If you've followed this board for a few months, you've seen the controversy spay/neuter laws stir up!

In cities that have used the TZI protocol to get to no kill, they also strive for an "open adoption" policy from both shelters AND rescues, with little or no adoption fee, no home checks, and no vet reference checks. Anyone who shows up can walk out with a dog, on a whim, for next to no money. If they want to chain it up outside, make it a junkyard dog, whatever -- they get a dog and a counselor attempts "education." If their last dog died from untreated heartworms because it wasn't on preventative, they get a dog. If they have no idea how to manage a powerful breed, no plans to exercise or even minimally train, they get a dog. If they train by beating the dog, I guess they get a dog. And on and on. TZI claims the "open adoption" policy is an essential component of the no-kill formula. 

Some rescues in Jacksonville, where it was instituted, have told me they view the plan as having unintended negative consequences -- shoving the problem around and making it a neglect/abuse problem instead of a euthanasia problem. It's also put pressure on private rescues who spend hundreds of dollars vetting dogs, as adopters are socialized in the community through lots of advertising to expect dogs to be "free." I fear it creates a community perception of dogs being disposable since they don't cost anything. 

I've seen what terrible homes have done to the psyches of dogs I've fostered -- the idea of placing a dog into one of those homes gives me the shivers. I won't do it. 

This isn't to say I don't wish we could be no kill. I have some great dogs at the shelter tagged with my phone number so that I get a call to come foster them when their time is up. I'm on the front lines trying to save lives--there's a sweet one at my feet that was under a euth order last week until she got a foster commitment.

I fear solutions that may cause other worse problems. The policy issue is incredibly complex, esp. in places like California and the Deep South were it's puppy season year round, and dogs are bred constantly and indiscriminately in the community. All of this is a long way of saying, I wish we didn't have dogs dying for space...but the path to getting there is fraught with peril.


----------



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

Until there is a better solution, unfortunately kill shelters are very necessary. I have volunteered in both kill and non kill and they both have their negatives. No kill is a nice idea, but there is a lot more involved than what people think. I just pulled a GSD a few weeks ago from a no kill shelter who's owner died and the wife couldn't handle him. This dog has a very strong personality and while everyone was nice to him at the shelter, they were also afraid of him. While he was at the shelter,he bit several people that he felt 'stepped out of line with him' and they were going to kill him, so they called me to come in and see him. I have had him ever since. There is also another dog who was caught feral at this same shelter who has been there for 3 years. This dog is afraid of his own skin and is literally a prisoner in his own body. He hasn't improved at all in the 3 years that he has been there.


There are a lot of animals that develop behavioral issues in no kill shelters and if they aren't going to get out of the shelter and be helped with their issues, it is kinder to kill them IMO.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

+1 to everything Magwart said. That is dead on.


----------



## Kaimeju (Feb 2, 2013)

All of what Magwart said makes sense to me from what I have observed. It's amazing that shelter tried to go no kill!

Our small rural shelter has managed to go "no-kill" as in 90% save rate, but they have the worst screening procedures I have ever seen for new owners. They also give cats away at $10 and I wonder what happens to them. Very few people in this town are "pet savvy" and a lot just let their pets run wild in the streets, in danger of being killed every day. Animal Control can't keep up with it and probably doesn't care to since they are busy with more serious neglect cases. I do think part of this is due to the town's demographics and it is definitely a cultural problem, not an overpopulation problem. People here just view pets as transient, practically expecting them to come and go from your life on a whim.

I don't think this absurd level of open adoption is necessary in all cases. You have a responsibility to place safe, healthy pets with the general public, but you also have a responsibility to place dogs in safe, healthy homes. The guy who originally adopted my dog kept her locked in the backyard for two years, then returned her to the shelter, lying about her history in the process. I was honest on my questionnaire about having to euthanize a dog at an early age, and they didn't even ask about it. I think the middle ground is probably training staff to recognize when an exception should be made to stricter rules. For example, not all great homes have fenced backyards.

Euthanasia of healthy, adoptable animals has fallen dramatically in this country. The number of communities with a 90% save rate is only going to grow. So even if there are some very sad situations where no-kill doesn't work right now, that doesn't mean it's not a worthy and achievable long-term goal. However, it will be VERY important not to demonize shelters like the one Magwart described, who are fully willing but not yet able.

Just my two cents. I realize this topic has been done to death, but I really care about it.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Great post Magwart!

What has your experience been with municipal animal control agencies coordinating and cooperating with shelters and rescues (local, regional, state and out-of-state)? 

In my area, there is a great deal of communication between Chicago ACC and local groups to pull adoptable dogs that would otherwise be euthanized. There are also a lot of efforts to communicate and coordinate with shelters in parts of the country that are overflowing and just do not have the adoption traffic that is needed.

I do not think it will be possible, or wise, for municipal shelters to be completely no kill - in fact, a surprising amount of people surrender their severely ill pets to municipal shelters for euthanasia because it is the most affordable option to put the dog to sleep humanely. This, on top of the fact that some dogs are just not adoptable due to many other factors.

But, with that said, I do think it is possible to achieve no-kill for dogs that suffer from treatable illnesses and fixable behavior problems. In other words, to eliminate euthanasia of adoptable dogs due to capacity issues.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Best Friends is doing some excellent work on this very issue. I know that Albuquerque is one of the pilot cities and has greatly reduced their kill rate. 

Check out some of their blog posts: No Kill | The Best Friends Blog


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

I wish it were different, that we could find a home for every animal that was healthy enough (both mentally and physically) to benefit from a home. But we are not there yet. 

Considering the **** that some animals have to endure, I learned to accept that there are worse fates than a humane death. I have seen animals living in situations that are just unbelievable. Just unbelievable. 

I am really struggling with a local shelter right now. The county that had operated the shelter decided that they just couldn't afford the cost any more and said they were going to close down. A local woman who had been involved in a local "no kill" shelter (which was really a system of foster homes and not a physical shelter) offered to take over the shelter as a stand alone non-profit, service the animal control contract from the county for pennies on the dollar on the old contract and go "no kill". 

And for the past year they have participated in the Rachel Ray Challenge, where the shelter with the highest adoption numbers wins. They came in second place last year and won something like $50,000. They want first place this year.

So...they are giving dogs away. It started with Black Dog Saturdays and has morphed into a "pay what you can" for any dog. Every adoption fee is a suggestion and open to negotiation. No application. You just have to have an ID that shows you are over 18 years of age. And that means somebody under age wanting to "adopt" can solicit some stranger in the parking lot and the shelter will do the adoption, knowing that the dog is actually going to the 16 year old kid and her boyfriend who woke up that morning and decided they wanted a dog. Some dogs are being adopted and returned four and five times. It is a revolving door. And not good for the dogs. 

There has to be some golden middle between that and euthanizing for time and room issues. I don't know what it is, but there has to be.
Sheilah


----------



## JackandMattie (Feb 4, 2013)

That's a lofty goal, and I don't envy you in trying to achieve it. It is a very sad fact that the pet overpopulation problem in the US is severe 

I don't want to discourage your efforts, by any means. But if you want to rescue every dog, you will have greater success going into business, achieving great wealth, and I mean Bill Gates and Steve Jobs' degree of wealth, and then redistributing your profits to the dogs in need. The US mentality toward animal welfare is progressive world wide. Yet, for dog lovers, it is still appalling. 

Euth is a sad option, but all too often, it remains the most humane option. Volunteer at a shelter and you will get some painful perspective  

I think, hon, you will have a greater impact doing personal service to individual rescues. Find an abandoned dog soul you can focus on, and save her!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Hi Sheilah (sit/stay),

Yikes... what a nightmare! So very sorry to hear the situation you are facing with your local shelter. 

If you ever want someone to bounce ideas off, please know I would be very happy to share my experience with things that have been tried out by different groups in my area - some were total disasters and others have worked really well.

To me, the worst answer is to resort to "giving away" dogs by any means necessary. A better answer is to move dogs to organizations and areas where the demand ensures the standards of adoption remain in place.


----------



## TheRescueHawkeyeGSD (Jul 30, 2013)

Rescued him from a German Shepherd Rescue. They adopted him on his last day before he would have been euthanized at a county shelter. Could not imagine a day without him.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

LifeofRiley said:


> To me, the worst answer is to resort to "giving away" dogs by any means necessary. A better answer is to move dogs to organizations and areas where the demand ensures the standards of adoption remain in place.


I agree with you, but the fact remains that giving dogs away is free (for both shelter and adopter -- one eliminates vetting/care expenses, the other skips an adoption fee) and transport costs money. A lot of money, if you're doing it right. I've never brought one of my foster dogs up for much less than $500. Rescue groups can cut down those costs by relying on volunteers to replace paid boarding and transport services, but transferring pets across regions remains very expensive.

It's a good solution, IMO. But like all the other good solutions, it's a money pit. At some point people start looking at cheaper alternatives.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Merciel said:


> I agree with you, but the fact remains that giving dogs away is free (for both shelter and adopter -- one eliminates vetting/care expenses, the other skips an adoption fee) and transport costs money. *A lot of money, if you're doing it right. I've never brought one of my foster dogs up for much less than $500. Rescue groups can cut down those costs by relying on volunteers to replace paid boarding and transport services, but transferring pets across regions remains very expensive.*
> 
> It's a good solution, IMO. But like all the other good solutions, it's a money pit. At some point people start looking at cheaper alternatives.


No argument with you there. Sometimes it is easy to take for granted that I live in a densely populated area - the solution may be 10 miles a way, not across the country.

In the case described by sit/stay, I wonder if there aren't other local funding or fundraising mechanisms that could be explored.


----------



## Bridget (Apr 5, 2004)

I didn't vote because I don't know how I feel, am still sorting it out. I volunteered at our local shelter that euthanizes when they run out of space and was told that they have to, and that sounded reasonable. Now I volunteer at a wonderful no-kill facility and am finding it hard to understand why that can't be the norm. I live in a city that I don't think has the scope of problem that some areas of the country have though.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

LifeofRiley said:


> Sometimes it is easy to take for granted that I live in a densely populated area - the solution may be 10 miles a way, not across the country.


For my region, the issue isn't so much population density as population changes, and in the population of dogs, not people.

If you go 10 miles out of Philly in any direction, the shelters will still be crammed with pit bulls. There's no point moving those guys. Their adoption chances don't change.

If you go 50 miles west, you're in puppy mill territory. The dog population _does_ change there, and the need is often quite dire. By building up relationships with the Amish farmers who are the primary puppy millers in that area, some rescues have been able to get the unsold puppies and worn-out breeding stock for free, which at least saves those dogs' lives. The millers don't care; they're just as happy to dump the dogs into rescue as shoot them, since at least if the dogs go into rescue they don't have to worry about disposing of the bodies.

The only condition is that the receiving rescues are not allowed to publicize the dogs' sources -- so you can't, for example, Google the names of some cute-sounding "Happy Valley Golden Retrievers" and find exposes of the dogs' real conditions. (I made that name up, as far as I know it's not a real breeder.)

So that's a bad tangled-up situation where the rescues are choosing the least bad alternative of keeping their mouths shut but at least getting the dogs out alive and without giving the millers any money. Mostly those dogs go to breed-specific rescues, since they _are_ technically purebreds, and my all-breed rescue doesn't get a lot of them. When we do, they usually need some medical care and a lot of behavioral rehab.

Most of _our_ dogs come from the rural South. I've talked about them before, but they ALL come out of those shelters with parasites and diseases. There is zero vetting in those shelters. Absolutely none. The shelters are so broke that they have to get their combination vaccines as donations from supporters. If they didn't have donated vaccines, their dogs wouldn't even get those. And of course there's a window between vaccination and immunity, so about once or twice a year, distemper runs through those shelters and all the dogs die.

Because those dogs get no vetting and all come in carrying SOMETHING, vetting costs are the bulk of what we spend money on. The dogs have to be healthy before we can responsibly put them up for adoption, so it is a huge, bottomless, massively sucking money pit. Also, HW+ dogs obviously have to sit in foster care for at least 30 days, and we get a lot of those. So space, time, and skill are limitations as well. We always need more foster homes capable of nursing a dog through HW treatment. There aren't many.

It's all _doable_. We can save those dogs, and they are _good_ dogs: sweet, affectionate family companions with strong underlying health. But it is a massively expensive endeavor -- in money, time and effort -- to cure everything that wasn't prevented from the get-go. The differences in standards of care really get costly when you're moving dogs across disparate communities.

Complicated, costly problems. Difficult solutions. I try to find hope wherever I can, but man, it's tough going some days.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

LifeofRiley said:


> In the case described by sit/stay, I wonder if there aren't other local funding or fundraising mechanisms that could be explored.


In the case of this one shelter and their giving away dogs, they are doing it only to pump up the numbers so they can win the Rachel Ray Challenge. It has nothing to do with not having access to a better way, or support. They want to win. They see the money awarded to the winner as something that will be of great benefit to the shelter, so getting those adoption numbers up any way they can justifies it.

Very sad for the dogs, since it isn't about the best match for them and sad for the community, too. I am sure there will be people all pumped up about adopting from a shelter who will walk out with the wrong dog and never support shelter adoption again because of it. All it takes is one bad experience. Shoot, look how many board members here have had one bad experience and will never consider that route again because of it.
Sheilah


----------



## Tiffseagles (May 12, 2010)

Pretty much agree with everything Magwart said.




Merciel said:


> For my region, the issue isn't so much population density as population changes, and in the population of dogs, not people.
> 
> If you go 10 miles out of Philly in any direction, the shelters will still be crammed with pit bulls. There's no point moving those guys. Their adoption chances don't change.
> 
> ...



While the population in shelters in the area may be majority Pit Bull mixes, there are many other breeds that are seen routinely though they often go to rescues or shelters other than ACCT. 

You are right, there are certain types of dogs up here you just won't find. When we were looking to adopt a Cattle Dog, the only place that had any available was MLAR ad they don't adopt out to our area. We ended up getting a pup to come up from TN - the cost being near $400 altogether.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Tiffseagles said:


> While the population in shelters in the area may be majority Pit Bull mixes, there are many other breeds that are seen routinely though they often go to rescues or shelters other than ACCT.


ACCT and PSPCA are almost always 95%+ pits and pit mixes. Last time I went there, I counted over 200 dogs, of which _nine_ were not pitties. Any dog that isn't a pittie, and is even remotely adoptable, either gets adopted or farmed out to rescue within nanoseconds.

Morris Animal Refuge (where Pongu hails from!) does usually have a majority of non-pit dogs, but it is a very small shelter and usually only has a couple of dogs at a time. (Plus, up until a couple of years ago, Morris was euthanizing pits on intake and would not put any of them up for adoption. They've since changed that policy, though.) Although it's open admission, because of its small size and affluent neighborhood location, Morris is actually a pretty good example of a shelter that has mostly owner hardship cases, at least when it comes to dogs. And, even though their board-promulgated policies actively discourage volunteers from trying to help, they never seem to have any trouble adopting out those dogs.

MLAR is one of the rescues that helps the puppy mill dogs I was talking about. That's one good thing they do.

ahee, now I'm all tempted to get into Philly-area rescue gossip...


----------



## Tiffseagles (May 12, 2010)

Merciel said:


> ACCT and PSPCA are almost always 95%+ pits and pit mixes. Last time I went there, I counted over 200 dogs, of which _nine_ were not pitties. Any dog that isn't a pittie, and is even remotely adoptable, either gets adopted or farmed out to rescue within nanoseconds.
> 
> Morris Animal Refuge (where Pongu hails from!) does usually have a majority of non-pit dogs, but it is a very small shelter and usually only has a couple of dogs at a time. (Plus, up until a couple of years ago, Morris was euthanizing pits on intake and would not put any of them up for adoption. They've since changed that policy, though.) Although it's open admission, because of its small size and affluent neighborhood location, Morris is actually a pretty good example of a shelter that has mostly owner hardship cases, at least when it comes to dogs. And, even though their board-promulgated policies actively discourage volunteers from trying to help, they never seem to have any trouble adopting out those dogs.
> 
> ...


You're right, the adoption floors are a lot of the time flooded with bull breeds. But like you said, the others often go out to rescue groups in the area. But sometimes the non-pits don't go into rescue immediately. They will be held in the back (at least this used to happen) for days or sometimes over a week. So when people complain that it's nothing but pit bulls available, that's really not the case. It just means they can't get instant gratification by going to see dogs on a whim. I've lost count of the number of people that have come in asking for X-breed and when I tell them there's not a physical location but many available in foster homes through rescue that they can meet/apply online, they balk at the idea 

Now Morris, they are a whole different ballgame. I've never been able to find an exact number for their euthanasia rate, but I have heard it is very high - which I don't understand because they can certainly tell people that they don't have the space. 

I wonder if we've crossed paths before......

This is the breakdown from one of my visits to ACCT (including the back)

Total number of Pit Bull Terrier/American Pit Bull Terrier mixes - 102

Total number of Jack Russel Terrier mixes - 3

Total number of Presa Canario mixes - 1

Total number of Fox Terrier mixes - 1

Total number of Shepherd mixes - 8

Total number of Maltese mixes - 2

Total number of Poodle mixes - 4

Total number of Chihuahua mixes - 6

Total number of Terrier mixes - 4

Total number of Carrin Terrier mixes - 1

Total number of Shiba Inu mixes - 1

Total number of Collie mixes - 1

Total number of American Staffordshire Terrier mixes - 1

Number of Australian Cattle Dog mixes - 1 

Total number of Boxer mixes - 2

Total number of Cane Corso mixes - 1

Total number of American Bulldog mixes - 3

Total number of Lab mixes - 4

Total number of Rottie mixes - 4

Total number of Chinese Crested mixes - 1

Total number of Manchester Terrier mixes - 1

Total number of Chow Chow mixes - 1

Total number of Corgi mixes - 1

Total number of Beagle mixes - 1

Total number of Spaniel mixes - 1

Total number of Min Pin mixes - 1

Total number of Pomeranian mixes - 1

Number of Cocker Spaniel mixes - 1


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Tiffseagles said:


> But sometimes the non-pits don't go into rescue immediately. They will be held in the back (at least this used to happen) for days or sometimes over a week. So when people complain that it's nothing but pit bulls available, that's really not the case. It just means they can't get instant gratification by going to see dogs on a whim.


That's true, I've seen the other dogs in the back. When I was first getting into fostering, ACCT/PSPCA was the first place I tried (actually, that's not true. _Morris_ was the first place I tried, but they do not accept fosters for dogs -- one of many headscratcher policies there). I can't foster a pittie because of condo restrictions, so I asked about the dogs in the back, and they wouldn't let me foster any of those because they were strays being held for potential owner reclamation. So, fair enough, I didn't end up fostering for them.

But on the adoption floor it's all pitties. And if you go there trying to adopt a non-pit dog because it's been posted on Craigslist or Facebook, good luck, it'll be gone in half an hour or less. The adoption demand is there, which is great. What's not so great is that the pits largely get left behind.

You'll never find a public, accurate euthanasia number for Morris. They don't do Maddie's Fund (they don't need to, they're sitting on a reserve fund of millions) so they've got no reason to post it.

Morris is so frustrating to me. It's right in my backyard and it's where Pongu came from (I'm pretty sure he is their most accomplished alum ever, title-wise, even though he is an insane gimpy-legged bucket of problems) and I would really love to be able to support them wholeheartedly, but the board just makes it so, so hard.

The adoption counselor there is great. I love her. But she is fighting an uphill battle in a lot of ways, and as far as I can figure there's no reason it should be so hard. They have a good population of desirable (or potentially desirable) dogs, a high profile for how small the shelter is, and a TON of dog-loving people in the community who would love to help, if only they were allowed.

But nope, gotta do everything the hard way.

We may have crossed paths, I dunno. Seems very possible.


----------



## Mikelia (Aug 29, 2012)

My local shelter deals with all cruelty cases, strays, public drop offs and court cases for few hour radius around my city. There are a few privately run rescues in my area but our humane society deals with the majority of the animals in our city. We don't have a huge dog problem - most dogs stay until they are adopted, provided they pass temperament and health criteria. 
However we have a huge cat problem in our city. From spring to fall my city shelter can have 30 or so cats come in per day. 15 cats fit to a room. There are six rooms excluding isolation. All strays (and most cats are 'strays', you don't have to pay an intake fee if you 'found' it as a stray) must be held for 5 days, then vaccinated and held for another week or so before they can even make it to an adoption room. On average I'd say that no more than 5 cats get adopted per day. So what do you do, where do the excess cats go? 
My shelter does everything they can. Just about every pet store in town has humane society cats up for adoption, they have tons of volunteers, are constantly searching for fosters (all mommas with kittens are sent to foster, I do like that baby kittens are rarely euthanized), has huge fundraisers, are on tv and the radio weekly. I am the first to admit my shelter could do some things much better but given the circumstances, I feel they do really well considering. 
There is a small town outside of my city that has a 'no kill' shelter. They advertise that they are a no kill facility and have many supporters because of this. Everyone wants to support the no kill facility. But some of their cats have been there their whole lives. They have no social skills, are terrified of the world, panic and can be dangerous. They have lived in a cage all their lives and don't know how to be a pet. So in the two year span that cat takes up a cage waiting for the 'prefect person' to accept its problems, how many cats get turned away. How many normal, friendly cats could have gone through that cage? 
Maybe it is different in Canada. But the no kill facilities I know of are always full, cannot take more animals, have to ship a bunch of cats to kill shelters because they can't euthanize them because they are 'no kill'. Unsuitable pets take up cages for years while dozens of perfectly adoptable animals get turned away because that cage is full. 
I don't honestly know what the solution is. My city is improving and different rescue groups are popping up to try to help. We have a great TNVR program that I hoping will significantly decline the incoming cats over the next few years. Low cost spay neuter programs. My city is in the process of banning puppies and kittens in pet stores (whole other discussion) and selling pets for profit. More people getting out, setting up booths outside of liquor stores, wal mart, grocery stores trying to educate. But we have a huge pet overpopulation program and not enough people adopting animals. 
But when you have 30 cats come in per day and a room fits 15 and all rooms are full, what do you do?


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Bridget said:


> I didn't vote because I don't know how I feel, am still sorting it out. I volunteered at our local shelter that euthanizes when they run out of space and was told that they have to, and that sounded reasonable. Now I volunteer at a wonderful no-kill facility and am finding it hard to understand why that can't be the norm. I live in a city that I don't think has the scope of problem that some areas of the country have though.


I think that a lot of "no-kill" facilities don't HAVE to take dogs, unlike most municipal facilities. Even in small towns, the local facility has no choice but to accept every dog that comes through the door while private shelters can pick and choose which dogs they take. If they have no space, they can put dogs on the waiting list - our local no-kill does this. The waiting list is several months long. Most shelters don't have that luxury. They must take every stray and owner turn-in that shows up at the door.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Merciel said:


> For my region, the issue isn't so much population density as population changes, and in the population of dogs, not people.
> 
> *If you go 10 miles out of Philly in any direction, the shelters will still be crammed with pit bulls.* There's no point moving those guys. Their adoption chances don't change.
> 
> ...


Hi Merciel, I completely relate!

*Re: the bolded part about pit bulls*
I know Chicago ACC has a lot of pit/bully breeds or mixes. They seem to be the biggest losers in the current system. Their best shot is if they appear to be mixed with another recognizable (and less stigmatized) breed.

I really admire the all-breed rescues that pull them. There are several in the city that do pull them, but not in the numbers needed. 

I also know that there are many that will not pull them. I have noticed some innovation among people/organizations looking to help pit bulls – for example, offering to pay for all vetting, transport and housing costs on top of an additional donation for accepting the dog into their rescue. It really is that desperate.

I’m sure a lot of the rescues that have no-pit policies (stated or unstated) have legitimate reasons, but I sometimes suspect that there is a subtext going on that I find a bit unsettling. I could be completely off base with that. 

*Re: the bolded part about pulling dogs from points south*
Like what you describe, one of the groups I work with pulls a lot of dogs from downstate Illinois and states such as Indiana, Tennessee and Kentucky. In fact, my dog was pulled from a small county shelter in downstate Illinois. 

I have to admit that, at first, I found it astounding that none of these dogs are spayed/neutered and have many preventable parasite issues. My involvement with this rescue, in particular, has been a real eye-opener for me as to the state of affairs in other areas of the country.

It is also worth noting that the founder of this rescue has also noticed a worrisome increase in the number of dogs pulled from points south that turn out to be HW+ - this, as you noted, places an additional strain on the rescue’s finances and foster capacity.

To conclude, I will share a funny (yet sad) story about my foster experience with these dogs. I have no problem dealing with health issues or housetraining. But, I found the stench these dogs had upon arrival in my home almost unbearable… and I couldn’t give them a bath because they had just had a spay/neuter surgery. 

The way it works with this rescue is that the dogs go almost immediately from transport to the vet. The foster home picks up the dog from the vet office after the health exam and spay/neuter surgery. I can not tell you how many scented, no-water needed, bathing wipes I had in my house at that time!!!!

And then, after having fostered several dogs for them, I had a flash of (belated) brilliance…. I called the vet and made arrangements with them to bathe the dogs (at my cost) before the spay/neuter procedure .


----------



## marbury (Apr 3, 2012)

Necessary. It would take a national shift in attitude towards canis familiaris to solve the problem our society created.

Frankly, I'd rather that a dog pass peacefully by euthanasia (albeit in a crowded, disconnected way) at a shelter than live in filth and misery on a chain or dying in a ring or even just being crated or confined to the yard for the entirety of its life. I've seen enough horror in the short time I've been in the veterinary profession to dream of a utopia in which every dog has a happy home.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Ha, yes, I remember the first time I got a dog who hadn't been bathed before transport... I washed her in the bathtub with a detachable shower head and she turned six inches of foamy water completely opaque with filth. It was the grossest yellowy-brown color. Looked like a bottle of fermented YooHoo that had been sitting in the sun all day and then somebody peed in it.

After that, I learned the same lesson you did. 

re:



LifeofRiley said:


> I’m sure a lot of the rescues that have no-pit policies (stated or unstated) have legitimate reasons, but I sometimes suspect that there is a subtext going on that I find a bit unsettling. I could be completely off base with that.


My rescue goes on and off with accepting pitties. Basically, the unwritten rule is that we can only have X number of pitties in the rescue at any time (X is usually somewhere between 10 and 15 depending on how many fosters we have willing and able to handle them), and we don't pull any more until one of those has been adopted.

They're the only breed that gets a finite number of slots. We'll take infinity beagles or collie mixes if that's what's in the shelter, but only X pitties.

The reason is, of course, that it's hard to get them adopted. It's doubly hard because my rescue -- being a relatively small, foster-based, private organization -- has to charge adoption fees much higher than some of the other shelters in our area. People are willing to pay the difference for a beagle or a collie, but they are much less willing to pay it for a pittie, because they can go over to ACCT or PSPCA and get an identical-looking dog for less. The only adopters who will pay the premium are the more knowledgeable ones who are specifically looking for dogs coming out of foster care... and even then, there are plenty of those available through other rescues' foster programs as well.

And honestly that's fine to me. If it comes to similar dogs, I would rather see the local dogs get preference. I think that's how it _should_ be.

But it does mean we don't take many pits at all.


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

LifeofRiley said:


> I found the stench these dogs had upon arrival in my home almost unbearable… and I couldn’t give them a bath because they had just had a spay/neuter surgery.
> .


LOL. Been there, done that -- with fleas jumping off the dog because the shelter was out of Frontline/Advantage. That's when I started stocking my own Capstar and Advantage for new fosters.

I somehow get a lot of them who not only reek of "shelter stench" but also have lots of dried poop matted in their fur, from having to sit or lie down in it in their kennel because the kennels don't get cleaned often enough. Poop-mats are _nasty. _ 

There's something special about seeing a raggedy, itchy, filthy, poop-matted dog sparkle for the first time after a good bath, dematting and brushing. It is the best feeling in the world to see them smile at finally feeling clean again, and prance proudly showing off!


----------



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

The local shelter in my area doesn't allow Pit Bulls to be transferred out of state, except for in one case that involved a huge dog fighting bust. They prefer to place the Bully breeds locally, which often means that those dogs are euthanized first. However they have been trying to get Pit Bulls seen in a more positive light, which means that they are getting a better chance of adoption. I think it's very unfortunate to see certain breeds passed up by families who are looking for certain traits (good with kids/other animals, etc) just because they are look scary to some. That's another story though.

When I first started volunteering at this particular shelter a few years ago, I remember a family just like I described above. They had two kids ages 11 and 13 and were looking for a older dog between the ages of 4-6 that was very easy to handle, and good with everyone, especially kids. Long story short, they went through the whole kennel of dogs and wouldn't even look at a little brown and white dog who fit the criteria perfectly, all because she was a Pittie mix.


----------



## TAR HEEL MOM (Mar 22, 2013)

As the executive assistant at a shelter I can't tell you how much I appreciate reading this thread and knowing that there are people out there who understand reality. Thanks for being appreciative and realistic. I get the "Hey, are you a no kill shelter?" question every day and I have become adept and explaining that we are an "open door" shelter which means we have to take all strays and then going on to explain why we can not be a no-kill. It is the "cause du jour" and as much as I love that there is so much national focus on dog rescue, dog ownership and dog everything...it has made those of us in the shelters out to be the bad guy too many times.

When all dogs are "fixed" we can becom,e no-kill. Until then...there is no way. There can be some but it will be those who pick and choose their intake. But there will always, always be shelters where dogs die. It's not easy, trust me. I choose to believe that "someone has to do it" and at least I know that when I am the one, they leave the world knowing they were petted and treated and sung to and loved at the end.


----------



## vomlittlehaus (Aug 24, 2010)

And until we start at the source (unaltered strays, unaltered family pets) we will never get to the bottom of this. There needs to be mobile spay/neuter clinics that go into the areas that are poor and cannot afford the services or have no transport to get their pets to the vets office. So many that are just uneducated on spay/neuter and continue the cycle they were raised on.


----------



## NTexFoster (Jul 18, 2013)

Until supply and demand are equalized kill shelters are a necessary evil. I hate the very thought of it. I can't imagine a more soul killing task that to have to put an other health innocent animal to its death. Nevermind having to that over and over.

I know before I ever receive a dog to foster the board for my Human Society has had to filter through latterly hundreds of great dogs to select the few that we can actually rescue.

It's big reason why I encourage people to look first at rescuing a dog before going to any breeders. With only a little effort you can and will find the exact dog you are looking for, even the age. It just takes a little work.


----------



## Birbeck (Oct 6, 2015)

Needed. Can't have potentially aggressive large dogs roaming that can clear fences and breed with resident animals/attack people and give the GSD a bad rep. Not enough fosters or people mildly capable of caring for them (obviously) so best to keep the healthier animals intact and give the best temporary time to unhealthier dogs vs handing them off to someone that'll feed them ol'roy and let them wither away. The best thing you can do for shelters is offer to foster/donate old supplies/food. Not shut them down. Animals reproduce faster than they die, no-kill shelters only wouldn't be feasible. If they were, they'd be everywhere. Do you think people want to euthanize? No.


----------



## Blondi's Revenge (Jan 31, 2015)

cruel, not useful. It's not "euthanasia" to put down a healthy dog, it's killing plain and simple


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

This thread made me realize how much I miss Merciel. She hasn't posted in forever.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

Reality bites. Nature has a way of dealing with overpopulation in the wild and it is very cruel but that's the way it is.

Man created dogs and we must manage issues with them in a way that actually works. It's absolutely horrible but it is a reality. 

Our local shelter went from an "open" shelter to a no kill several years ago. Any shelter that does this is constantly battling limited space - as they all are. Ours has been filled with nothing but two breeds people seem to be dumping PREVENTING any new dogs from getting in and they're there for the long term. Other dogs with a good chance for adoption never have a opportunity because there's no room.

We have very few large breed dogs ever available at our shelter. They take up more room and eat more. I have been monitoring what our local shelter has available for the last two years. Not once has a GSD been offered for adoption. They are surrendered to animal control and put down without chance because the "inn" is full.....


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

Stonevintage said:


> I have been monitoring what our local shelter has available for the last two years. Not once has a GSD been offered for adoption. They are surrendered to animal control and put down without chance because the "inn" is full.....


Then you've got to get to know the AC people -- go visit regularly, take them a tray of cookies on a Friday, with a German Shepherd picture taped to the tray cover, and tell them you're "the German Shepherd lady." Talk to the shelter vets and vet techs that euthanize, so they know you want to help. Give them your cell phone number. Tell them to call you before they put the GSDs down, if you are comfortable evaluating the on your own. If not work with a breed rescue (the one in Eastern Washington may serve your area). You will either have to foster them or develop a really good network to get them out quickly. I did this for years -- all the staff who euthanized had my cell phone number in their phones as "the German Shepherd Lady," and they used it on the last day to get dogs out, as they didn't want to have to kill good dogs.

Some of those surrendered dogs will have been owned dogs who belonged to people who are moving, people who died, etc., who are already house-trained, some will have been yard dogs who received poor care, etc.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

I have a dog aggressive GSD I'm raising. I have never driven a car and AC is a 16 mile taxi ride. I am a senior citizen without insurance and would not feel safe handling any dog with an unknown background at this stage of my life.

What I could do is help to give these dogs a boost in advertising their availability if I could get someone from AC to email a photo to me with approx age and reason for surrender etc and post them on local sites such as Craigslist. But then, there is a concern that would attract the wrong type of people. There continues to be a problem here of unwanted animals used as bait dogs for certain breed owners.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

German Shepherds rarely hit our local high kill shelter and when they do, they are adopted almost immediately. The same can be said with most other breeds as well as long as the dogs aren't very old or sick. The demand for non Pit Bull shelter dogs is high.

Our local high kill shelter also is contracted with our Animal Control to take in all the strays picked up. It only has the capacity for 30 dogs. The last time I checked, about 10 days ago, they only had 7 dogs, all Pit Bulls, and this is the second largest city in the state.

It is a shame that shelters can't find a way to get all these adoptable dogs that they will euthanize into areas where there are homes waiting, but the pros and cons have all been discussed before.

@ Magwart Pit Bull advocates have special programs set up to train and place shelter Pit Bulls as drug dogs for free to underfunded police departments while German Shepherds are being euthanized in those very same shelters. Is there a way that something can be set up to promote these German Shepherds in the same capacity?


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

There _are _transport programs. If you live in a community with an "empty" shelter that has no adoptable dogs, tell the shelter director to become a "receiving shelter," by contacting Rescue Waggin:
https://www.petsmartcharities.org/pro/adoption-programs/rescue-waggin

Our over-crowded shelter sent hundreds of animals out of state to low-population shelters last year, and most were pre-adopted before they even got there, or adopted within days. It can costs as much as $10,000 to privately fund a large, airconditioned truck-load of dogs (or $185/dog, booked on Rescue Roadtrips). Rescue Waggin' (funded by the Petsmart Foundation) is the way a lot of shelters are making transportation affordable.

MAW, you'd have to ask the people who run that program. It may be they are using donor funds according to donor wishes specifically for PBs. Customs and Border Patrol was pulling shelter dogs in San Diego to train some years ago, and they apparently liked the little pit mixes because they were small enough to jump in a car trunk to get a good sniff. It was the compact size they were looking for. 

As for shelter GSDs for LEO, the challenge is always having the right person in the right place to evaluate the dog, and developing trust between the people training the dogs and the people in the trenches.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

I think they already do that. They have been bringing dogs in from out of state for quite some time, even flying them in, but there still is a shortage. Like you said, the dogs are adopted immediately. Maybe they have quotas, that is a lot of money. 

I know they also have volunteers that go to surrounding states that drive and bring dogs in from those state's high kill shelters.

Has anybody investigated getting some of these GSDs into bomb or drug detection?


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

Another program that's showing promise in reducing kill-rates is statistical targeting of zip codes and neighborhoods that account for most stray dogs. At least 80-90% of strays and owner-surrenders tend to come from one area in many cities (usually the poorest area). 

Research is showing targeting free spay-neuter vouchers in the areas where dogs are running loose and breeding at will, sending out teams of volunteers to help repair fencing, helping poor owners with basic vet care (microchipping, vaccinations, deworming, HW testing/prevention), etc. can make a huge difference in decreasing shelter intake. These programs are also showing promise in the cities that are trying them -- as long as they have enough people and resources. 

Whether you like spay/neuter for your own dogs or not, there's no debating the stats that show that targeting free spay/neuter in the population areas producing the most strays and unwanted dogs works in bringing down shelter intake numbers, eventually. It's a _very _labor-intensive (volunteer-run) effort, and it has to be ongoing, for years.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Magwart said:


> Another program that's showing promise in reducing kill-rates is statistical targeting of zip codes and neighborhoods that account for most stray dogs. At least 80-90% of strays and owner-surrenders tend to come from one area in many cities (usually the poorest area).
> 
> Research is showing targeting free spay-neuter vouchers in the areas where dogs are running loose and breeding at will, sending out teams of volunteers to help repair fencing, helping poor owners with basic vet care (microchipping, vaccinations, deworming, HW testing/prevention), etc. can make a huge difference in decreasing shelter intake. These programs are also showing promise in the cities that are trying them -- as long as they have enough people and resources.
> 
> Whether you like spay/neuter for your own dogs or not, there's no debating the stats that show that targeting free spay/neuter in the population areas producing the most strays and unwanted dogs works in bringing down shelter intake numbers, eventually. It's a _very _labor-intensive (volunteer-run) effort, and it has to be ongoing, for years.


Our city is very big on spay / neuter and no cat or dog leaves the shelter without having the surgery. Both of the largest shelters in the city are located in such areas and they do offer most of the services mentioned.


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

It's not just about offering them. It's about going door-to-door, or into the churches and community groups, and talking to people in the neighborhoods. Sometimes they even need to offer transportation to get the dog from the home to the vet appointment. Volunteers are finding out from neighbors which old lady's dogs keep getting out, or keep having puppies that get dumped or die of disease and then approaching these people to say, "We can help." Often people are hugely relieved because they don't want their dogs to keep breeding, but they have no money to solve the problem.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Puppies are a rarity in the shelters. They don't have a problem with other breeds except for Pits, but those dogs are being deliberately bred. They sell the first couple of pups at 4 weeks of age and give the rest away. The only dogs that get out are Pits, you won't find other breeds running the street, but those owners deliberately let them loose to get their own exercise and so they don't have to clean up after them. I left volunteering with these shelters long ago do to the influx of Pit Bulls as have so many others. There are enough Pit Bull advocates in this area, two just had charges pressed against them for threatening one director of the kill shelter, I will let their breed to them.


----------



## Solo93 (Feb 16, 2016)

There are worse things than death. Even if the shelter has enough staff (it probably doesn't) and the cages are cleaned properly (they probably aren't) and someone actually takes the dog outside for a few minutes twice a day....it's still a very short term solution. Being warehoused in a cage indefinitely, with your social needs not being met, is a living **** for a dog.

In addition to the cherry-picking of the most adoptable dogs that was mentioned by others, many no-kill shelters have another numbers-balancing trick up their sleeve: "unadoptables". Stray Rottie gets his first meal in a week as he enters the shelter, but growls when some genius shoves a rubber arm in the bowl? UNADOPTABLE. Kill him, and sweep his life under the rug--he doesn't count against the numbers. (They're supposed to wait for the dog to settle in, and be cleared of any pressing physical issues, before temperament-testing...but that doesn't always happen.) A litter of 1 week old kittens comes in? Too much time required to care for their special needs. UNADOPTABLE. That shy GSD whose fence came down in a storm, & whose people didn't come for him? UNADOPTABLE. And, we're still 100% glorious No-Kill! ...it isn't realistic to think we can save every one, but it's deceptive to play with the numbers to misrepresent what's really going on.

I didn't see anyone mention Nathan Winograd. Regardless of your take on him, he does have a lot of ideas and works very hard towards a no-kill solution.


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

Magwart said:


> Another program that's showing promise in reducing kill-rates is statistical targeting of zip codes and neighborhoods that account for most stray dogs. At least 80-90% of strays and owner-surrenders tend to come from one area in many cities (usually the poorest area).
> 
> Research is showing targeting free spay-neuter vouchers in the areas where dogs are running loose and breeding at will, sending out teams of volunteers to help repair fencing, helping poor owners with basic vet care (microchipping, vaccinations, deworming, HW testing/prevention), etc. can make a huge difference in decreasing shelter intake. These programs are also showing promise in the cities that are trying them -- as long as they have enough people and resources.
> 
> Whether you like spay/neuter for your own dogs or not, there's no debating the stats that show that targeting free spay/neuter in the population areas producing the most strays and unwanted dogs works in bringing down shelter intake numbers, eventually. It's a _very _labor-intensive (volunteer-run) effort, and it has to be ongoing, for years.


Former stats nerd here, and I LOVE that idea. It worked for President Obama, it could work for the animals!

I absolutely will not support mandatory spay/neuter laws, but I will support offering free or low cost alteration for anyone who needs it, and while it's costly (statisticians are expensive), it's effective.


----------



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

I don't know how realistic it is financially to do it on a large scale basis, but I love the local charity I posted about recently that selects certain candidates from shelters, evaluates them and if they pass, they go into one of two correctional facilities for basic training. If they pass this, then they are sent to a professional training facility for advanced skills. If they pass this, then they are place with wounded first responders, veterans or Gold Star families. How's that for neat, helping three groups at one time?


----------



## RubenZ (Jan 15, 2016)

This is why my area offered FREE SPAY and NUETER. Its pretty much needed her. We have wayyyyyy too many abandoned dogs, cats. In fact I was told our Shelters here will send out dogs to other cities that need adoptions because we are so full here. We have Low Cost Spay and Nueter clinics as well which will do spay and neuters under 50 bucks.


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

Newlie- yes! That is such a great solution, win-win-win. I love it! I think studies show long-term benefits for the inmates even post-release.


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

GSDs (and Mals) are sometimes not allowed in the prison training programs because they are used by the prison guards as working dogs. The prison wardens often don't want the inmates psychologically to be in position of handling the same breeds the guards are handling. I had a long talk about this one the guy who runs one of these training programs in our area. It kind of makes sense, from a prison-management standpoint. They often aim for non-intimidating, smaller dogs for these programs. They do use pitt mixes, but often not the big, stocky purebred PBs that may be from "game" lines (fighting)--they worry a lot about inmates starting dog fighting rings too.


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

Mag- interesting, but a real shame because the malis and GSDs often do really poorly in a shelter. 

I remember our local program had mostly pitbull and husky mixes. I hadn't thought about dog fighting rings or other issues with protection breeds. It sounded like a really nice program, but I think the inmates working with the dogs were carefully selected and monitored.


----------



## newlie (Feb 12, 2013)

Magwart said:


> GSDs (and Mals) are sometimes not allowed in the prison training programs because they are used by the prison guards as working dogs. The prison wardens often don't want the inmates psychologically to be in position of handling the same breeds the guards are handling. I had a long talk about this one the guy who runs one of these training programs in our area. It kind of makes sense, from a prison-management standpoint. They often aim for non-intimidating, smaller dogs for these programs. They do use pitt mixes, but often not the big, stocky purebred PBs that may be from "game" lines (fighting)--they worry a lot about inmates starting dog fighting rings too.


Darn it, I guess that does make sense, but it's a shame. Oh well, even if it gets other breeds/animals out of shelters, that is still a win for everybody.


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

Yep, the thing about public high-kill shelters that everyone has to keep in mind is they have a fixed number of cages/kennels. When those are full, as soon as the AC truck rolls up with a new dog picked up, some dog that's been there a few days has to be euthanized to "make room." They can't just keep on taking more and more with nowhere to put them. So any program that gets ANY dog out alive frees up a cage--potentially saving two lives (the one that left, and the one that gets that now-empty cage).

When all-breed people get mad at me for not taking this or that mix, and only pulling purebred looking dogs (we're a BREED rescue), I often have to explain this concept: the GSD that left just opened up a large kennel for another dog. So when AC rolls up later today, one of those mixes won't have to be euthanized today because we freed up a kennel. 

Improving live outcomes requires an "all of the above" approach in sheltering: rescues pulling, shelters recruiting foster volunteers, prison training programs, nursing home foster-dog programs, transports out of state, diverting owner surrenders into other rehoming programs, all of it. A few dogs at a time adds up to a lot of emptied cages, but only if the entire community is working toward that goal.


----------



## alexg (Mar 22, 2013)

Magwart said:


> Another program that's showing promise in reducing kill-rates is statistical targeting of zip codes and neighborhoods that account for most stray dogs. At least 80-90% of strays and owner-surrenders tend to come from one area in many cities (usually the poorest area).
> 
> Research is showing targeting free spay-neuter vouchers in the areas where dogs are running loose and breeding at will, sending out teams of volunteers to help repair fencing, helping poor owners with basic vet care (microchipping, vaccinations, deworming, HW testing/prevention), etc. can make a huge difference in decreasing shelter intake. These programs are also showing promise in the cities that are trying them -- as long as they have enough people and resources.
> 
> Whether you like spay/neuter for your own dogs or not, there's no debating the stats that show that targeting free spay/neuter in the population areas producing the most strays and unwanted dogs works in bringing down shelter intake numbers, eventually. It's a _very _labor-intensive (volunteer-run) effort, and it has to be ongoing, for years.





WateryTart said:


> Former stats nerd here, and I LOVE that idea. It worked for President Obama, it could work for the animals!
> 
> I absolutely will not support mandatory spay/neuter laws, but I will support offering free or low cost alteration for anyone who needs it, and while it's costly (statisticians are expensive), it's effective.


Post #45 where WateryTart had quoted Magwart ... I can't see what had worked for Obama that was in the Magwart's post. Just curious what am I missing.


----------

