Chapter 4 Animal shelters and rescue.
No matter how much cats fight, there always seem to be plenty of kittens.
National Animal Control Association (NACA)
Society of Animal Welfare Administrators
National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP)
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Companion animal shelters arose from the impounds that towns and cities used to have for keeping stray and wandering livestock (Zawistowski & Morris, 2004). Households located within these towns typically needed to keep their own cows or goats for milk. They kept horses for transportation and may have kept chickens for eggs and a few pigs to fatten for slaughter or kitchen scraps. If these animals escaped from whatever confinement provided, the local poundmaster would capture the wandering animals and take them to the impound where they were held. If the owner wanted to reclaim the animal, they would need to pay the poundmaster a redemption fee. The poundmaster could either sell or slaughter animals that were not reclaimed. There was no salary for the poundmasters; they made their living based on the redemption fees paid, through the sales of animals not reclaimed, or selling or keeping the meat of the animals that were slaughtered. Occasionally, the poundmaster might need to capture and hold a dog or cat that was causing a nuisance. If a dog was valued for herding, hunting, or as a guard, the owner might make an effort to reclaim it, paying the redemption fee. Since cultural traditions did not accept dogs and cats as a food source, the poundmaster could not sell them for slaughter. As a result, excess dogs or cats would be killed by the poundmaster in the most convenient fashion. Clubbing, strangling, and drowning were among the most common methods employed. During the 1600s to early 1800s, when dogs and cats were uncommon as companion animals, they were not a significant part of the workload of the poundmaster.
However, as villages became towns and towns became cities, it became less common for the residents to maintain their own livestock. As the number of wandering cattle and other valuable animals for the poundmaster to catch declined, the numbers of dogs and cats that needed to be handled increased. While the numbers of dogs and cats grew, the system for their disposition did not change from that originally developed for livestock. Many were strays with no one to claim them. The ready availability of strays in the city for someone who wanted to acquire a cat or dog resulted in few dogs or cats being purchased from the pound. As a result, the numbers of excess dogs and cats that needed to be killed steadily increased. By the mid-1800s, the New York City pound had resorted to crowding dogs and cats into a large iron cage that was hoisted over and into the East River each day to drown the animals (Figure 4-1). There were limited efforts made to try to control the problem in a proactive fashion. Cleveland introduced dog licenses as a first try at control. In western parts of the United States, it was not uncommon for strays to be shot instead of being caught live. Dog license tags were introduced in Dodge City to help identify owned strays.
When Henry Bergh founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 1866, in addition to the plight of horses in New York City, he soon became enmeshed in the treatment of the dogs and cats at the pound (Figure 4-2). In addition to the issue of drowning the animals, the pound was criticized for corruption. Since the dogs and cats had limited or no resale value, the poundmaster and his helpers were dependent upon redemption fees for their compensation. It was not uncommon, then, for the pound workers to steal dogs from the yards of homes and then notify the owners that the dogs were in the pound and would be killed if they were not redeemed, for a fee. Essentially, the pound was supported by the kidnapping and ransom of dogs (Crossen, 2007). Some owners, after several trips to the pound to reclaim their dogs, eventually paid a type of protection fee to keep their dog from being taken again. While this practice occupied the efforts of the pound workers, they neglected the important job of collecting the many strays that roamed the streets of the city. These strays posed a danger when they spooked horses that were pulling carts or carriages, and a danger to harass and bite people. This concern was exacerbated by periodic outbreaks of rabies in the dog population. At these times, massive efforts would be made to round up all of the stray dogs in the city and take them to warehouses where they would eventually die or be killed. When Bergh's efforts on behalf of animals gained greater attention, city officials and the public called upon him and the ASPCA to take on the task of running the city pound. Henry Bergh refused to do this. He was quite familiar with the politics and political practices of New York's city hall at the time and did not want to risk the future of his fragile endeavor in what he anticipated would be a thankless effort that would drain the organization of energy and resources.
[FIGURE 4-1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 4-2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 4-3 OMITTED]
The first move toward a more humane method of animal sheltering was pioneered by Carolyn Earle White in Philadelphia. As a woman, she was unable to serve on the board of the organization that she helped to form, the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA). She then organized the Women's Auxiliary of the PSPCA. It was White and this group that conceived, built, and operated the City Refuge for Lost and Suffering Animals (Figure 4-3). They took in the stray dogs and cats of Philadelphia and cared for them in the first humane shelter in the United States. They provided food and care for the strays, and made an effort to find new homes for as many of them as possible. White even commissioned the development of a more humane method of killing the excess animals that could not be placed into new homes. Their humane euthanasia chamber used gas to asphyxiate the animals.
What's in a Name? If the first organizations created to protect animals were Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, where did Humane Societies come from, and is there a difference? In Chapter 3, we saw that Henry Bergh not only founded the first organization in the United States to protect animals, the ASPCA, he also helped to found the first organization to protect children, the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC). The first humane society was formed in England by two doctors to rescue human drowning victims in 1774 and to promote the use of artificial resuscitation to save these people. Eventually humane became a common term used to describe the treatment and protection of people. As discussed in Chapter 3, when Bergh rescued Mary Ellen in 1874, this was clearly a humane action. Many of the SPCAs that he inspired to form and protect animals now took on the additional task of protecting children. However, unlike Bergh, they did not form new organizations but merged the child protection role into the animal protection role. In some cases, they assumed the ponderous title of Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Humane Society and built a lobby with separate doors for accepting unwanted animals and children. Over time, a number of these organizations maintained their dual functions under the simpler title of Humane Society. This terminology was codified in 1885 when the American Humane Association passed a resolution that organizations providing services for both animals and children should be called Humane Societies. Still later, as the protection of children became a function of local government, the local humane society retained the animal care role and the new name. One of the most interesting examples of this transition traced the organization founded be Carolyn Earle White in Philadelphia. When she was unable to take on an active role in the management of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that she helped to create, she founded the Women's Auxiliary of the Pennsylvania SPCA. This was eventually shortened to Women's SPCA. Later when the Women's SPCA took on a role protecting children the named was changed to Women's Humane Society, an organization that exists to this day as an animal protection group. It should be noted that in correspondence of the day Henry Bergh was vehement in his opposition to SPCAs taking on the additional task of protecting children. It was not that he thought children unworthy of protection; after all, he did rescue Mary Ellen and start the NYSPCC and served on its board until his death. He felt that if the two tasks were joined one would invariably suffer from lack of attention and support within the organization. In the end, there really are no differences between societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and humane societies. They are largely interchangeable terms. The names do not denote differences in function or philosophy, nor do they reflect membership as chapters of centrally managed national organizations.
In 1894, six years after the death of Henry Bergh, the ASPCA agreed to manage the New York City pound. Dog licenses were introduced to the city at that time. The fees collected from the licenses were then used to provide salaries for the men who worked at the animal shelter. Since the workers were no longer dependent upon redemption fees for their compensation, stealing of owned dogs was eliminated and the work concentrated on the capture of strays. They also made it a point to include cats as part of their efforts, the first time that cats became more than an incidental part of the pound/animal shelter effort. Strays were no longer killed by drowning. Following the example of Philadelphia, a chamber was developed that used the illuminating gas used to light homes to asphyxiate the animals (Figure 4-4).
[FIGURE 4-4 OMITTED]
Over the next several decades, many communities would solve their animal control needs by having the job taken over by the local SPCA or Humane Society. This would have a dramatic effect on the continued evolution of the American animal welfare movement. As Bergh, White, Angell, and the other founders passed away in the late 1800s and early 1900s, their organizations became more and more occupied with running animal shelters and the care of dogs and cats. As a result, a number of the other issues that were at the forefront in the early days--vivisection, hunting and blood sports, livestock transport and slaughter-- became secondary concerns. It would not be until the years after World War II that these issues would again stimulate renewed interest (see Chapter 3).
Many new communities were being created at the turn of century. They needed to have animal control services, and as a result they met the need with variety of methods. In some cases, SPCAs and humane societies were among the first organizations to take root in these communities, and they assumed the job of running the animal shelters. In other cases, the city or town government might need to organize and run the shelter if there were no humane groups, or if it did not have the resources to run the shelter and animal control program. Combined with the fact that the humane groups were still founded and operated as independent organizations, not as branches of a single national organization, this resulted in the hodge-podge nature of the animal-sheltering system that currently exists in the United States.
ANIMAL SHELTER ORGANIZATIONS
It is important to recognize that animal shelters serve two important roles in the community. One function is to ensure that lost, stray, and homeless animals are provided with humane care and treatment. The second role is to protect public health from the potential dangers of animal bites or attacks, zoonotic diseases, and nuisances caused by animals. Historically, humane groups generally took on the former task while government fulfilled the latter. The second role has most often been called animal control, with its primary focus on the public interest. A recent trend has been to rename these programs animal care and control, recognizing that the public health function is consistent with providing humane treatment for the animals. The essential elements of a well-organized animal care and control program include the following (Handy, 2001):
* Uniformly enforce laws related to public health and safety
* Respond to nuisance complaints in a timely manner
* Investigate complaints of abuse and neglect
* Rescue mistreated and injured animals
* Shelter stray and homeless animals
* Work to reunite lost pets with their families
* Place healthy, behaviorally sound animals in responsible homes
* Euthanize suffering animals as well as those that are neither reclaimed nor adopted
* Promote mandatory identification of both dogs and cats
* Create incentives for the public to have pets sterilized
* Deter future problems through education programs
Three basic models have become the most common ways to organize and run the animal sheltering/control needs of a community. The local government may build, staff, and run the animal shelter. Funding for operations will most often come from the sale of dog licenses, redemption/reclaim fees for lost animals, fees for adoption of animals, and fines that might be collected for violation of various animal control regulations and ordinances. This funding may be supplemented with additional monies from the government budget. Operational control for the shelter will frequently be placed with the local health department or law enforcement. In these communities, a local humane group may also operate an independent animal shelter. A second option is when the local humane group enters into an agreement with the local government to provide the animal shelter/ control needs for the community. Funding for operations may come through contract payments from the government, various fees collected by the humane group or some combination. The third option is really a broad range of intermediate arrangements. For example, the humane group may own and run a shelter. The government might provide field services such as picking up strays and enforcing regulations and have a contract with the humane group for housing any animals that are picked up or seized. In another example, the government may own the shelter, but the humane group may agree to run the shelter and provide the staffing. An arrangement found in some smaller communities will find the local government providing field services either through one or two animal control officers, or as a part of the law enforcement function and then contracting for boarding services through a veterinary clinic or pet boarding facility.
Overall, it is a very complicated and often difficult set of circumstances to understand. As a result, the funding for animal-sheltering services can vary greatly from one community to another, as well as the range of services (Table 4-1). It is generally accepted that running an adequate animal control program for a community requires approximately $4 for each citizen (Handy, 2001). Sources for these funds would typically include the following:
* Income from licenses, registrations, and permits
* Impoundment fees charged when someone's animal is picked up or held at the shelter
* Redemption fees charged when someone claims a lost dog or cat at the shelter
* Fines collected for citations related to animal control regulations or ordinances
* Adoption fees
* Private donations, grants, or other funds provided specifically for the community's animal-sheltering program
[FIGURE 4-5 OMITTED]
ANIMAL SHELTER DEVELOPMENTS
Animal shelters have seen several trends in their development. In the beginning, the primary goal in the advancement of humane animal sheltering was to improve the conditions of the shelter and find more humane ways to euthanize dogs and cats that were not claimed by owners or placed in new homes. These early shelters tended to keep dogs and cats in group pens or cages (Figure 4-5). It was common for a shelter to have seven large kennels or pens for dogs, one for each day of the week. All of the dogs that came in on Monday went into the first pen; the dogs that arrived on Tuesday went into the second pen, and so on through the week. People who came in to look for a lost dog or find a pet to adopt would be invited to look in each of the kennels. Each morning, all of the remaining dogs in the cage, kennel, or pen for that day would be removed and killed, the kennel would be cleaned, and the cycle would start over. In many locations, the local shelter or pound did not take cats at all. As a result, we have the familiar term dog pound. Even though most shelters may not have taken cats, they were apparently a common element of urban life. Statistics from New York City, where the ASPCA did accept and count cats as part of its work, showed that cats outnumbered dogs.
At first, the change from drowning, clubbing, or strangling unwanted animals took some time to change. The various gas chamber configurations were the first innovations. By the turn of the twentieth century, the availability of electricity began to encourage the development of various methods of electrocution. The next major development was the introduction of the decompression chamber following World War II. It is important to note that during this time limited attention was paid to the question of how many animals were killed in animal shelters; the focus was on how, not how many. In fact, the pet care booklets prepared and distributed by various humane groups made limited mention of sterilizing dogs and cats as a way to prevent overpopulation of unwanted animals. Spaying and neutering were more often recommended to manage problem behaviors. Male cats were neutered to control spraying; female dogs were spayed to keep male dogs from gathering around the house. It was not until the 1960s that concern for how many animals were being killed became an important question in the animal-sheltering community. At that time, Phyllis Wright, who worked at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), began to advocate a three-pronged program to reduce the numbers of unwanted animals in the United States (Unti, 2004). She promoted sterilization, education, and legislation as the way to attack the problem at its roots. Laws that required the licensing of dogs and keeping them from roaming free would help to ensure that strays were kept to a minimum and the use of a license for identification would help families find their lost dogs. Members of the public would need to be educated about the proper care for their companion animals and this would now include the importance of sterilization as a way to prevent the birth of additional unwanted dogs and cats.
By the 1970s, efforts were made to phase out the use of the decompression chambers that were now seen as an inhumane form of euthanasia. This period saw the introduction of an overdose of sodium pentobarbital as the preferred method of euthanizing animals in shelters. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has recently reaffirmed their position that euthanasia by injection performed by trained personnel is the most acceptable method for dogs and cats in animals shelters (Table 4-2). A variety of organizations including American Humane Association (AHA), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and National Animal Control Association (NACA), aswell as some state health departments, provide training and certification for euthanasia technicians to ensure that they are prepared to perform the function in an effective, efficient, and humane fashion and that they understand the regulatory requirements for the use of the euthanasia drugs. Continued efforts will be required to ensure that all shelters move toward this method. A variety of reasons, including concerns about cost, availability of trained staff, the ability of shelters to purchase the required drug (it is a controlled substance), and old-fashioned fear of change, have resulted in some facilities continuing to use carbon monoxide from vehicle exhaust, gunshot, and other unacceptable methods.
ANIMAL SHELTER PROGRAMS
Animals come to shelters through a variety of routes. The most common forms of intake are through relinquishment by an owner who is no longer able or interested in keeping the pet, or those brought into the shelter by animal control field officers. Other animals might be seized as part of an animal cruelty investigation or held if the owner is sick, arrested, or otherwise not able to keep the animal. Disposition of animals is generally through reclaim of lost animals by owners (Return to Owner, RTO), placement of the animal in a new home (adoption), or euthanasia for humane reasons if the animal is sick or injured (Euthanized for Humane Reasons, EHR) or euthanized to make space for more animals (Table 4-3). An increasingly frequent category of disposition is when animals are transferred from one shelter to another shelter or rescue/adoption group. Many of these groups make a special effort to take dogs and cats from overburdened animal control shelters where they might have a limited chance for placement in a new home. Some of these groups will focus on a particular breed of dog, providing the special care and knowledge that might be needed. In some cases, dogs may be shipped in from another shelter in another region of the country. At this time, it is most frequently dogs from the Midwest or the South being shipped to shelters in the Northeast or West Coast.
[FIGURE 4-6 OMITTED]
A very effective version of this activity has been the Rescue Waggin' funded by PetSmart Charities (Figure 4-6). In addition to transporting dogs from areas where shelters are overburdened to shelters where there is a demand for more adoptable pets, it also works to subsidize spay/neuter programs in the source communities to reduce the numbers of unwanted dogs. Nearly 15,000 dogs are transported a total of 100,000 miles each year (PetSmart Charities, 2005).
The most controversial way for a dog or cat to leave a shelter is through pound seizure. This is when the animals are sent to a laboratory where they will be used as research subjects. This practice became common in the years following WorldWar II when biomedical research underwent a substantial upsurge and animal shelters had a substantial surplus of dogs and cats. The practice outraged animal protection advocates and once again drove a wedge of distrust between them and scientists. During the intervening years some jurisdictions have passed laws that prohibit the practice, while in a few others, there is a specific requirement for the shelter to provide animals for research purposes.
Disasters provide a special challenge to shelters. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and fires all wreak havoc on a community's infrastructure. Homes and buildings may be destroyed and people are forced to flee the danger or may be trapped in life threatening circumstances. Animals are also endangered at this time. Red Cross emergency shelters do not accept animals, so people who are evacuating with their pets need to find an alternative shelter for themselves or find somewhere for their pets. In some cases, animal shelters are able to accept the pets and hold them until they can be reclaimed by their owners. However, when the shelter itself is in the path of danger it may be necessary to set up a temporary shelter outside the danger zone. In many cases, people will leave their pets in their homes, hoping for the best. On the heels of a disaster, it is not uncommon for animal shelter staff to be among the first to enter the area and begin efforts to capture or rescue animals that are trapped, injured, or running free. Every effort is then made to post lists of recovered animals so people can reclaim their pets. In the days following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, ASPCA agents rescued over 200 pets from buildings that were evacuated around ground zero immediately after the attack on the World Trade Center. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, LA and the Gulf Coast of the United States with ferocious winds and a storm surge that devastated vast areas of the region. Thousands of experienced animal rescue professionals and volunteers from around the country were needed to assist with the rescue of animals from the affected communities. The Louisiana SPCA in New Orleans was destroyed by the floods and animals that had been in the shelter were evacuated to the Houston SPCA before the storm.
A Perfect Storm On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina rushed across the Gulf of Mexico slamming into shore along Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida. Winds over 100 mph uprooted trees, sucked the roofs off building, and drove torrential rains and a powerful storm surge of water from the Gulf deep inland. In the wake of the storm, rescue teams swung into action to rescue people and animals stranded by the storm. In the midst of these efforts, New Orleans was dealt a further blow--storm-weakened levees gave way and a tidal wave poured out from Lake Ponchartrain to inundate much of the city. What had been a natural disaster was now a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. Even with early warnings before the storm, thousands of people could not, or would not, evacuate their homes. Many did not have the assistance or transportation needed to evacuate. Storm evacuation shelters would not accept animals and follow up interviews revealed that many would not leave their pets behind (Baker, 2006). Rescue efforts were further complicated when the Coast Guard, National Guard, or other organizations refused to evacuate pets along with their owners. Animal groups across the country mobilized thousands of staff and volunteers to rescue and care for the animals that were left on their own. Many of these responders were highly trained in technical animal rescue and brought their own equipment to support their efforts, including boats, protective clothing, and animal capture tools (Figure 4-7). Still others came with not much more than the desire to help in some way. Temporary shelters were established in several locations in the region, and an infrastructure evolved to rescue and transport animals to these locations. In Gonzales, LA, located between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, a horse exposition center was adapted for use. Kennel crates were used to house individual dogs, cats, and other animals, with several crates in each horse stall. Once there, animals were given medical care, bathed, and fed. A tracking system was established to identify animals and then they were often shipped out of the area for foster care until they could be claimed by their original owners. Corporations and private individuals offered the use of vans, trucks, trailers, and even private jets to transport animals to safety. Mother Nature had one more trick up her sleeve. On September 21, 2005, Hurricane Rita rocked the Gulf Coast region. Officials in Houston quickly put some new lessons to work by encouraging people evacuating homes in their city to take their pets with them. Officials also arranged for the pets to be sheltered along with evacuees. Meanwhile, the rescue teams still on the ground in New Orleans settled in to weather the storm. The temporary shelter locations were beehives of activity as rescuers readied as many animals as possible for transport to safer locations. Once most of the animals were shipped off, the tent city where the rescue workers lived was broken down and people were evacuated, leaving a skeleton crew of the most experienced to weather the storm. As Rita neared, those remaining literally circled the wagons. Trucks, vans, RVs, and even pallets of pet food and cat litter were used to surround the open-sided barns where the animals were housed. As Rita howled through that night, people took turns walking the barns to calm dogs, cats, and horses. The next morning found people bleary eyed, but everyone was unharmed. Throughout the morning and the balance of the day, the evacuated workers streamed back to the site to help clean up the mess and get things running again. [FIGURE 4-7 OMITTED] Thousands of dogs, cats, birds, reptiles, and other pets were rescued following Katrina. Most of these animals ended up being moved out of the region, similar to the human population that required temporary housing. Many of these rescued animals were eventually reunited with their original families, sometimes far way from their homes in New Orleans. Others found new homes with families in the communities where they were transported for foster care. In some cases, these adopted animals were reclaimed by their original owners. Legal battles have erupted over ownership and custody of these pets, and those cases may take several years to work their way through the courts. Among the lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is that people will risk, and indeed lose, their lives to protect their companion animals. In the months following the storms federal legislation was passed, the Pet Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act (PETS Act). This legislation requires that communities seeking funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for disaster preparedness must include family pets and service animals in its plans for evacuation and sheltering. It was a hard way to learn a lesson, but there is hope that the next disaster will find all of us better prepared.
SUPPORT AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
A number of groups have developed over the years to provide a range of support services for animal shelter administrators and staff. These groups provide training, consultation, resource materials, and financial assistance. In the absence of a formal structure to organize animal shelters these groups have become de facto umbrellas to encourage communication and improved practices.
The American Humane Association (AHA)
Founded in 1877, the AHA has sponsored an annual conference for most of its existence. Dating to its earliest days it has brought together leaders in the field to share ideas and information and support joint action on a range of issues important to the animal welfare field. It has offered training in technical animal rescue, euthanasia certification, equine abuse, and humane education among numerous other topics. One of its more interesting roles has been the oversight of the treatment of animals that appear in films and television.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
The HSUS is the sponsor of Animal Care Expo (Figure 4-8), the largest annual conference related to animal shelter work. It brings together a wide range of individuals including animal shelter professionals, veterinarians, experts in animal behavior, fundraising, corporations, and vendors. The HSUS also provides a consultation/evaluation service for animal shelters. Agencies can arrange to have an HSUS team evaluate their facility programs and services, providing a series of recommendations for change or improvement. Animal Sheltering is a monthly publication for animal shelters that provides in-depth articles on important topics and developments for animal shelters. Its Pets for Life program emphasizes problem-solving skills to keep pets with their families, especially the management and prevention of pet behavioral problems (www.petsforlife.org).
[FIGURE 4-8 OMITTED]
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
When the ASPCA did not renew its animal control contract with New York City in 1994 it created a National Shelter Outreach department to provide training and assistance for animal shelters around the country. Among its offerings are training in animal cruelty investigation, animal shelter medicine, shelter management, and strategic planning. It emphasizes a community-based approach to animal issues and provides an innovation bank of effective programs that been developed and used in different parts of the country.
The Society of Animal Welfare Administrators (SAWA)
The leaders of several prominent animal welfare groups formed SAWA in 1970 to encourage professional development and training in the field. They have recently developed a certification program for animal welfare administrators. Certification is based on passing a 100-question multiple-choice test that reflects the knowledge and skills required. The breadth of topics required acknowledges the increasing complexity of the work in the field and the sophistication needed to be an effective manager of a nonprofit organization. The areas and topics covered in the test include the following:
* Administration and management, including strategic planning, accounting, budgeting and financial policies, contract negotiation, and rules related to nonprofit tax status
* Personnel supervision and leadership, including recruitment, selection, training and performance evaluation, labor relations, compensation, and benefits
* Public relations and fundraising, including media and presentation skills, customer service policies, fundraising, and development
* Animal care and treatment, including humane animal treatment, animal care and control laws, animal health and welfare, and shelter design
* Reasoning related to problem solving, information analysis and synthesis, and discretion
The Society of Animal Welfare Administrators holds an annual conference that emphasizes new developments in the field, especially those that influence successful organizational management. The organization also sponsors an annual meeting for directors of operations where the focus is on the day-to-day management requirements for an animal shelter.
National Animal Control Association (NACA)
The National Animal Control Association (NACA) was formed to support the movement toward more professional animal control management. It sponsors an annual training conference, a bimonthly newsletter (NACA News) and the NACA 100 Training Academy. The academy, combined with the NACA Animal Control Training Manual, provides an important step in formalizing the skills required by animal control personnel to protect public safety and ensure the humane treatment of animals. The National Animal Control Association also offers training certification in defensive driving, chemical immobilization, euthanasia, and the use of a bite stick (used for protection against an aggressive dog).
Other National and Regional Federations and Conferences
In addition to the national groups and organizations noted in this chapter, there are a number of other national, local, and regional federations that sponsor their own training conferences and activities. The New England Federation of Humane Societies includes a number of groups from the Northeast and sponsors an annual conference. Prairie States is an annual meeting for groups in the Midwest, and a number of states have their own animal control associations or humane federations to sponsor training and coordinated activities. The no-kill movement as noted on the following pages has resulted in national conferences that promote and support activities and programs consistent with the philosophy that unwanted dogs and cats should not be killed to manage their populations.
In 2002, the Alliance for the Contraception of Cats and Dogs (ACCD) held its first meeting to address developments in nonsurgical methods of pet sterilization. A second meeting was held in 2004. The ACCD was a loose group of scientists, animal welfare experts, veterinarians, and others with an interest in this line of research and its application to the control of dog and cat populations. The ACCD was registered as nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations in 2006 to pursue the research, development, testing, and approval of drugs and chemicals for this purpose (http://www.acc-d.org).
National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP)
As more and more attention was being paid to the issue of how many unwanted dogs and cats were being killed in America's animal shelters each year, anger, distrust, and blame often led to bitter arguments between animal welfare groups, veterinarians, and the dog and cat breeders and fanciers. An animal welfare group might blame "backyard breeders" as the source of the excess, while breed clubs would accuse humane groups of inefficient and ineffective shelter management resulting in limited adoptions and high rates of euthanasia. A common thread through these arguments was the frequent absence of empirical information. Little was actually known about how many dogs and cats entered shelters each year, why or how they ended up there, and how many were actually euthanized. Several conferences were held to address these questions, and there was general agreement that good statistical information would be needed to understand the nature of the problem and develop interventions to address these issues (Anchel, 1990). Unfortunately, the decentralized organization of the nation's animal shelters made this a difficult, if not impossible, task. In 1992, Mo Salman of Colorado State University and Patricia Olson of the University of Minnesota co-organized a meeting in Minnesota. They brought together representatives from humane groups, breeders, and veterinary associations. The results of that meeting set the stage for a followup meeting that stimulated the formation of the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP). The original ten groups that formed the NCPPSP included the following:
* American Animal Hospital Association
* American Humane Association
* American Kennel Club
* American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
* American Veterinary Medical Association
* Association for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine
* Cat Fancier's Association
* Humane Society of the United States
* Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
* National Animal Control Association
The formation of the Council required patience and sensitivity to each organization's mission and constituents. One demonstration of this is that the name of the council did not include the term pet overpopulation, since not all groups agreed that this was indeed the issue. The mission stated for the NCPPSP is "to gather and analyze reliable data that further characterize the number, origin, and disposition of pets (dogs and cats) in the United States; to promote responsible stewardship of these companion animals; and based on data gathered, to recommend programs to reduce the number of unwanted pets in the United States." To accomplish its mission, the NCPPSP solicited funding from a variety of foundations and sources and then commissioned a bold research agenda. Three initiatives were authorized:
* A shelter statistics survey to identify all the animal shelters in the country and gather statistics on animal intake and disposition
* A shelter relinquishment study collecting information on why people relinquish their pets to animal shelters
* A household survey to evaluate the movement of pets in and out of households
The results of these studies were discussed in Chapter 1. The Society of Animal Welfare Administrators would later join the NCPPSP, followed by the American Pet Product Manufacturers Association (APPMA), while the American Kennel Club (AKC) would eventually resign.
The next step in the evolution of animal shelters was in the late 1980s when the question of euthanasia moved from how and how many to why? Duvin (1989) published an influential essay that questioned the role animal shelters played in the killing of healthy dogs and cats. This served as one of the sparks that ignited an ongoing discussion on No-Kill, the premise that no healthy, behaviorally sound dog or cat should be killed simply for the convenience of eliminating an unwanted animal. This concept stood in contrast to the Victorian premise that helped to stimulate the early development of the humane movement--pain was to be avoided by preventing cruelty, or if needed, killing an animal to prevent further suffering. Animals in shelters had been killed for decades in the belief that doing so would prevent further suffering from the elements and starvation as a stray, or mistreatment by people. The no-kill philosophy challenges this assumption, and it stimulated heated and at times vicious debate in the 1990s. Many new sheltering organizations and rescue groups were formed with the understanding that they would not kill healthy animals that they accepted. To do so, however, they needed to limit the number of animals they could accept, turning away dogs and cats if the shelter was full. Traditional sheltering facilities took to calling themselves Open Admission, noting that they would take any animal that was in need, in contrast to what they called Limited Admission shelters. They noted with regret that if a new home could not be found, the dog or cat might be euthanized. This was better than suffering as a stray or living the balance of its life in a cage in a shelter that would not euthanize. Even the use of the term euthanize has come under scrutiny. Strictly defined, euthanasia is killing an individual in immediate distress from pain and discomfort, and critics contend that killing healthy animals to prevent possible suffering does not meet this criterion.
A second event in 1989 played a further role in this controversy. The San Francisco SPCA, one of the oldest in the country and now under the leadership of Richard Avanzino, announced that it would not renew its contract to provide animal control services for the city of San Francisco. Following a transition period to allow the city government time to develop its own animal control program, the SFSPCA would become a no-kill sheltering organization. During the following decade the relationship between the SFSPCA and what became San Francisco Animal Care and Control (SF AC & C) would wax and wane. Eventually, the SPCA, then led by Ed Sayres, and AC & C, led by Carl Friedman, would sign a precedent-setting pact that would require the two organizations to cooperate to ensure that no adoptable animal would be euthanized in the city of San Francisco. At this point, no healthy, behaviorally sound dog or cat is being euthanized at either the SPCA or AC & C and San Francisco has the lowest overall per capita euthanasia rate of dogs and cats for any major city in America (Table 4-4). The events in San Francisco inspired similar changes in cities across the country as many of the oldest SPCAs and humane societies gave up the arrangements they had with local governments to work toward a no-kill community. The ASPCA would end its 100-year agreement with New York City in 1994, along with Richmond SPCA and others.
Inspired by the success in San Francisco, the Duffield family endowed the Maddie's Fund in 1994 to promote and fund similar cooperative community-based efforts in other cities across the country with the ultimate goal of having these no-kill cities become the foundation for a no-kill nation. From 1999 to 2005, $33 million has been distributed to support projects ranging from the development of shelter veterinary programs at University of California, Davis, Iowa State University, and Auburn University to community collaborations in Utah and Austin, TX. The Maddie's Fund approach is two-pronged seeking to increase the numbers of animals adopted from animal shelters and rescue groups through more efficient marketing and reducing the inflow of animals to the shelter by promoting the sterilization of dogs and cats to prevent unwanted litters.
In 2004, a number of leaders in the animal-sheltering community met to discuss differences of opinion and misunderstandings related to the no-kill movement. The results of this meeting that was held in California are known as the Asilomar Accords. The Asilomar Accords set out a framework to calculate the Annual Live Release Rate for individual shelters and for a community--that is, to calculate the fraction of animals that enter into the shelter/rescue systems in a community that are placed in new homes, returned to their owners, or transferred to other shelters or rescue groups. Owner-requested euthanasia for dogs and cats that are very sick, badly injured, or have severe behavioral problems that would make them a risk to return to the community are excluded. The Asilomar Accords provided three important contributions to the effort to reduce significantly the number of healthy and treatable companion animals euthanized at animal shelters each year:
* Guiding Principles to govern the interpretation of the statistics and the relationships between individuals and organizations involved with animal shelters
* Consensus definitions that use nonjudgmental terminology to define various classes of dogs and cats that enter the shelter, and their dispositions
* A standard set of formulas for calculating the Annual Live Release Rate
It will be useful to consider these contributions since they are likely to have a significant impact on animal sheltering for the next couple of decades. These materials are provided in a separate section at the end of this chapter.
The Guiding Principles start by making it clear that there is a tangible goal--saving the lives of animals. That goal can best be achieved by having groups in a community work together in a positive fashion that is free from blame setting, in an environment of mutual respect. Various stakeholders are encouraged to eliminate insulting and "problem" language and terminology. Progress toward the goal of saving animal lives can be measured, and formulas are provided to facilitate calculations, along with standard definitions to assure uniform data collection and analysis. This may seem to be a small contribution to the problem at hand, but previous sections of this chapter have already shown the lack of standard structure and procedures in the animal-sheltering field. Within that context, the Asilomar Accords are a remarkable achievement.
In addition to the philosophical shifts in the animal-sheltering community, there have been a number of operational and structural changes in the past 30 years. In the years following World War II, as our knowledge of medicine and disease transmission improved, shelters moved away from the group housing systems that they had been using to individual kennels or cages for each animal. Vaccinations for dogs and cats in shelters became more common as well. At this time, kennel runs were generally built with concrete block with wire fencing for the doors and perhaps the upper half of the kennel run. The run may or may not have had a door that opened to an individual outdoor run that provided the dog with a chance to get some sun and air and facilitated cleaning of the indoor half while the animal was outside. The concrete block and floor would either be painted or preferably glazed to keep dirt from collecting in the pores of the concrete. Ventilation for the facility typically depended on windows, skylights, and the occasional fan. As with all animal facilities, odor and general appearance relied heavily upon the skill and dedication of the staff and management. However, given the high animal population levels in the shelters and frequently undermanned staffs, shelters were often dank smelly places that merely exacerbated the low opinion the public might have based on the fact that dogs and cats were killed there on a daily basis. Overall, it was not a situation that lent itself to high levels of public interest and support.
The 1990s saw a change in shelter design and program function. Many of the newer facilities were built with sophisticated heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC) that helped to provide greater levels of comfort for the animals. It also reduced odors and the transmission of airborne diseases. It is now more common to expect that an animal shelter will have 12-15 air exchanges per hour, similar to those used for an animal laboratory facility (for comparison, most office facilities maintain 6-8 air exchanges per hour). Floors and walls are now coated with epoxy, which does not deteriorate like paint and is easier to sanitize. Shelters are better lighted than before, with larger open, airy areas that are more pleasant for visitors and the public (Figure 4-9).
It is important to recognize that proper shelter design and construction is not just an aesthetic luxury, it is an integral part of shelter function and performance. Proper material and quality workmanship that eliminates gaps with and between surfaces facilitates sanitation and cleaning. It keeps animals and staff safe by preventing escapes and prevents harm to animals from loose materials and sharp edges. Well-designed traffic patterns within the shelter help to prevent the spread of disease from one section to another. The heating and ventilation systems can keep animals comfortable and less likely to contract disease and help to prevent pathogens from spreading through the shelter. Stress is reduced for animals (and staff) by providing sound attenuation and appropriate lighting that approximates natural daylight. In the end, a wellconceived shelter provides animals with a humane place to live, for as long as they are there, a comfortable place for staff to work, and an inviting place for the public to visit.
[FIGURE 4-9 OMITTED]
Along with the changes in the physical structure of animal shelters, there have also been important changes in the operational procedures of shelters. A key advance has been the development of the specialty of Animal Shelter Medicine (Miller & Zawistowski, 2004). This discipline combines elements of general companion animal care with aspects of herd management. Medical care is provided for individual animals as needed, but special attention is paid to preventive care through the use of quarantine, isolation, and sanitation protocols. Veterinarians working in this arena have made significant advances in perfecting highly efficient, high-volume spay/neuter procedures for dogs and cats to stem the production of additional unwanted animals. Depending on the size and breadth of the shelter's functions, other aspects of the work might include veterinary forensics to support cruelty investigations and preparation for disasters. The primary function of a shelter medicine program is to support the basic functions of a high-quality animal shelter program:
1. A clean, comfortable, and sanitary environment in which stress is minimized
2. A husbandry program that focuses on proper diet, exercise, behavioral enrichment, and maintenance of comfortable environmental conditions
3. Foster care for sick and debilitated animals that are adoptable
4. A health care program that addresses the needs of the animals while making optimal use of resources
5. Ongoing staff and volunteer training and development
6. Humane euthanasia when appropriate according to shelter policy and the needs of the community and animals (Miller, 2004)
These efforts are not the sole domain of the veterinary professional. They must include all members of a shelter staff. However, they certainly cannot be achieved without the input and expertise of an experienced veterinarian.
A shelter medicine course has been offered at Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine since 1999. There has been a shelter medicine track offered at the American Humane Association Annual Conference with continuing education credit available since 1992. Specialized tracks in shelter medicine have also been available at several of the major veterinary conferences, including North American Veterinary Conference and Western States. Continuing education credit is also available though courses taught on-line through Veterinary Information Network since 2004.
Beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, shelters also began to implement animal behavior programs (Reid, Goldman, & Zawistowski, 2004). These programs served several basic functions:
* Evaluate animals in the shelter to determine if they were appropriate to place into adoption programs.
* Provide a behavioral profile of dogs, and cats when possible, to make the best possible match for placement into a new home.
* Provide enrichment, training, and rehabilitation for animals in the shelter to reduce levels of stress, correct some behavior problems, and prepare pets for placement into new homes.
Behavior problems are one of the most common reasons for the relinquishment of dogs and cats to animal shelters (Salman et al., 2000). These problems include hyperactivity, household destruction, and aggression. As a result, shelters have begun to evaluate the animals that come in to determine if they are appropriate for placement in a new home. In nearly all of these cases, the evaluations are performed on dogs. There are two reasons for the evaluations. The first is to identify potential behavior problems that would result in the dog failing in a new home and coming back to the shelter. The second is to protect the safety of the new family and the community at large, as well as limiting liability that the shelter might face if the dog harmed someone after placement in a new home (Lacroix, 2004).
The procedures available to evaluate the behaviors of dogs in an animal shelter can vary greatly from one shelter to another and will depend a great deal on the training and experience of the staff conducting evaluations (Reid, Goldman, & Zawistowski, 2004). One example of a simple, commonly employed evaluation is SAFER (Safety Assessment for Evaluating Rehoming; American Humane Association, 2002), developed by certified applied animal behaviorist Emily Weiss, Ph.D., and the Kansas Humane Society. The evaluation includes six parts that focus on determining whether the dog shows a potential for dangerous aggression. The test is meant to be performed on dogs six months of age or older by staff members trained to recognize the various forms of canine communication including body postures, ear and tail positions, and vocalizations. The basic parts of the test are as follows:
* Stare test. The handler sits in a chair and holds both sides of the dog's head and looks directly into the dog's eyes. The dog's response may vary from tail wagging and attempts to lick the handler to growls and attempts to bite.
* Sensitivity test. The handler sits in a chair and, holding the dog's collar, kneads and pinches large handfuls of skin working from the ears and head back to the rump. The dog may lean into the handler, accepting the touch; remain neutral, aloof, and tolerant; or attempt to growl or bite.
* Tag test. An effort is made to engage the dog in play by calling in a high-pitched voice and reaching and giving a light, quick touch to one of the dog's hind legs, and then quickly moving back. The dog accepts this invitation to play, tries to avoid the handler, ignores the handler, or threatens the handler.
* Pinch test. The test is conducted twice. When the dog is calm, the seated handler will say "pinch" and then run one hand down the dog's front leg and pinch between two toes. The test should be repeated after one minute. Dogs may gently pull their paw from the handler's hand, lightly mouth the handler's hand, or respond in an aggressive fashion.
* Food Aggression test. The dog is presented with a bowl of dry kibble mixed with highly palatable canned food. When the dog has been eating for a short time, the handler uses an artificial hand (Assess-a-Hand) to pull the bowl away, saying, "Give me your food." The dog may allow the handler to remove the food bowl or will follow the bowl with his head. If this happens, the handler strokes the dog's head, face, and body with the hand (Figure 4-10).
* Dog-Dog Aggression test. A "helper" dog is attached to a secure wall anchor with a collar and leash. The helper should be a well-socialized and calm dog. The dog to be tested is also on a leash and brought up to the helper dog by the handler. The behavior of the dog being tested may range from attempting to play with the helper dog to growling and attempts to attack.
[FIGURE 4-10 OMITTED]
The SAFER test is meant to help shelters with their decision-making process on whether dogs should be placed for adoption. If the dog being tested growls or tries to bite during any stage of the evaluation, the evaluation is terminated. The dog may be retested later, or the shelter staff may decide to euthanize the dog as an inappropriate adoption risk. Any effort to place such a dog in a new home would require very careful thought, extensive behavior modification, and restrictive placement to an experienced home, typically without children. Dogs with minor issues may receive some behavior modification and training or be placed for adoption in carefully selected experienced homes.
These evaluations are controversial. If a dog fails the evaluation, its most likely fate will be euthanasia. Unlike medical decisions for euthanasia that are usually supported by specific, detailed diagnostic tests, euthanasia decisions for behavioral reasons may not receive the same level of acceptance among staff, volunteers, or the even the public. At the same time, the tragic consequences of new owners or members of the public being seriously harmed or killed by adopted dogs clearly demonstrate that some sort of evaluation is necessary to a well-structured animal placement program.
The Meet Your Match Canineality Adoption Program, also developed by Emily Weiss, is designed to help increase the likelihood that recently adopted dogs stay in their new homes. It was developed to be used after some sort of aggression evaluation has already been performed. It also includes five parts that are meant to determine friendliness, playfulness, energy level, and motivation or drive. Based on the dog's behavior during each segment of the evaluation, it is placed into one of three different categories: Easy, Average, or High Maintenance. Each of these groupings has three subgroups, resulting in nine different categories for the dogs that are available for adoption. Each of the nine categories has its own standard description of the dog's basic personality/ canineality:
* High Maintenance
** Life of the Party--I think everything is fun, interesting, and meant for play, especially you. Anything you do, I'll want to do too. With my own brand of surprises, life with me will keep you constantly on your toes, and the fun is guaranteed.
** Go-Getter--Want to get more exercise? Action is my middle name. My "Let's Go!" lifestyle will keep you motivated to get outside and move. I have tons of energy; and just like the sun, I'm burning and working 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I'll run for miles, chase a ball for hours, and still want to play at the end of the day.
** Free Spirit--Intelligent, independent, confident, and clever, I prefer making my own decisions but will listen to you if you make a good case. We're partners in this adventure. Treat me like one and we'll both live happily ever after.
* Average Maintenance
** Wallflower--Shy yet charming canine searching for patient owner with relaxed lifestyle. Looking for gentle guidance to help me come out of my shell. Treat me sweet and kind and I'll blossom.
** Busy Bee--I'm a naturally playful, curious, and trusting canine. Take me for a big walk every day; give me something to do. After my job's done, I'll curl up in front of the fire with you in the evenings. I'm a dog on a mission to please you and myself.
** Goofball--I'm a fun-loving, happy-all-the-time, glass-is-half-full kind of dog looking for someone who loves to laugh and play around. Must have a great sense of humor and a bunch of tennis balls.
* Easy Maintenance
** Couch Potato--Like the easy life? I think I'm the perfect match for you. I'm a relaxed, laid-back kind of dog that enjoys long naps, watching movies, curling up on laps, and walking very short distances from the couch to the food bowl and back.
** Constant Companion--Looking for an emotionally secure, mutually satisfying, low maintenance relationship? I am all you need. Let me sit at your feet, walk by your side, and I'll be your devoted companion forever.
** Teacher's Pet--I've got the whole package--smart, fuzzy, four legs, love to learn, and live to please. Go ahead, teach me anything. Sit, stay, balance your checkbook, I can do it all. Keep me entertained and I'll be yours forever.
Note that all of the descriptions emphasize the positive aspects of the dog's behavior, while at the same time pointing out what the owner will need to do in terms of training or exercise. The kennel cards for the dogs will reflect these categories (Figure 4-11A-C). People coming in to adopt will then answer a simple survey and, based on their experience and desires in a new pet's behavior, will be directed to one of the three categories as their best possible match (Table 4-5). The survey form provides a standard format for adoption counselors to talk to adopters about the time and cost investment required, and their expectations regarding what they want to do with their new pet. The number of answers in columns M, L, and K are totaled and these designate the most compatible match between adopter and dog. The column with the highest total corresponds to one of the three general categories for the dogs:
* Column M = Easy Maintenance dogs
* Column L = Average Maintenance dogs
* Column K = High Maintenance dogs
[FIGURE 4-11 OMITTED]
These matches are based on research conducted by Emily Weiss that included testing dogs being boarded at a kennel and collecting information from the dogs' owners regarding the behavior of their dogs and how they interacted with them. The system is meant to replicate the matches that were observed under those conditions (Meet Your Match information and materials provided courtesy of Dr. Emily Weiss and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).
The National Research Council's Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals indicates, "Animals should be housed with the goal of maximizing species-specific behaviors and minimizing stress-induced behavior. For social species this normally requires housing in compatible pairs or groups" (National Research Council, 1996, p. 22). Meeting these standards in an animal shelter environment can be a significant challenge due to shortcomings in staff and facility design. This is especially true given the restrictions on group housing to manage disease conditions, and the difficulty managing behaviors of poorly socialized animals. Progress is being made, however, as newer shelters are being designed with group housing options for appropriately behaved animals, especially cats. More effort is also being made to provide dogs with opportunities for exercise through regular walks, temporary playgroups in dog runs, and obedience training classes. Active physical periods should be combined with options for object play and variety in feeding procedures.
It is important to keep in mind that companion animals have evolved to prosper in human company. Ensuring regular and positive human contact for dogs and cats is both beneficial and indeed necessary to ensure that individual animals do not deteriorate psychologically while in confinement in the shelter, and to either maintain or improve their social skills with people in anticipation of placement into a new home. Obedience training classes for dogs in the shelter will provide them with both physical and psychological stimulation. At the same time, the skills developed during obedience classes will make the dog a more likely candidate for placement with a new family. Object play and feeding activities can be used to occupy the dog when volunteers or staff are not available. Food or other treats can be placed into various puzzle boxes or other objects so the dog can work for its meals. It is important to build the amount of food provided in this fashion, or as treats during training into the overall feeding plan to ensure the animals get the proper nutritional balance and not become obese.
If the shelter has the appropriate staff on hand, or experienced volunteers available, targeted rehabilitation can be attempted to correct specific problems. These problemsmay be identified during the evaluation process, while observing the dog or cat's behavior in the shelter, or based on information provided by the previous owner during relinquishment to the shelter. Rehabilitation will typically take the form of some type of behavior modification. Fears and anxieties may be reduced through habituation or desensitization to the evoking stimuli, and more appropriate responses developed by positive reinforcement. A number of shelters have had success when they place dogs and cats with behavior problems into foster homes with specially trained volunteers to provide intensive daily interaction and treatment.
Shelters were slow to implement new forms of technology to assist in their work. That is changing and many sheltering and rescue groups are now using state-of-the-art technology. It may be hard to believe, but until the early 1990s, most animal shelters still kept their records in logbooks or on handwritten kennel cards. Looking for information on an animal in the shelter, trying to connect a family with a lost pet or even compiling a simple monthly statistical report required laborious hand sorting of these records. There are now a number of readily available software packages to support animal shelter management. These systems are making it easier for shelters to keep track of intake and disposition of animals, and maintain accurate statistical information that can be used to target resources and efforts where needed.
One of the most significant technology developments has been the use of the Internet to promote and support pet adoptions. The leading Web site here is Petfinder (<www.Petfinder.com>). Started in suburban New Jersey by Betsy and Jared Saul as a New Year's Eve resolution in 1995, it grew rapidly. It now includes over 9,000 shelters and rescue groups that post pets available for adoption. Shelters are able to provide information on the dogs, cats, and other animals that are available, along with a picture and brief description. Members of the public looking for a pet can search by species, breed, geographic area, and other criteria. Using the Internet has been especially helpful for rescue groups that do not have a facility that people can come to visit. These groups often foster the animals that they have available in the homes of volunteers, making it difficult for potential adopters to see the animals. It has also been helpful for shelters that are located in out-of-the-way, difficult-to-find locations. People can scan their listings and call ahead if they see a pet they would be interested in adopting listed, saving a trip if the pet has already been placed, or if no pet that would meet their needs is available.
One area of technology that has not fulfilled its potential is microchips, or Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). Microchips are small (about the size of a grain of rice). The glass capsule holds a small radio transmitter that is injected under the skin of an animal. When the animal is scanned with a device that emits a radio wave, the microchip echoes back a signal with an identification number similar to systems that scan bar codes at cash registers (Figure 4-12). The ID number can then be used to trace the owner of the pet. One of the important advantages of this system is that it provides permanent identification for an animal that cannot be lost or fall off. About 5 percent of the pets in the country are currently microchipped. Several problems have hindered wide-scale implementation of microchip identification systems. First is that there are several competing commercial interests and there have been problems with compatibility of their products. Microchips distributed by one company may not always be read by the scanners manufactured by another company. Second is the fact that the while the microchips provide a form of digital identification, that ID must then be matched with information on the name, address, and other contact information of the owner. This requires a robust and well-maintained database with owner information that must be updated regularly to keep it current. The American Kennel Club (AKC) has maintained the Companion Animal Recovery system (CAR) as a registry for microchipped pets. However, there are other registries. A number of animal care agencies have banded together to form a coalition (Coalition for Reuniting Pets and Families) to promote a uniform system of microchips and scanners that support full capacity to read all microchips, and a network of coordinated databases to simplify matching a microchips ID number with owner contact information.
[FIGURE 4-12 OMITTED]
1. The mission of those involved in creating the Asilomar Accords is to work together to save the lives of all healthy and treatable companion animals.
2. We recognize that all stakeholders in the animal welfare community have a passion for and are dedicated to the mutual goal of saving animals' lives.
3. We acknowledge that the euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals is the sad responsibility of some animal welfare organizations that neither desired nor sought this task. We believe that the euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals is a community-wide problem requiring community-based solutions. We also recognize that animal welfare organizations can be leaders in bringing about a change in social order and other factors that result in the euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals, including the compounding problems of some pet owners'/guardians' failure to spay and neuter; properly socialize and train; be tolerant of; provide veterinary care to; or take responsibility for companion animals.
4. We, as animal welfare stakeholders, agree to foster a mutual respect for one another. When discussing differences of policy and opinion, either publicly or within and among our own agencies, we agree to refrain from denigrating or speaking ill of one another. We will also encourage those other individuals and organizations in our sphere of influence to do the same.
5. We encourage all communities to embrace the vision and spirit of these Accords, while acknowledging that differences exist between various communities and geographic regions of the country.
6. We encourage the creation of local "community coalitions" consisting of a variety of organizations (e.g., governmental animal control agencies, nonprofit shelters, grassroots foster care providers, feral cat groups, funders and veterinary associations) for the purpose of saving the lives of healthy and treatable animals. We are committed to the belief that no one organization or type of organization can achiever this goal alone, and that we need one another, and that the only true solution is to work together. We need to find common ground, put aside our difference and work collaboratively to reach the ultimate goal of ending the euthanasia of healthy and treatable companion animals.
7. While we understand that other types of programs and efforts (including adoption, spay and neuter programs, education, cruelty investigations, enforcement of animal control laws and regulation, behavior and training assistance and feral cat management) play a critical role in impacting euthanasia figures, for purposes of this nationwide initiative we have elected to leave these programs in the hands of local organizations and encourage them to continue offering, and expanding upon, these critical services.
8. In order to achieve harmony and forward progress, we encourage each community coalition to discuss language and terminology which has been historically viewed as hurtful or divisive by some animal welfare stakeholders (whether intentional or inadvertent), identify "problem" language, and reach a consensus to modify or phase out language and terminology accordingly.
9. We believe in the importance of transparency and the open sharing of accurate, complete animal-sheltering data and statistics in a manner which that is clear to both the animal welfare community and the public.
10. We believe it is essential to utilize a uniform method of collecting and reporting shelter data in order to promote transparency and better assess the euthanasia rate of healthy and treatable animals. We determined that uniform method of reporting needs to include the collection and analysis of animal-sheltering data as set forth in the "Animal Statistics Table." These statistics need to be collected for each individual organization and for the community as a whole and need to be reported to the public annually (e.g., Web sites, newsletters, annual reports). In addition, we determined that each community's "Live Release Rate" needs to be calculated, shared, and reported annually to the public--individually by each organization and jointly by each community coalition. Both individual organizations and community coalitions should strive for continuous improvement of these numbers. The "Animal Statistics Table" and formulas for calculating the "Live Release Rate" are forth in Section IV of these Accords.
11. We developed several standard "definitions" to enable uniform and accurate collection, analysis, and reporting of animal-sheltering data and statistics. We encourage all communities to adopt the definitions which are set forth in Section III, and implement the principles of these Accords.
12. While we recognize that many animal welfare organizations provide services to companion animals other than dogs and cats, for purposes of this nationwide initiative we have elected to collect and share data solely as it related to dogs and cats.
13. We are committed to continuing dialogue, analysis, and potential modification of this vision as needs change and as progress is made toward achieving our mission.
14. Those involved in the development of the Asilomar Accords have agreed to make a personal commitment to ensure the furtherance of these accords, and to use their professional influence to bring about nationwide adoption of this vision.
In order to facilitate the data collection process and assure consistent reporting across agencies, the following definitions have been developed. The Asilomar participants hope that these definitions are applied as a standard for categorizing dogs and cats in each organization. The definitions, however, are not meant to define the outcome for each animal entrusted to our care.
* Healthy. The term healthy means and includes all dogs and cats eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental characteristic that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and that have manifested no sign of disease, injury, a congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to aversely affect the animal's health in the future.
* Treatable. The term treatable means and includes all dogs and cats that are rehabilitatable and all dogs and cats that are manageable.
* Rehabilitatable: The term rehabilitatable means and includes all dogs and cats that are not healthy, but are likely to become healthy, if given medical, foster, behavioral, or other care equivalent to the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owners/guardians in the community.
* Manageable: The term manageable means and includes all dogs and cats that are not healthy and that are not likely to become healthy, regardless of the care provided. These animals would likely maintain a satisfactory quality of life if given medical, foster, behavioral, or other care (including long-term care) equivalent to the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring owners/guardians in the community. The term manageable does not include any dog or cat that is determined to pose a significant risk to human health or safety or to the health or safety of other animals.
* Unhealthy and Untreatable. The term unhealthy and untreatable means and includes all dogs and cats that, at or subsequent to the time they are taken into possession (1) have a behavioral or temperamental characteristic that poses a health or safety risk or otherwise makes the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and are not likely to become healthy or treatable even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owner/guardians in the community; (2) are suffering from a disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the animal's health or is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future, and are not likely to become healthy or treatable even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet/guardians in the community; or (3) are under the age of eight weeks and are not likely to become healthy or treatable, even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and care pet owners/guardians in the community.
ANNUAL LIVE RELEASE RATE FORMULAS
The Annual Live Release Rate is calculated by dividing total live outcomes (adoptions, outgoing transfers, and return to owner/guardian) by total outcomes (total live outcomes plus euthanasia not including owner/guardian requested euthanasia or died/lost in shelter/care).
Calculation for an individual agency:
Adoptions + All Outgoing Transfers + Return to Owner/Guardian divided by Total Outcomes excluding owner/guardian-requested euthanasia (unhealthy and untreatable) and dogs and cats that died or were lost in the shelter/care.
Annual Live Release Rate = (I + J + K + L)/(T) * 100 = -- %
When reporting the Annual Live Release Rate for an individual agency, you should include the following statement: The Annual Live Release Rate does not include--owner/guardian requested euthanasia that were unhealthy and untreatable [see Line R] and--dogs and cats that died or were lost in the shelter/care [see Line U].
Calculation for community or coalition:
Adoptions + Return to Owner/Guardian divided by Total Outcomes excluding all outgoing transfers, owner/guardian requested euthanasia (unhealthy and untreatable), and dogs and cats that died or were lost in the shelter/care.
Annual Live Release Rate = (I + K + L)/[(T - J) * 100 = -- %
When reporting the Annual Live Release Rate for the community or a coalition, you should include the following statement: The Annual Live Release Rate does not include--owner/guardian requested euthanasia that were unhealthy and untreatable [see Line R] and--dogs and cats that died or were lost in the shelter/care [see Line U].
Note: The Annual Live Release Rate Formula is different for an individual agency and a coalition or community due to transfers between agencies.
Glossary of Terms for Calculation of Annual
(A) Beginning Shelter Count (Date): The number of dogs and cats in your shelter or in your care including fosters at the beginning of the reporting period. The reporting period is annual--either a calendar year or a fiscal year. (Date) refers to the first day of the reporting period written in the following format: month/day/year.
Intake (Live Dogs and Cats Only): This table only deals with live dogs and cats for which your shelter or animal group assumed responsibility. Dogs and cats categorized as "dead on arrival," or DOA, are not included in these statistics. For intake animals, status is determined at the time paperwork is initiated.
(B) From the Public: The number of live dogs and cats your shelter or animal group received from the public. This includes dogs and cats turned in or surrendered by their owners/guardians; stray dogs and cats turned in by the public; stray dogs and cats picked up in the field; and dogs and cats impounded for cruelty investigation, custody care, and statutory/ordinance impoundment.
(C) Incoming Transfers from Organizations within Community/Coalition: The number of dogs and cats your shelter or animal group received from other animal organizations participating in your collaborative group. (This only applies if the reporting organization is working collaboratively with other shelters/groups in their area.) NOTE: On the community or coalition level, C (Incoming Transfers from Organizations within Community/Coalition) should equal J (Outgoing Transfers to Organizations within Community/Coalition).
(D) Incoming Transfers from Organizations outside Community/Coalition: The number of dogs and cats your shelter or animal group received from animal organizations that are not participating in your collaborative group.
(E) From Owners/Guardians Requesting Euthanasia: The number of dogs and cats turned in or surrendered to your shelter or animal group by their owners/guardians for the purpose of euthanasia. This includes all categories of dogs and cats (healthy, treatable-rehabilitatable, treatable-manageable, unhealthy and untreatable). [See M, N, O, and P for definitions of healthy, treatable-rehabilitatable, treatable-manageable, and unhealthy and untreatable.]
(F) Total Intake: The sum of lines B through E. This includes all live dogs and cats for which your shelter or animal group assumed responsibility.
(G) Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia (Unhealthy and Untreatable Only): The number of unhealthy and untreatable dogs and cats your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/guardians and the number of dogs and cats ordered to be euthanized by legislative, judicial or administrative action. Do not include any dogs and cats your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/guardians and that were considered to be healthy, treatable-rehabilitatable, or treatable-manageable at the time of death. [See M, N, O, P for definitions of healthy, treatable-rehabilitatable, treatable-manageable, and unhealthy and untreatable.]
(H) Adjusted Total Intake: Lines F minus G. Total Intake minus the number of unhealthy and untreatable dogs and cats your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/guardians. [See P for definition of unhealthy and untreatable category.]
(I) Adoptions: The number of dogs and cats your shelter or animal group placed with members of the public. Do not include dogs and cats in foster homes or dogs and cats transferred to other animal welfare organizations.
(J) Outgoing Transfers to Organizations within Community/Coalition: The number of dogs and cats your shelter or animal group turned over to other animal organizations within your collaborative group. (This only applies if the reporting organization is working collaboratively with other shelters/ groups in their area.) NOTE: On the community or coalition level, J (Outgoing Transfers to Organizations within Community/Coalition) should be equal to C (Incoming Transfers from Organizations within Community/Coalition).
(K) Outgoing Transfers to Organizations outside Community/Coalition: The number of dogs and cats your shelter or animal group turned over to animal organizations that are not part of your collaborative group.
(L) Return to Owner/Guardian: The number of stray dogs and cats your shelter or animal group reunited with their owners/guardians and the number of dogs and cats reclaimed by their owners/guardians. Dogs and Cats Euthanized: The number of dogs and cats your shelter or animal group euthanized, broken down into the following categories: healthy; treatable-rehabilitatable; treatable-manageable; and unhealthy and untreatable. Dogs and cats are categorized at the time of euthanasia. [See M, N, O, and P for definitions of healthy, treatable-rehabilitatable, treatable-manageable, and unhealthy and untreatable.]
(M) Healthy (Includes Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia): The number of healthy dogs and cats that your shelter or animal group euthanized including the number of healthy dogs and cats your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/guardians. The term healthy means and includes all dogs and cats eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental characteristic that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future.
(N) Treatable-Rehabilitatable (Includes Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia): The number of treatable-rehabilitatable dogs and cats that your shelter or animal group euthanized including the number of treatable-rehabilitatable dogs and cats your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/guardians. (These conditions are generally considered to be curable.)
The term treatable means and includes all dogs and cats that are rehabilitatable and all dogs and cats that are manageable. The term rehabilitatable means and includes all dogs and cats that are not healthy, but that are likely to become healthy, if given medical, foster, behavioral, or other care equivalent to the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owners/guardians in the community.
(O) Treatable-Manageable (Includes Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia): The number of treatable-manageable dogs and cats that your shelter or animal group euthanized including the number of treatable-manageable dogs and cats your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/guardians. (These conditions are generally considered to be chronic.)
The term treatable means and includes all dogs and cats that are rehabilitatable and all dogs and cats that are manageable. The term manageable means and includes all dogs and cats that are not healthy and that are not likely to become healthy, regardless of the care provided. These animals would likely maintain a satisfactory quality of life, if given medical, foster, behavioral, or other care (including long-term care) equivalent to the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owners/guardians in the community. The term manageable does not include any dog or cat that is determined to pose a significant risk to human health or safety or to the health or safety of other animals.
(P) Unhealthy and Untreatable (Includes Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia): The number of unhealthy and untreatable dogs and cats that your shelter or animal group euthanized including the number of unhealthy and untreatable dogs and cats your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/guardians and the number of dogs and cats ordered to be euthanized by legislative, judicial, or administrative action.
The term unhealthy and untreatable means and includes all dogs and cats that, at or subsequent to the time they are taken into possession, (1) have a behavioral or temperamental characteristic that poses a health or safety risk or otherwise makes the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and are not likely to become healthy or treatable even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owners/ guardians in the community; (2) are suffering from a disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the animal's health or is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future, and are not likely to become "healthy" or "treatable" even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owners/guardians in the community; or (3) are under the age of eight weeks and are not likely to become "healthy" or "treatable," even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owners/guardians in the community.
(Q) Total Euthanasia: Sum of lines M through P. This includes all dogs and cats your shelter or animal group euthanized (Healthy, Treatable- Rehabilitatable, Treatable-Manageable, and Unhealthy and Untreatable). [See M, N, O, and P for definitions of healthy, treatable-rehabilitatable, treatable-manageable, and unhealthy and untreatable.]
(R) Owner/Guardian Requested Euthanasia (Unhealthy and Untreatable Only): The number of unhealthy and untreatable dogs and cats that your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/ guardians and the number of dogs and cats ordered to be euthanized by legislative, judicial, or administrative action. Do not include any dogs and cats your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/guardians and that were considered to be healthy, treatable-rehabilitatable, or treatable-manageable at the time of death. [See M, N, O, and P for definitions of healthy, treatable-rehabilitatable, treatablemanageable, and unhealthy and untreatable.]
(S) Adjusted Total Euthanasia: Total Euthanasia minus Owner/Guardian Request Euthanasia (Unhealthy and Untreatable Only). [See P for definition of unhealthy and untreatable category.]
(T) Subtotal Outcomes: Sum of lines I through L plus S. This includes the number of dogs and cats that your shelter or animal group adopted, transferred, or returned to owner/guardian. Do not include the number of dogs and cats that died or were lost while in your shelter or in your care or the number of unhealthy and untreatable dogs and cats that your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/guardians or the number of dogs and cats ordered to be euthanized by legislative, judicial, or administrative action. [See P for definition of unhealthy and untreatable category.]
(U) Died or Lost in Shelter/Care: The number of dogs and cats for which your shelter or animal group assumed responsibility and that died or could not be accounted for. This includes the number of dogs and cats that died of medical complications (and were not euthanized), died in foster care or in transit, or were lost or stolen from the shelter.
(V) Total Outcomes: Sum of lines T and U. This is the total number of dog and cat outcomes that includes the number of dogs and cats your shelter or animal group adopted, transferred, returned to owner/guardian plus the number of dogs and cats for which your shelter or animal group assumed responsibility and that died of medical complications (and were not euthanized) or were lost or stolen (from the shelter or foster care). Total outcomes do not include the number of unhealthy and untreatable dogs and cats that your shelter or animal group euthanized at the request of their owners/guardians or the number of dogs and cats ordered to be euthanized by legislative, judicial, or administrative action. [See P for definition of unhealthy and untreatable category.]
(W) Ending Shelter Count (Date): The number of dogs and cats in your shelter or in your care including fosters at the end of the reporting period. The reporting period is annual--either a calendar year or a fiscal year. (Date) refers to the last day of the reporting period written in the following format: month/day/year.
NOTE: If you are not part of a collaboration that is compiling statistics, then all your outgoing transfers would be listed here
Special Note: To calculate the Annual Live Release Rate for your community or coalition, each participating shelter or animal group will need to fill out the Annual Animal Statistics Table for its individual organization. The reporting organization for the community/coalition will then compile this information for all the groups in one table and follow the instructions for calculating the community/coalition rate.
1. Describe the workload of the poundmaster in the mid-1800s. How had this changed over the previous two centuries?
2. What role did Carolyn Earle White play in the history of animal sheltering? Describe the relevant events that immediately preceded her actions.
3. What major changes occurred when the ASPCA took over management of the New York City pound in 1894?
4. Do communities in the United States address their animal-sheltering needs consistently? What determines how a community addresses these needs?
5. What was Phyllis Wright's three-prong approach to reducing the homeless animal population?
6. How have the methods of killing unwanted/homeless animals changed from the early 1800s to the present?
7. Describe the multiple challenges presented by the decentralized organization of the nation's animal shelters.
8. What were the three initiatives of the research agenda of the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP)?
9. Choose three of the national or regional support organizations and describe the major services they provide to animal sheltering administrators and staff. What is the underlying need for these organizations?
10. What is the difference between "open admission" and "limited admission" animal shelters?
11. What are the Asilomar Accords?
12. What are the major considerations of proper animal shelter design?
13. What are special considerations of a shelter medicine program that distinguish it from a clinical veterinary practice?
14. What is the purpose of the SAFER test? Briefly describe its components.
15. What is the purpose of the Meet Your Match Canine-ality Adoption Program? Briefly describe its components.
16. What are the benefits and challenges of providing group housing in an animal shelter?
17. What technological advances have been made in animal sheltering in recent decades?
18. Why is the Annual Live Release Rate formula different for individual agencies and those in a community and/or coalition?
American Humane Association. (2002). SAFER: The Safety Assessment for Evaluating Rehoming. Denver, CO.
Anchel, M. (Ed). (1990). Overpopulation of cats and dogs: Causes, effects, and prevention. New York: Fordham University Press.
AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. (2001). Report of the AVMA panel on euthanasia. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 218(5), 669-696.
Baker, B. (2006). No friend left behind. AARP Bulletin, 47(5), 22-23.
Crossen, C. (2007, February 5). Dogs' role in society evolved: Their catcher never won our hearts. The Wall Street Journal, B1.
Duvin, E. (1989). In the name of mercy. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from www. BestFriends.org/nomorehomelesspets/pdf/mercy.pdf.
Handy, G. (2001). Animal control management: A guide for local governments. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
LaCroix, C. (2004). Legal concerns for shelters and shelter veterinarians. In L. Miller & S. Zawistowski (Eds.), Animal shelter medicine for veterinarians and staff (pp. 35-45). Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.
Maddie's Fund. (2004). Annual report. Alameda, CA: Author.
Miller, L. (2004). Dog and cat care in the animal shelter. In L. Miller & S. Zawistowski (Eds.), Animal shelter medicine for veterinarians and staff (pp. 95-119). Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.
Miller, L. & Zawistowski, S. (Eds.). (2004). Animal shelter medicine for veterinarians and staff. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.
National Research Council. (1996). Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals (7th ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
PetSmart Charities, Inc. (2004). Annual report 2004: A new road home. Phoenix, AZ: PetSmart Charities.
Reid, P., Goldman, J. & Zawistowski, S. (2004). Animal shelter behavior programs. In L. Miller & S. Zawistowski (Eds.), Animal shelter medicine for veterinarians and staff (pp. 317-331). Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.
Salman, M. D., Hutchinson, J., Ruch-Gallie, R., Kogan, L., New, J. C., Kass, et al. (2000). Behavioral reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 3(2), 93-106.
Unti, B. (2004). Protecting all animals: A fifty-year history of the humane society of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Humane Society Press.
Zawistowski, S. & Morris, J. (2004). The evolving animal shelter. In L. Miller & S. Zawistowski (Eds.), Animal shelter medicine for veterinarians and staff (pp. 3-9) Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.
Zawistowski, S., Morris, J., Salman, M.D. & Ruch-Gallie, R. (1998). Population dynamics, overpopulation, and the welfare of companion animals: New insights on old and new data. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1(3), 193-206.
TABLE 4-1 Animal control funding for a sample of U.S. cities. (Courtesy ASPCA) POPULATION BUDGET AREA in millions in millions PEOPLE ANIMALS COMBINED 2004 ANIMAL 2000 ESTIMATED SHELTER CENSUS NUMBER BUDGETS New York 8.01 3.48 16.88 Los Angeles 3.69 1.61 19.6 Chicago 2.90 1.26 8.62 San Diego 2.81 1.22 17.99 County Houston 1.95 0.85 6.85 Broward County 1.62 0.60 7.40 (Ft. Lauderdale) Dallas 1.19 0.52 11.17 Erie County 0.98 0.43 2.90 (Buffalo) San Francisco 0.78 0.34 11.01 Cleveland 0.48 0.21 3.45 TOTAL AREA PER CAPITA INTAKE SPENT PER PERSON TOTAL ANIMALS COMBINED RECEIVED AT BUDGETS SHELTERS New York 2.11 53,458 Los Angeles 5.31 67,204 Chicago 2.97 40,715 San Diego 6.40 33,536 County Houston 3.51 69,722 Broward County 4.57 54,816 (Ft. Lauderdale) Dallas 9.39 57,625 Erie County 3.69 19,431 (Buffalo) San Francisco 14.12 15,477 Cleveland 7.19 19,890 TABLE 4-2 AVMA recommended euthanasia methods (adapted from Appendix I, AVMA, 2000, Report of the AVMA panel on euthanasia) SPECIES ACCEPTABLE * Amphibians Barbiturates, inhalant anesthetics (in appropriate species), C[O.sub.2], CO, tricaine methane sulfonate (TMS, MS 222), benzocaine hydrochloride, double pithing. Birds Barbiturates, inhalant anesthetics, C[O.sub.2], CO, Gunshot-free-ranging only. Cats Barbiturates, inhalant anesthetics, C[O.sub.2], CO, potassium chloride in conjunction with a general anesthetic. Dogs Barbiturates, inhalant anesthetics, C[O.sub.2], CO, potassium chloride in conjunction with a general anesthetic. Fish Barbiturates, inhalant anesthetics, C[O.sub.2], tricaine methane sulfonate (TMS, MS 222), benzocaine, hydrochloride, 2-phenoxyethanol. Horses Barbiturates, potassium chloride in conjunction with general anesthesia, penetrating captive bolt. Rabbits Barbiturates, inhalant anesthetics, C[O.sub.2], CO, potassium chloride in conjunction with a general anesthetic. Reptiles Barbiturates, inhalant anesthetics (in appropriate species), C[O.sub.2] (in appropriate species). Rodents and other Barbiturates, inhalant anesthetics, C[O.sub.2], small mammals CO, potassium chloride in conjunction with a general anesthetic, microwave irradiation. SPECIES CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE ([dagger]) Amphibians Penetrating captive bolt, gunshot, stunning and decapitation, decapitation and pithing. Birds [N.sub.2], Ar, cervical dislocation, decapitation, thoracic compression (small, free-ranging only). Cats [N.sub.2], Ar. Dogs [N.sub.2], Ar, penetrating captive bolt, electrocution. Fish Decapitation and pithing, stunning and decapitation/pithing. Horses Chloral hydrate (IV, after sedation), gunshot, electrocution. Rabbits [N.sub.2], Ar, cervical dislocation (<1 kg), decapitation, penetrating captive bolt. Reptiles Penetrating captive bolt, gunshot, decapitation and pithing, stunning and decapitation. Rodents and other Methoxyflurane, ether, [N.sub.2], Ar, cervical small mammals dislocation (rats <200 g), decapitation. * Acceptable methods are those that consistently produce a humane death when used as the sole means of euthanasia. ([dagger]) Conditional acceptable methods are those that by the nature of the technique or because of greater potential for operator error or safety hazards, may not consistently produce humane death or are methods not well documented in the scientific literature. TABLE 4-3 Shelter Intake and Disposition Data (From Zawistowski et al., 1998) DISPOSITION OF DOGS AND CATS ENTERING SHELTERS REPORTING TO 1994 AND 1995 SURVEYS ADOPTED RECLAIMED BY EUTHANIZED (%) OWNER (%) (%) TYPE 1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995 Dogs 25.4 25.6 15.6 16.1 56.0 55.0 Cats 22.6 23.4 2.1 2.2 71.9 71.2 Either * 20.4 13.6 9.1 8.3 67.8 74.4 Overall 23.6 23.4 9.6 9.9 63.6 63.5 OTHER UNKNOWN TOTAL (%) (%) NUMBER TYPE 1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995 Dogs 3 2.3 NA 0.9 2,031,909 1,863,727 Cats 3.5 2.4 NA 0.6 1,576,087 1,424,830 Either * 2.7 3.3 NA 0.2 523,836 424,017 Overall 3.2 2.4 NA 0.7 4,131,831 3,712,375 * Some shelters did not separate statistics for dogs and cats. TABLE 4-4 Per capita pet euthanasia table (Based on Animal People, July/August 2006, p. 18) ANIMALS EUTHANIZED PER 1000 CITY HUMAN POPULATION YEAR Ithaca, NY 2.2 2003 New York, NY 2.6 2005 Pittsburgh, PA 8.6 2003 Baltimore, MD 9.2 2003 Philadelphia, PA 19.7 2002 Richmond, VA 7.7 2004 Augusta, GA 45.3 2004 Nashville, TN 18.9 2004 Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX 23.0 2002 Denver, CO 5.8 2002 Phoenix/Maricopa, AZ 16.0 2005 Chicago, IL 6.9 2005 Indianapolis, IN 18.5 2005 San Francisco, CA 2.5 2004 Visalia, CA 81.1 2002 Amarillo, TX 50.9 2002 TABLE 4-5 Dog Adopter Survey (ASPCA) DATE: -- LAST NAME -- FIRST NAME -- ADDRESS -- CITY -- ST -- ZIP -- HOME PHONE: -- WORK PHONE -- EMAIL -- 1 I have owned a YES NO dog before. 2 The last time I had 2-10 years More Not currently, a dog was ... ago than 10 but years ago 3 My dog needs to get NO dogs. 4 My dog needs to be Children Children good with (circle over 8 under 8 all that apply) years old years old Elderly Elderly People People 5 My dog will Inside dog primarily be an ... 6 How marry hours will your dog spend outside per day? 7 My dog needs to be 4 hours 8-10 hours per day able to be by or less alone ... per day 8 When I'm at home, I All of Some of the want my dog to be the time time by my side ... In the garage 9 When I'm not at In the In the yard home, my dog will garage spend its time. In a crate in the house 10 I want a guard dog. NO 11 I want my dog to NO hunt or herd with me. 12 I want my dog to be Not at all Somewhat the type that is very enthusiastic in the way s/he shows s/he loves people 13 I want my dog to Not at all Somewhat be playful: 14 I want my dog to Very Somewhat be laid back: 15 I am comfortable No Some doing some training training training with my dog to improve manners such as jumping, stealing food, and pulling on the leash: 16 I (or my children) NO NO want to participate in Agility, Flyball, or Obedience with our dog. 17 I am interested in NO NO a dog with "special needs" (medical or behavioral). 18 I How much do you think you'll spend yearly for the care of your dog? (Food, medical care, boarding, toys, etc.) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: N M L Side 1 of 2 1 I have owned a Currently own dog before. dog(s) 2 The last time I had Not currently, but a dog was ... within the last year 3 My dog needs to get YES dogs. [left arrow] List their names, ages, genders, and breads 4 My dog needs to be Cats good with (circle Animals other than all that apply) dogs or cats 5 My dog will Outside dog primarily be an ... 6 How marry hours will your dog spend outside per day? -- hours 7 My dog needs to be 2 hours or 12 hours per day able to be by less per day alone ... 8 When I'm at home, I Little of the want my dog to be time by my side ... In the garage 9 When I'm not at Loose in the house home, my dog will Confined to one spend its time. room in the house 10 I want a guard dog. YES 11 I want my dog to YES YES hunt or herd with me. 12 I want my dog to be Very the type that is very enthusiastic in the way s/he shows s/he loves people 13 I want my dog to Very be playful: 14 I want my dog to Not at all be laid back: 15 I am comfortable A lot of training doing some training with my dog to improve manners such as jumping, stealing food, and pulling on the leash: 16 I (or my children) YES want to participate in Agility, Flyball, or Obedience with our dog. 17 I am interested in YES a dog with "special needs" (medical or behavioral). 18 I How much do you think you'll spend $ -- yearly for the care of your (Food, medical care, boarding, toys, etc.) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: K D:1-2-3-4-5-6-7-9- 10-11-18 Side 1 of 2 Copyright[c] 2005 THE ASPCA[R]. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission of the ASPCA.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Companion Animals in Society|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2008|
|Previous Article:||Chapter 3 Development of animal protection.|
|Next Article:||Chapter 5 Companion animals, law, and animal cruelty.|