A little serious, a little satire, and all opinion on animal welfare.
Header image

Each year my family and I vacation in Potter County, Pennsylvania.  The route we take drives right through the heart of Berks County, up Route 183 to Route 78.  We’ve developed a new tradition over the last couple of years when we pass by Old Route 22.  My wife, three daughters and I all give a big wave and say, “Thank you, Mr. Deska!”

mrs deska2If the name Deska rings a bell it might be because you heard it as the name of our cat adoption satellite in Pheonixville, Chester County.  But Art Deska, through his generosity and planning, has done more to help animals in Berks County and South Eastern Pennsylvania than any other single person in a very long time.  As generous as he was in life, making generous annual contributions to Humane Society of Berks County, his generosity proved to be staggering in death.

A man of modest means and simple living, he turned a lifetime of hard work and careful savings into an estate in the millions.  Even after sharing an enormous amount with his nieces and nephews, his church, and other area charities, when he chose to leave the remainder of his estate to the Humane Society of Berks County, it was enough to literally change our world, the way we do our work, and the worlds of the tens of thousands more animals and people we can help each year.

His estate gift allowed us to create a foundation to help HSBC and other shelters, to reach for national accreditation for our veterinary hospital and expand our veterinary services to Lancaster County, to expand our lifesaving programs across Pennsylvania and bring our experience and expertise across the nation through our management services organization.  It allowed us to cast our gaze above the horizon and not aspire to merely a humane Berks County but to a Humane Pennsylvania, hence the name of our newly expanded organization.

But, to paraphrase Walt Disney, we have not and will not forget that it all started with a rabbit in Berks County.  In the 1960’s the Humane Society recognized Mr. Deska’s wife, Ida, for rescuing a litter of bunnies, and a relationship between HSBC and the Deska’s grew.  When his wife passed away before him, and then his brother, Mr. Deska chose to make an impact in the future he could not- as most of us can’t- in the present by giving the bulk of his estate to a charity he trusted.  We take that trust very seriously, and it’s also why we are keeping the local names and local missions of our partner agencies.

It’s a reality that most of us will be richest on the day we die, when insurance and investments are no longer bound by the needs of the living.  “The millionaire next door” is a cliché with a basis as Mr. Deska demonstrated.  The profound change he made in our mission to save animals was the inspiration for the slogan of the Humane Pennsylvania Foundation:  Change the World.  Change Your Will.

While we typically don‘t want to think about death, there is something life affirming about estate planning.  We get to do some final nice things for the people we love and want to look out for.  When we include a charity as part of that planning, we can also ensure that we are making a difference in the lives of other- human, animals, environment, whatever is important to you- for years to come.  I hope you will take some time to think about what your legacy will be and choose to support some charitable missions in your estate planning, as Mr. Deska did.

If you choose to support Humane Pennsylvania or one of our partner agencies, thank you.  If you choose to support some other charity, thank you, as well.  When I tell my daughters about how much good Art Deska has done and continues to do for animals it takes on the tone and feeling of a folk tale, like he was larger than life, as it should.  The tale of Art Deska offers the lesson that we should each do as much good in the end of our life as we did during it and inspire others to share their gratitude as we do when we say, “Thank you, Mr. Deska.”

Share

“There is sorrow enough in the natural way

From men and women to fill our day;

And when we are certain of sorrow in store,

Why do we always arrange for more?”

-Kipling

 

There are a thousand reasons the public dislikes, mistrusts, and avoid animal shelters. Most are unfounded and unreasonable, yet, for some reason, we keep creating our own reasons to hate us.  Saturday, I found myself on the public end of an animal shelter interaction and got a reminder of why all of Humane Pennsylvania’s partner organizations and all our staff need to be keenly aware of how our policies and rules are perceived by the public.

My wife received a call from a work acquaintance who serves on the board of a private dog rescue.  One of their foster dogs had run away from its foster home and ended up in a shelter in another county (from us, not from the family).  When they figured it out, they called and were denied the dog until at least Monday when “a manager was in” to authorize them to give the dog back to an “unknown rescue”.

There might be some reasonable policies behind this so I asked a few questions of this acquaintance.  Did you provide proof of ownership?  Yes, the shelter was given the relinquishment form of the previous owner (and that form was emailed to me).  Check.  Are you a legitimate rescue?  Now, to honest, that doesn’t really impact ownership, but there are some shady faux rescues out there and shelters can sometimes be cautious.  Yes, they presented their federal 501c3 paperwork.  Check!  So why wouldn’t they release the dog?

I offered to email (I was out and didn’t have his phone number in my contacts or I’d have called) the organization’s executive director, who I know and work with in other organizations and I suggested our acquaintance make use of a tool known round the world: name drop.  Call them back, mention my name, that I was contacting their boss directly to straighten this out, and that I’d appreciate some help.  Maybe that would allow for phone service in this old timey location where managers are inaccessible on a Saturday afternoon (maybe they could modernize and buy a pager).  She did and still no go.  So I called, because I’m annoyed now.  Why would a shelter choose to keep a dog?

I spoke to the person in charge who was in charge to be the person I needed to speak to but apparently not in charge enough to make a decision.  She said that, yes, she had seen all the paperwork proving ownership and the legitimacy of the rescue.  But the dog still had its prior dog license on it so they needed to verify with the original owner- despite the signed paperwork.  Now, that’s dumb of the rescue, and I told them that, but it did add a layer of confusion to be worked out.  OK, since that now made a little sense I asked, did they call the prior owner?  Yes.  Did the prior owner tell them they had given up the dog?  Yes, months ago.  But for some reason they still would only release the dog to the prior owner, for “legal reasons”.

Here’s the kicker, the person who gave up the dog to the rescue was the elderly wife of the actual registered prior owner- who had died.  That’s why the elderly woman relinquished the dog.  She didn’t want it back because she was old and couldn’t care for it.  If they wanted the registered prior owner to collect the dog, it would be a long wait because I hear the commute from Heaven on a Saturday is a total bitch and if his ghost did show up, I bet he’d be pissed.

The wouldn’t give back a dog to the current legal owner because the dog had a dog tag registered to a dead person, whose wife told them she gave up the dog months ago, and the paperwork showing her signature was presented, and they couldn’t anything until next week when a “manager was working”.

This is why people hate us.

I used my scary voice of authority on the woman a little bit- OK, I kind of yelled at her- about professional courtesy and asked her to call the executive director- she could not- then asked her to call any manager who undoubtedly had the executive director’s phone number and ask them to call him.  She’d see what she could do.  She was the most efficaciously unhelpful desk person imaginable.

Apparently she got through to someone who got through to their boss who said I or someone on my staff- gee, thanks for the professional courtesy- or the head of the rescue could pick up the dog, but not the foster family.  This is presumably because they were so irresponsible as to have their foster dog run off.

Here is the other reason people hate shelters: We provide a service and when it is made use of we hold use of the service against the person using it.  Do we accept surrendered pets?  Yes!  Yes, we do you elderly old lady scumbag giving up the pet we said we’d take.  Do we take in strays?  Yes!  Yes, we do, you irresponsible pet owner.

Incongruously enough, animal shelters who use the Asilomar Accords reporting structure get a total pass for animals which are “lost” from a shelter because even shelters, packed to the brim with staff and volunteers in locked, gated facilities lose animals from time to time.  But God forbid a nice family trying to foster the dog of an elderly widow until it’s adopted, a family keeping that dog from entering a shelter as a surrender in the first place, should have the irresponsible audacity to lose that dog.  And then to actually immediately seek it out at the shelter who voluntarily took it in to try to reclaim it.  Shame on them!

There are enough policies and regulations which shelters have to abide by for legal and reasonable policy concerns which already place burdens and annoyances on the public.  We can explain those and we have to live with those.  But when we create barriers, when we choose not to be helpful to well-meaning people, when we choose a course of action which serves only to keep animals in our shelters instead of sending them out, we are handing an already jaded and suspicious public yet another reason to hate shelters.

The next time you hear a shelter professional whining and wondering why more people don’t adopt from us or support us, you can wonder, as I do, with so many burdens already placed upon us, why do we insist on creating our own?

Share

So, I know this blog can seem like a litany of complaints or “who or what I’m pissed of about right now” but after attending tonight’s Humane Society of Berks County’s Pints for Pups in Reading, I just wanted to take a moment to share with you that Humane Pennsylvania and its partner organizations have the best staff, volunteers, board, and donors, anywhere.  Ever.  Period.

They are nice, talented, generous, do amazing work, are a damn good looking crew, and I am very lucky to have them working with me and supporting the cause and mission we all share.  Thank you seems inadequate, but thank you is the best I can manage, less than they deserve, and more than I know they seek.

If you think some other place has better staff, volunteers, board, and donors, we will have to agree to disagree. That’s just because you probably won’t agree that you are wrong.

Thank you to everyone who works so hard to do so much good as part of Humane Pennsylvania.

Share

I received a call from a reporter today who, he said on his message, had been called by a volunteer upset over the euthanasia of a dog at the Humane League of Lancaster County (HLLC) recently and who claimed HLLC was no longer “No Kill”.  I left him a message but while I await his call, I thought I’d take a few minutes to share some details on our intake and save rates, as well as our policies on euthanasia.

"                               "

We also help animals by offering free community vet care clinics like this one last weekend in Phoenixville, Chester County, with HLLC super-vet, Dr. Misha Neumann and our phenomenal vet staff. Not on topic, just really, really awesome.

I would normally start with a discussion of way we use the term “Adoption Guarantee” as opposed to “No Kill” but I know when you start with “what the definition of ‘is’ is”, it seems like you are dodging the numbers.  And our numbers are so great, that the last thing I want to do!  So let’s dive into numbers…

Since October 1, 2013, when Joan Brown, HLLC’s former President retired and handed over daily operations to me to begin the process of the merger of HLLC and Humane Society of Berks County (HSBC) to form Humane Pennsylvania, HLLC has taken in 692 dogs and 433 cats.  As an Adoption Guarantee shelter since February 1, 2013, we should expect damn great save rates- and we have them.

Since October 1, 2013 five dogs and seven cats have been euthanized.  This means our live out success rate for dogs is 99.3% and for cats is 98.4%.  You don’t have to know much about animal shelters to guess those are stellar save rates.  But in case you don’t, I’ll sit for a minute while you Google the average save rates in the United States, as well as what most No Kill advocates consider the “No Kill Threshold”…….…OK, spoiler alert, that’s usually over 90%.  Do you know what’s over 90%?  99%.  So our save rates are vastly above the level that most No Kills advocates even strive for.  So, yes, pretty damn great numbers.

But five dogs and seven cats are still twelve living, breathing animals out of 1,125 cats and dogs which we have taken into HLLC’s shelter in the past nine months and two weeks.  Why were those twelve animals euthanized?  Here are the reasons:

Dogs euthanized since October 1, 2013: 5: Three for aggressive bites (not “play bites” or “accidents”) which broke the skin.  Two of those bites occurred in our shelter, including the one the volunteer is upset about, one was post adoption and the dog was returned.  The remaining two were euthanized for severe behavioral issues involving overtly aggressive behavior.  One was adopted prior to displaying this behavior and returned for lunging and snarling at the adopters with no identifiable trigger.  The other dog demonstrated severe cage aggression and resource guarding (this dog was a transfer from a shelter which had already slated it for euthanasia for the same reasons and we unsuccessfully attempted to rehabilitate it).

In all five cases- .07% of the dogs in that period- our staff made the tough decision that euthanasia was the appropriate course of action, and one which was the correct one based on our Asilomar Accord protocols (more on this below).

Cats euthanized since October 1, 2013: 7: One 12 year old stray with uncontrolled diabetes, severe diarrhea, and emaciation; 1 kitten brought in after being hit by a car and diagnosed with a broken back and body wall hernia leading to extreme suffering and poor prognosis for survival; and five kittens under three weeks of age ranging from three to nine ounces (as an example the “average” eight week old kitten is 24 to 32 ounces), who were sick and non-responsive to treatment. These seven cats (1.1% of our cats in that period) were suffering and the veterinary recommendation and the one which we think represented the “reasonable community standard” as defined by Maddie’s Fund, was humane euthanasia.

So which is it?  Is 12 euthanasias out of 1,125 a great number or a terrible number?  It’s both.  Compared to any other measure and benchmark in animal welfare and shelters- open admission or no kill- these numbers are spectacular.  But for those twelve animals, no matter whether they were the “right” choice or the “safety minded” choice or the “reasonable community standard” choice- it was a choice to end their lives.  For them, for the staff who have to make the decision and follow through with the consequences of that decision, and for the volunteers who donate their time and love for all our animals, it’s not one to be happy about.  We failed those 12 animals.  Period.

But not every failure has success as a real alternative.  There are times when the only option is some version of failure.  Let the broken back cat live and you succeed in that but fail in its never ending suffering and ultimate death.  Keep an openly aggressive, biting dog alive and you succeed in that at the expense of it going insane in a kennel for the rest of its life because you also can’t also fail by adopting it- assuming you can find an adopter- who it will maul.  Some equations have no solution, they are unsolvable axioms.  Some situations can’t be reprogrammed to change the rules like the Kobayashi Maru test (if you’ve got your Star Trek nerd hat on).

And that’s why the language we use matters.  That’s why HLLC and Humane Pennsylvania have adopted the standardized language of Maddie’s Fund and the Asilomar Accords.  We didn’t change our policies, rules, or choices, we changed the two words to describe them.  The Maddie’s Fund/Asilomar Accords industry standard name for shelters like HLLC is Adoption Guarantee, and that’s what we are.  That doesn’t mean, as “No Kill” implies to some, that no animal is killed.  It means that no healthy or treatable animal is killed, based on a set of defined national and community standards and transparency.  These national and community standards explicitly recognize that some animals will be euthanized for extreme health reasons or for being a danger to staff, adopters or the community.

Those are the right benchmarks to use.  No animal should suffer torment, just to make some philosophical point or achieve some pyrrhic victory.  No one, no staff member, no community member, no child, should risk bite, mauling or death from an animal we have serious safety concerns about.  Those are the right standards, we employ them in our shelter and we stand by them.  And for 99.3% of dogs and 98.4% of cats these standards work.  Our job- my job- is to work harder to also make them work for that remaining .7% and 1.6%, respectively.

We should also be extremely clear of how nearly all Adoption Guarantee shelters like HLLC achieve those stunning save rates.  We do it by restricting which animals we take in in the first place.  Most adoption Guarantee shelters only accept health and happy animals.  Most don’t take animal control intake.  HLLC has a pretty extensive pre-intake screening protocol and many animals are rejected and sent to other shelters, such as Open Access shelters without an Adoption Guarantee, such as our other Humane Pennsylvania Shelter Partner, HSBC (which, by the way, still maintains an industry leading save rate for open access shelters of 80+% for cats and 90+% for dogs).

In fact, if you took out the animals which did not go through the HLLC screening process, the ones which came in with known health and behavioral problems, which we took from a Good Samaritan or from another shelter who begged us to try to succeed where they had already failed, every cat euthanasia would not be included in the numbers above and three of five of the dog euthanasias would not (three of the five dogs were taken from other shelters with known behavior problems we tried to fix, as we do for dozens of other dogs successfully each year).

While I’ve been typing I had a chance to speak to reporter and share this with him.  If there is any story here, it’s that the staff and volunteers of HLLC are doing a remarkable job.  But the one question, implied or stated, is that the change of the wording from “No Kill” to “Adoption Guarantee” and the change of management from the last President to the current one, me, has resulted in some change or some difference in the amount of euthanasia.  I will be perfectly honest- there has been a change:  The numbers have improved.

From February 1 to September 31, 2013, the period from when HLLC stopped doing animal control intake and changed to “No Kill” and the period immediately preceding the change in management, the euthanasia rate for cats was 7.2%, not 1.6% (an 88% improvement), and for dogs it was 1.1%, not .7% (a 47% improvement).  I hope you’ll forgive us for not apologizing for saving more animals than ever before.

I don’t mean to be flippant and I don’t want to minimize the concerns of a volunteer or the lives of 12 very real animals.  But I do want us to view them in a realistic context as the successes- and failures- they are.  When I started in animal welfare twenty years ago millions more animals died in shelters each years, thousands more right here in Pennsylvania.  90% or 99% save rates were a crack head fantasy then.  Now they are a reality.  That means I have to believe that those last ten, two, one percent goals to reach 100% can be reached.

Twenty years ago in Lancaster 100% would have meant saving thousands.  Since October 1, it meant trying to save just twelve.  Somehow that last twelve feels more galling to me.

Share

This is a little late but the Independence Day holiday always brings up one of the most commonly used set of bad statistics in animal welfare.  This year I received it in a product promotion email and it led to a nice exchange with the sender, who ended up modifying the copy and being very nice about it (because we know how much people like being wrong).  The statistic used was this one:

dogs-scared-of-fireworks-300x211“Over the 4th of July holiday, more than 30% of pets go missing and only 15 % find their way back home.”

It’s common knowledge that pets run away during fireworks and that shelters are flooded with pets on July 5, right?  Go ask anyone at a shelter and they’ll confirm this.  But like most “common knowledge” this may be based more in lore than in fact.

Do some additional pets enter shelters because they are frightened by fireworks?  Certainly.  But do 30% of pets go missing and only 15% find their way back home on July 4?  Absolutely, unequivocally, no.

Let’s take the low end estimate of the number of 140 million owned cats and dogs in the United States (2011, APPA survey).  If 30% of dogs and cats ran off at the sound of booming fireworks this year, it would mean that 42 million pets ran away.  Since only 7.6 million pets enter animal shelters all year long (ASPCA estimate), that means 35 million pets should be running around the streets of America on July 5.  Did you see hordes of confused canines and felines on your road?

And is only 15% of those lost pets find their way home, it means of that of those 42 million lost pets, 35.7 million pets don’t make it home.  That’s 25% of the total pet population in the US.  It also means that on July 5, one in four pets in America is lost forever.  If you are reading an animal blog like this you probably have four pets.  Was one missing ten days ago?  Did every 4th pet owning house on your block start posting missing signs for Fluffy?  Probably not.

So what gives with this oft reported statistic that the simplest of math shows to be clearly false? It is another great example of when a little data starts to play whisper down the lane.  The problem is in the misreading and misstating of facts.  The sender directed me to this website which presented the following information:

 “PetAmberAlert….The stark numbers illustrate what a devastating time of year this can be for pets and their owners: 30% more pets are lost between July 4th and 6th than any other time of year.

Founder Mark Jakubczak explained, Sadly, only 14% of lost pets are returned to their owners, according to nationwide statistics. And worse, 30-60% of lost pets are euthanized…”

Aside from the marketing histrionics of using a term like “Pet Amber Alert” for lost pets and loaded words like “stark” and “devastating” and then going for the jugular with unsupported rehoming and euthanasia statistics (Microchip your pet now- NOW!!!!- before Fluffy gets the NEEDLE at a shelter…aaarrgh!!!!!), we can actually see that the 30% statistic is used to claim an increase in strays on or around July 4th, not to say that 30% of all pets stray.  That’s a world of difference.

And when I say a world of difference, I mean a world of difference.  What started as 42 million strays becomes a mere blip on the statistical radar.  If we accept the ASPCA estimate that 7.6 million pets enter shelters each year and two thirds of them are strays (a reasonable estimate in my experience), then about five million strays enter shelters each year.  For ease of discussion, let’s say that strays enter shelters evenly throughout the year- they don’t, but let’s say they do- then every day 13,698 stray cats and dogs enter shelters.  If 30% more run off on July 4, that’s an extra 4,109 strays entering shelters nationwide on July 5.  Taken against the entire owned pet population of 140 million, that is .00003% of pets, not 30%.  What a difference several decimal points can make.

Of course these numbers are broad brush and animals enter shelters as strays at different rates throughout the year and not all strays enter shelters, blah, blah.  However, I think you’ll agree that 4,109 fireworks strays is closer to zero than to 42,000,0000 fireworks strays.

Pet identification and microchip companies use statistics like these to scare the bejeezus out of pet owners so we’ll buy their products.  Shelter workers use these statistics to bemoan the idiot pet owners of the world and show what great martyrs they are to the cause.  But the facts don’t back up the claims and we don’t need the hysterics to know we should have ID on our pets and that there are strays in shelters.

As long as we spend our time worrying about and repeating “common knowledge” with no basis in reality, whether its fireworks strays, big black dog worries, or black cat Halloween adoptions, we aren’t paying attention to the very real and very solvable problems really facing animals in our nation’s shelters.

Share

Each year we get a call from a media outlet doing a story on the sales of bunnies around Easter and the inevitable subsequent flooding of animal shelters with rabbits.  My response has generally been, “Holiday marketing of pets isn’t a great idea and people should think carefully about any pet, however, we aren’t overrun with rabbits.”  The media outlet would usually end the quote at “pet”.

enhanced-buzz-wide-2160-1362601904-13This year I went a step beyond doing my usual hard census count of the number of rabbits entering our shelters in the past year and reminding myself how few rabbits actual come us.  I compared that intake amount to the rates of household ownership of rabbits, cats and dogs and, somewhat to my surprise, we actually do have a tsunami of rabbits entering our shelters each year.  At least statistically.  In one category.  In one county.

My first quick math taking only the relative intake numbers based on total numbers of households owning rabbits, as opposed to actual number of owned animals in those households, gave me a surprising number.  It looked like there was between a one 150% and 300% greater likelihood of a pet rabbit being surrendered to a shelter in Berks or Lancaster Counties, depending on county and whether compared to cats or dogs.  I was surprised, to say the least.  It nagged at me for a day and I went back to the numbers to make sure I controlled for actual pet population in the households, not just households.

Based on AVMA pet population statistics, there should be 21 pet dogs and 23 pet cats for every one pet rabbit on average.  That means that if cats, dogs and rabbits all entered shelters at the same rates, we should be able to determine the number of cats and dogs entering shelters by simply multiplying the number of rabbits received in a year by 21 or 23.  If that multiple is close to the actual intake, the intake rate would be about the same for all.  In the actual intake of cats and dogs is higher than the multiple, it means that rabbits enter at lower rates based on population (and a lower multiple would mean the converse).

Based on a rabbit intake number of 39 over 365 days in Lancaster, we showed an intake rate that was 56% over what we would expect when compared to dogs!  A veritable tidal wave of bunnies!  But compared to cat intake in Lancaster, that number dropped to about 2% greater likelihood for rabbit surrender.  A ripple of bunnies.  When I used our Berks intake statistics it shifted even further.  Rabbits were half as likely to enter our shelter there than both cats and dogs.  What gives?

I think it serves as a great reminder that we can use math to prove just about anything if we select the right inputs.  My first pass at this used a reasonable measure- households owning rabbit, cats and dogs- and it gave me arguably defensible but simply wrong output numbers.  Sound the alarms, rabbits at Easter end up in shelters in droves!  But when I accounted for the numbers of rabbits actually owned, the numbers say exactly the opposite.

This is reminiscent of the City of Reading’s aggressive breed ordinance, which triggered when a certain number of bites occurred by a single breed.  That breed was always pit bulls.  The only problem was the number of bites was actually equal to or lower than the actual percentage of pit owned in the city.  There was not a pit bull bite epidemic, there were just a lot of pit bulls.  We found the same thing when we did internal research on the “epidemic” of big, black, dogs not being adopted in shelters.  Nope, we found they faced the same odds as anything else when we controlled the numbers for intake by breed and size.  Floods of animals related to those appearing in Disney movies?  Nope.  Black cat sacrifice at Halloween?  Nope.

Sometimes the numbers just aren’t there, no matter how you count them.  Sometimes we focus on a count and a number and decide that number means more than it actually does.  Other times we can actually find a statistical tsunami, like the- gasp- 56% greater likelihood of rabbits to end up in a shelter compared to dogs in Lancaster County.  But sometimes an earthquake creates a tsunami that crashes onto shore as a six inch wave.  It’s real, but not a concern.  When we are talking about 39 rabbits and a 100% rabbit adoption rate at our shelters, I’ll put my concern elsewhere.

This is also a reminder that just doing some quick math can get you in trouble.  My first round was wrong.  My second round is adequate but won’t be getting published in Nature any time soon.  It doesn’t account for so many things, such as actual ownership in our region, alternative relinquishment outlets, that the source statistics I used were correct, that my methodology and math are even right (I got out of my astronomy career track for a reason, after all).  And sometimes really big and really small numbers can do suspicious things to calculations and can radically swing from year to year.  Beware “simple” math and certainty based on one man’s numbers.

But it also reminds us that we cling to old narratives.  Easter bunnies; big, black dogs; and Disney Dalmatians.  As comfy as an old sweater and probably also overdue for the trash bin.

Share

 

It turns out that most people are terrible at self-assessment and have a superiority bias.  Across populations a person’s IQ falls on a very neat bell curve with half of the population being on one side of the curve’s average or the other.  But if you ask 100 people if they are above average or below average, most will estimate themselves to be above average when in reality one in two should select below average.  The same pattern shows up in assessing if we are above or below average in our leadership skills or virtually any other measure put before us.  It reflects a flawed self-assessment and demonstrates an illusion of superiority.

That’s why animal shelters and those in animal welfare should not feel too bad when they do the same thing when evaluating their shelters, their efforts, and their successes and failures in our field.  Like IQ, we can be expected to think we are better at our jobs than we are.  We think the work we are doing is more effective than it is.  We think our shelters are superior to the one next door.  If we want to know how what our IQ is we can be tested and know precisely where we fall on the bell curve.  However, that’s something we can’t do in sheltering.

Even when we are shown evidence of falling short or being on the below average side of the animal welfare curve, we come up with reasons for those shortcomings which are intended to mitigate our responsibility for our under performance.  We kill more than them because we take harder to place animals than they do, or they have more resources, or they lie about their numbers.  It’s not us, it’s something else.  It must be something else, because we’re so damn good at what we do.  It is kind of like saying, “My IQ isn’t below average, that IQ test was just really hard.”

Until we recognize, identify, quantify, compare, and evaluate our own efficacy in animal welfare, both within our own walls and across the field, we will remain the instituitional equivalents of churches.  Having a faith based world view is fine when it comes to religion but our work to prevent unnecessary euthanasia of animals in our shelters requires science, not faith.  Faith and belief tell us why we should do the work we do.  How we do the work to save lives needs to be grounded in fact, data, and science.  You don’t get to the moon using scripture.

Animal welfare “scripture” is the basis for too much of what we do in in our shelters, when we should be using the scientific method.  The church used to believe that the sun and moon revolved around the Earth until scientists proved it did not.  That didn’t disprove the existence of God, it just disproved an unfounded belief in our physical world.

In the same way, we can disprove many of the beliefs in animal welfare- pets as gifts have a greater failure rate, black cats adopted at Halloween get tortured, Disney movies cause massive spikes in breed intake, big black dogs face disproportionate euthanasia odds, that reaching No Kill in the real world is as easy as arithmetic or completely impossible- but that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be careful giving pets as gifts, some people torture cats, black dogs get euthanized, or that No Kill is neither desirable nor attainable.

We can still believe and we can still worship our animal welfare scriptures and tenets, but if we want to get to the moon, if we want to reach 90%, 95%, 100% save rates everywhere, we need to put away the animal welfare bibles, stop turning to the animal welfare prophets, and stop praying for an end to the flow of animals coming through our doors.

We need to start breaking out the calculators, spreadsheets, statistical models, the analytical and testing tools, and do the critical thinking required to get us to our goals.  We can’t all be great or we wouldn’t all still be here doing what we are doing.

Believing something can be done is easy.  Proving it can be done is tough.  Doing it is hard as hell.

Share

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”  John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1962

In a recent Facebook post about pet relinquishment intervention programs, designed to keep pets from entering shelters by offering owner support, someone made the observation that they were good ideas but they were hard.  The person was absolutely correct.  These programs are hard.  They are harder than the easier alternative of simply taking the animal in.  They are hard enough that most shelters don’t try.  They may say it’s because they don’t have the resources but, really, it’s more likely that it’s simply hard and they just don’t know how to do it.  It may not be rocket science but even simple math is tough if you’ve never been taught it.

For a couple decades “reaching No Kill” has been little more than jingo.  It’s more often than not been a slogan for people who have either not had to actually deal with the animals at the door, had the luxury or will to refuse animals at the door, or it’s been a fundraising tool.  Somewhere along the way some hard working people actually started making the slogan a reality.  No Kill shelters worked in partnership with Open Door shelters across broad regions to start approaching the goal of being true no kill communities.  High kill open door shelters started to work hard and become medium kill and then low kill and then start to crack the 90% save rate that used to signify “no kill”, but now is just a stop on the way to 91%, 93%, 98% save rates.

Unlike the jingoist crowd who said this would be as simple as 2 + 2 = No Kill, it’s been hard, hard as hell.  But as JFK pointed out, sometimes we should do things because they are hard and challenging.  There is no longer any excuse not to accept this challenge, no matter what kind of shelter we are, what size, what location.  The days of spurning the fantasy of deeply feeling but partly deluded Pollyannas need to be over.  We need to take up the challenge of saving every animal, every place, not because it’s easy but because we can.

Share

At long last animal shelters are starting to do the real math when it comes to the cost of preventing intake at shelters.  Every year a shelter might spend hundreds of thousands to take in, care for, and adopt or euthanize thousands of animals.  Yet relinquishment prevention programs might receive only a sliver of that funding.  Until recently programs designed to keep animals from darkening our doorsteps have been viewed as an expense, not as a savings over the true and full cost of taking in an animal.

owner and fosterHSBC has been making significant investments over the past decade in order to better balance our efforts between intake prevention and outflow efforts.  We believe this new approach is working, and it started with the recognition of the true costs of caring for an animal in our shelter.  After years of telling people that the average animal cost X hundreds of dollars to care for, depending on how you calculated the “true” cost, we decided to take our own number seriously.

If the “true cost” (staff, overhead, treatment, food, care, adoption, euthanasia, was $250 per animal, wouldn’t it be a smart decision to spend up to $249 per animal to keep an animal out of our shelter?  We could save money and the animal doesn’t have to sit in a cage.  This new view of our expense was the fiscal justification for our expanded veterinary services, community vaccination and wellness programs, expanded foster and PetNet services, AniMeals On Wheels, CART, and other programs which are not free or even cheap, but are not necessarily more expensive than the alternative of accepting ownership of an animal.  It’s why we ask everyone who brings us a pet to surrender if there’s anything we can offer which will help them keep it.

I’ve covered the benefits of high quality, affordable vet care and how it helps keep pets at home, but proving the negative is sometimes hard to do (just ask President Obama how well the “jobs saved” argument works with skeptics).  But we also have programs which can be shown to keep animals from entering the sheltering system, such as our PetNet program.

PetNet was created more than a decade ago to provide temporary foster care for the pets of victims of domestic violence who were trying to escape an abuser but could not take a pet to a shelter.  We would foster the pet and return it once the owner was settled and safe.  Nine years ago we expanded the program to include people facing extended hospital stays, personal or natural disasters, and other acute crisis of limited duration.  We now use PetNet and similar programs to assist with hundreds of animals each year, animals which would otherwise be homeless and surrendered to our shelter or others.

petnet owner

With the stroke of a pen, Lucy is returned, not surrendered.

Animals like Lucy.  Lucy’s owners were faced with a choice when their apartment was condemned in the middle of winter.  Through no fault of their own, they were suddenly homeless.  Yes, our shelter and other were here to take Lucy from them and find her a new home but why should saving an animal mean tearing her from the arms of a family who loves her?  PetNet allowed us to provide immediate housing for Lucy in our shelter, then in a foster home.  Lucy received a full veterinary work up and treatment for minor medical conditions during her foster for free.  And when her family had a new home, she was returned to her family.  No adoption.  No euthanasia.  No weeks in shelter care.  Just foster and return.

Yes, PetNet is more logistically and labor intensive but certainly no more than keeping Lucy in a kennel, and the cost was no more.  Thanks to PetNet we can point directly to Lucy and to so many others and say, “That animal was saved and is at home with their family because we invested in keeping her there, rather than here.”  How many lives and how many thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars could be saved each year if all shelters made that effort every time?

Looking at the math that way we might even wonder what the intake impact might be if we invested $250,000 a year to provide free, on demand sterilization services to 5000 animal a year in our county for a few years.  The first year we had a reduction in intake by 1,000, wouldn’t we be breaking even on the expense based on our cost of care estimates?  What about free food, training classes, medical care?  What else could we spend money on which would prevent the flow of animals rather than addressing it after the fact?  Relinquishment prevention programs work.

As a side note, Lucy’s experience also highlights the value of HSBC’s pending merger with HLLC.  We didn’t have an immediately open foster home in Berks but there was one in Lancaster.  Our collaboration is bringing many more caring people into the lives of animals who need them, without looking for some arbitrary county line to delineate our “territory”.  Collaboration, partnership, and mergers work, too.  More on that soon.

 

Share

I can be pretty hard on the professional sheltering world.  I think as an industry we often create our own problems, refuse to see and implement solutions within our grasp, and wear our “tough jobs” as a badge which should protect us from criticism and scrutiny.  Being paid to do our jobs, we deserve a little extra scrutiny into our motives and the differences between what we say and what we mean or do.

By the same token, being an unpaid volunteer or “lover of animals” doesn’t make a person a saint, a blind arbiter of animal welfare, or beyond scrutiny of motives.  That doesn’t stop many of them from thinking it does.  Just as there are shallow clockers in shelters, there are shallow animal welfare dilettante volunteers out there, too.  They can be just as selfish and mean spirited, damaging to progress, and dishonest with themselves and the community about what their true motives are as any bad shelter worker.

I see this self-delusion quite a bit when I speak with boards and volunteers from other organizations, specifically struggling organizations.  I’ll be asked for advice or assistance, listen to the usual tales of woe, and hear the list of things this unpaid and above reproach volunteer wants for their organization.  “I just want our animals to get better treatment and care in our shelters, I just want to save more lives, get all the pets sterilized before adoption, or have better qualified staff.  I just want to be able to raise more funds and find more resources to be the shelter I know we can be or to build the shelter I know we should have.  I just want this or that or the other thing for the animals, not for me.”

Most of these volunteers and board members mean it, just as most sheltering professionals mean it, too.  But I’ve taken to asking a question of them all.  What if you could have all of that, everything you say you want, but the condition was you have to resign from your positions of power in the organization?  In the long pause that follows, the volunteer and I both get to reflect on the divide between what you say you want and what you actually want, but are not saying.

What most of us, professional or volunteer, actually mean when we say we just want some something is that we want to be the person who does it.  It’s not, “I want all the animals saved in this shelter,” it’s, “I want to save all the animals in this shelter.”  That is a vast difference.

As a director, a consultant, and a volunteer board member, I’ve been in many situations in which I’ve had to face the reality that a well-meaning staff member who really wants something good for the mission they are paid to serve needs to be told, yes, we can do that thing.  We just can’t do it with you, because you are not up to the job or you, despite your best intentions, are part of what’s stopping us from accomplishing this goal we share.

That’s a tough conversation, made tougher by the reality of the livelihood you are denying that person if you make that decision, and one reason that well-intentioned but terrible employees choke our industry.  It’s just really hard to fire a good person, even if we know it’s best for the mission.  That’s why it’s my job as a paid professional, with the responsibility of looking out for over 60 employees and their families, to be really honest when I say, “I just want to do this list of important things for animals and I want me and my staff to be the ones to do it!”

Some volunteers have trouble with that “and” when it comes to them.  But sometimes the change that needs to come requires a volunteer to step back or give up control or play with the rest of the team in consensus.  Sometimes the team reaches a different consensus and the volunteer needs to decide to find a new team.  Sometimes the volunteer needs to reflect upon their own role in an organization’s shortcomings.  At all times, we need to acknowledge our own ego and our own human and sometimes selfish desires.  Yes, we want something good to happen and, yes, we want to be in control of it, too.  That’s just fine.

I got to thinking about all this because of an interesting experience I had recently with a volunteer group at an organization I work with.  There has been a long standing, if a bit loose, partnership and the volunteers asked, jokingly, for something that seemed like a lot.  We often express what we actually want when we think we are joking.   I thought about it and decided it made a lot of sense and went on to ask if they could have anything, what would they want?  The list was rattled off. I thought some more and said, “Yes.”

They could have everything they wanted and I’d even pay for it.  Tens of thousands of dollars would be the cost to make capital purchases and capital improvements but, yes.  They could have total autonomy and we’d exert no control over their program.  Yes.  The partnership would give the organization I was working with something we really wanted to accomplish, even if it involved spending our funds and giving up control- and I love’s me some control, buster, so don’t think I didn’t have to put some thought to that.

They could have everything they said they wanted, everything on their wish list, in exactly the way they wanted it, and someone else would pay for it. Yes.  They thought about it for a few days.  And they said, no.  They gave no reason, just which they were opting for a different direction.  A different direction than getting everything they said they wanted.  Huh.

My guess is that they experienced the fear that comes with accomplishment and the fear that being given what we want is a trick or the fear that allowing anyone else to do something for us somehow controls or diminishes us, but who knows?

All I know is that we need to be very careful in animal welfare to recognize the difference between what someone says they want and what they actually want.  We’d also be better off if we examined that chasm in what we tell ourselves we want.

Share