By Ardena Perry
Animal welfare is a sensitive subject. Most people want to do the right thing; we just can't agree on what that is.
There are "no kill" advocates who believe life at any cost is acceptable. Many of us find that appalling, knowing that animals become less adoptable and suffer mentally with prolonged kenneling -- isolation from others, chaos, despondency. A dog does not know if it is in the county facility, the Humane Society or a puppy mill; the kennels are the same -- rows of barking dogs in concrete runs with chain link gates. In the county facility the stay is short; in the Humane Society it can go for months, until the animals go kennel crazy or develop health problems that go with extended confinement.
We face hard choices: euthanasia or life behind bars. Neither is something we would pick for the cute puppy of just a few months ago, so can we agree that neither is "humane" and meet somewhere in the middle, putting what is best for both spirit and body of our companion animals first.
From January until Sept. 18, there were 167 dogs and
221 cats, all healthy, all adoptable, euthanized at Washoe County Regional Animal Services. They were killed because the Humane Society was full of long-term residents. The contract that was agreed to when we built this regional facility was that WCRAS would take in all strays, and Nevada Humane Society would transfer animals from WCRAS and be responsible for all adoptions. Former pets leave Animal Control in only four ways: redemption, rescue, euthanasia or transfer to NHS.
When the Humane Society pursues a "no kill" policy, it becomes overcrowded, and animals are not transferred from the county side without an adoption hold. Five days to live or die, based on space, nothing more, while Humane Society animals languish for many months before a rescue group takes them, so they are kenneled in a different location, but nonetheless, kenneled.
From January to August, there were 252 dogs taken by rescue groups. I commend their effort. However, transferring the problem is not solving it. Owner surrenders now are being asked to come back, so that portion of the NHS contract is being sidestepped, and still animals are warehoused while others die, without being seen. From my determinations, the recidivism rate is about 10 percent. Storing animals is cruel; it is demoralizing to be returned and readopted, and returned.
The Nevada Humane Society was built with the funding of George Whittell in the spirit of the Humane Society of the United States. That money rolled over into the current facility. The agenda of the no-kill advocacy, based in California, is not feasible in Washoe County. It was never the intention of the voters to circumvent his intentions.
Let Animal Control handle adoptions. Keep the Humane Society as we voted for it.
Ardena Perry lives in Sparks.
2 comments:
The model NHS followed was that adoption rates had to increased, as studies showed that the shelters that had the pricier adoption costs had the highest rates of adoption. Whether it was Dr. Hurley's or someone else is unknown, but the thought was that the older, more difficult cats to place would kept in the group rooms while the adult cats would be housed in the regular cat kennels. Kitten with/without mothers were to be housed the medium sized corner units that would accomodate them more easly. NHS believed that the draw to the new shelter would be so great that cats and dogs would fly out the doors with the exceptions as noted. It was believed the same model would work for dogs, but originally dogs were not supposed to be housed together. More long term or very large dogs were to be housed in the larger double kennels and again were expected to flow through the shelter quickly since NHS would not have to competent with WCRAS doing adoptions as well. The public came from far and near to dump animals a rate higher than what was anticipated. So from the very beginning, the theorized plan fell apart to the point that they closed the in-house shelter store, shut wildlife rehabilitation, refused to take in surrenders, and loaded every square inch they could find to house cats and the smaller dogs, using spaces that were dedicated to wildlife, grooming, the store, etc. By 2007, the shelter was housing 500-600 cats and over 200 dogs in a shelter that was designed to house 150 cats and less than 100 dogs (not exact #s). When they got overloaded and unable to give the dogs and cats away, they began an aggressive foster parent program and used the old Reno Animal Control facility on the neighoboring property to take the over flow. The rescue groups quickly filled to bursting. I do not see any way to come to a consensus fixing the problems when they are hoarding animals and refuse to entertain any ideas on how to alleviate the situation. They refuse to accept their plan failed. It failed the animals of Washoe County and the public. It is because of this the TNR was so intensively promoted. They could not take in the surrenders due space limitations. They didn't want the ferals that were at animal control either. Unless NHS is willing to make radical policy changes, the TNR in particular will put more and more cats on the streets. You are correct in that the voters in Washoe County, Sparks, and Reno were promised one thing and something else was delivered. This will likely continue until one of 2 things happens: bankruptcy or a public up-rising.
I favor a public uprising, ad follow the advice of many of the comments I get here take the cats and put them on the council's lawns.
Post a Comment