Doing more

To elaborate more on Cornbread's euthanasia yesterday, I'll copy another volunteer's response to the news:

The best way to prevent sad news emails is to constantly work for improvement and change. Whether that is pushing for more proactive programs to reduce stress on the dogs so they don't go kennel crazy, marketing the dogs and the shelter so TLAC becomes people's first option for getting a new pet, increasing rescue and foster placements so dogs with health or behavior issues have the time to heal or improve so they are adoptable, promoting spay/neuter of pets, introducing an off-site adoption program, etc., etc.. We can't relax and we can't become resigned to the killing as just something inevitable that happens. Just looking at adopt a running buddy and how the adoption rate for the featured dogs increased (5 dogs in 6 days) when we had a newspaper article, flyers in more locations, and a booth at the Farmer's Market, tells me that hard work and increased exposure can make a huge difference in the outcomes. We may not be able to save every animal this year or next year, or maybe ever, but every animal that dies in our care that wasn't terminal or dangerous when it arrived should be viewed as a failure of the system. That's the only way to learn and improve. For ideas that have helped increase the save rate to as high as 92% in communities that have adopted them wholeheartedly, try this link.

I would like to see staff return to giving warning before the dogs are killed. TLAC may not have been the right place for Lefty or Cornbread, but how do you know there wasn't a volunteer out there who really cared for one of those animals and who could have provided a foster home where they could recover? Or a rescue group that might have been able to take on the challenge, perhaps supported by a donation from volunteers who were willing and able to help in that manner? You don't have to say we're about to kill so-and-so, but a simple message saying a particular dog is deteriorating at the shelter and needs rescue, foster, or adoption immediately, with a deadline, would suffice.

This email sums it all up. These are the kinds of things we've been asking to do for years and we've never been allowed to do them. We've still had no response from staff on this email. I will definitely post something if we get anything.

Bonding "problems", Part 4

We received this from staff yesterday:

Cornbread in Kennel 55, ID A499195 had to be euthanized yesterday. His ringworm had gotten worse and worse and was not responding well to treatment. He then developed some sort of infection in his eye and we just didn't feel he was doing well here in the adoption program.

We then got another email from staff:

Everyday TLAC staff has to make tough decisions about which animals get to go to adoption and which ones don't. These decisions are never, ever made lightly. With limited kennels, limited resources and the reality of dogs in our care deteriorating no matter what we do to try to protect them - TLAC Staff makes theses decisions every day. Our hope is that before staff, and especially volunteers, get attached to animals that do not have a very good chance of ever getting reclaimed, rescued or adopted, the animal leaves the shelter as quickly and peacefully as possible.

Is this the best solution? Of course not, in a perfect world every animal would be given a chance at adoption, no matter how long it took. We are not there yet - each and every one of us is moving towards that goal in every moment of our lives - but we simply are not there yet.

This brings me to Lefty. He had a bum front left leg - no telling how long it had been that way and what it might have taken to fix it. His mouth was full of infected, abscessed teeth (the ones he had left anyway). We was high heartworm positive. He was a two year old unaltered pit bull. Could he have gotten adopted? Perhaps. But each day he was in an adoption kennel, countless other dogs, more adoptable, healthier dogs, would not have even been given a chance. We had to take all of these things into consideration when we decided to remove him from the program this morning.

We do our best to keep dogs who we truly feel are not good adoption candidates from landing in adoption kennels, but sometimes they slip through the cracks. I apologize profusely to anyone who may have become attached to Lefty during his short stay in Kennel 49.

I need to comment on a few things here. First, this sentence: "Our hope is that before staff, and especially volunteers, get attached to animals that do not have a very good chance of ever getting reclaimed, rescued or adopted, the animal leaves the shelter as quickly and peacefully as possible. "


I suppose that this confirms what I'd feared...that staff is trying to euthanize dogs faster who might have issues so that we won't become bonded to them.


Whenever they euthanize a dog and volunteers get upset, we are always told that "These situations are not about what is best or easiest on our own human emotions but on the needs of the animals. " (See letter from staff at end of this posting.)


So, it's "not about what is best or easiest on our own human emotions" when they kill a dog with whom we have bonded, but then they're killing dogs sooner, before we've had a chance to bond, to help protect us from our own emotions. Seems to me like if it's not about our own emotions, then we shouldn't be proactively killing dogs to avoid potential heartbreak in the future.


Next, the part about Lefty slipping through the cracks and making it into the adoption program, has already been commented on by another volunteer:

First, I was dismayed that Lefty was described as falling through the cracks because he made it to adoption. I would say he had every right to make it to adoption, and should have been given every chance to succeed. I would say that he fell through the cracks when he was euthanized at TLAC. I am sorry that Cornbread was killed because of ring worm and "some sort of eye infection."

Which leads me to the last piece on which I want to comment - euthanizing Cornbread for having ringworm and an eye infection. This posting is already getting very long. I think I'll save this one for the next posting.

Bonding "problems", Part 3

I talked to the volunteer coordinator this weekend about the euthanization policy and she cleared up any confusion for me. She said that the policy has not changed and that the recent euthanizations were merely forgotten about. Staff is still committed to notifying us when this happens.

On Saturday, another two were euthanized and we were notified. That makes 4 dogs in a month, which is really high. I'm very concerned that we have a trend starting, but we'll see what the next few months bring.

Open Paws

TLAC is implementing a new training program called Open Paws. You can read articles about it here and here.

Trainings for the new methods are beginning and new pilot programs are starting. One that I'm particularly excited about is feeding the dogs through puzzle toys instead of bowls. Not only are the dogs' lives being enriched while at the shelter, staff has made flyers for the kennels teaching the public about what's going on. A lot of the credit for this goes to a new staff member, who used to be a volunteer, and is now the Animal Care Supervisor.

I look forward to this new program and the results it might bring.

Mission: Orange

It's the one year anniversary of the Mission: Orange kickoff event here in Austin, called the Homeless Animals Summit. From the ASPCA's website:
"ASPCA Mission: Orange is a focused effort to create a country of humane communities, one community at a time, where animals receive the compassion and respect they deserve—a nation where there is no more unnecessary euthanasia of adoptable animals simply because of a lack of resources and awareness. "

I'm guessing that there were about 100 people at the event, including the leaders from TLAC, ATA, Emancipet, and the Humane Society, who are the partners with the ASPCA in Mission: Orange. A good number of the attendees were from other cities, though, so there were probably only about 50 Austinites. We spent the weekend brainstorming ideas for getting Austin to "no-kill". It was a great weekend that produced lots of ideas.

But just ideas. There was no one responsible for implementing any of these big ideas. After the summit, I received a few emails thanking everyone and one regarding a Mission: Orange contest (do something to promote the program, the winner gets a prize trip to NY), but nothing about the ideas that came of the weekend. There was no leadership set up to put these ideas into motion. As far as I know, not one idea from that summit weekend has been implemented.

So, around TLAC, what has changed? Nothing. There was some talk about training for staff, which may have happened, I don't know. There was talk about implementing a new program for better matching customers with pets, but that hasn't happened yet. I'm sure that something has happened, but I'll bet if you ask any volunteer at TLAC about Mission: Orange, they won't know what you're talking about.

So, not quite the impact I'd thought we see after the summit last year. The ASPCA did give a sizable donation to ATA, which is wonderful. But compare that $300,000 donation to the $6 million annual budget of TLAC and you won't be convinced that it's going to quickly solve our problems here in Austin.

The Mission: Orange website mentions 2 specific goals. The first is to increase the adoption rate by 10% in the first year. I haven't heard yet if they made this goal, but it's doubtful. I do believe that adoption numbers are up this year, but I'm not sure if we can discern the cause (not that it really matters, adoptions are up, so YAY!) Unfortunately, the adoption numbers at TLAC are paltry (rescue groups account for many more of the animals who leave alive). The number is around 3,500 per year, I need to look up the exact number, then I'll post it. So, if we can save another 350 a year, that is fabulous, but not exactly earth-shattering and it will certainly not get us to no-kill anytime soon (TLAC kills approximately 10,000 animals in a year).

The second goal is to get us to a 75% save rate by 2010. So in two years, they're going to get the rate from 50% to 75%. Hmm.

I suppose that I am a little frustrated with the ASPCA and the Mission: Orange program for more than just a lack of action here in Austin. Nathan Winograd, on his blog, claims that the ASPCA told Philadelphia that they'd be dropped as a Mission: Orange city (and lose the grant) if they didn't withdraw their support of his book tour. This is crazy! I don't understand why these groups have to be in war with each other. I don't care who does it, the animals certainly don't care who does it. If there are others out there who want to save the animals, too, shouldn't we all be supportive?

If the ASPCA came to TLAC today with a list of programs that they want to implement, I'll be the first one to sign up. Finally some leadership to get us out of this mess! After this year, I'm still waiting. Maybe we'll see something this year...we'll have to see something to get us to that 75% goal in 2010.

Gabe

In a super-cool move by staff, I was allowed to take home and foster Gabe, a dog who was not doing well at the shelter. We've had him for almost a week and he's quite a handful. He's incredibly reactive to everything. It could be night, before bed, everyone's snoozing on the couch/dog beds and he hears a dog bark a mile away and he's up and barking. Trying to drive with him in the car is bound to get me in a wreck. Forget trying to walk him. His last owners tried to deal with this problem with a shock collar, which obviously didn't help because they still returned him to the shelter.

We had a consultation last night with one of Lee Mannix's trainers. She evaluated him and told me that he has an extreme level of frustration and no idea what to do with it, which is causing this behavior. Staff noticed that he had no interest in toys at the shelter, which was odd. We will be working on getting him interested in toys and games in the next 2-3 weeks. No affection unless he has a toy in his mouth and all food must be worked for - put into a puzzle that he has to figure out to get the food. We'll go back to the trainer in 2-3 weeks to work on the reactivity problem. Until then, we have to avoid his triggers, which is going to be a challenge since everything triggers him. Even after just one day, though, he already seems less reactive in the house. I filled up a kong with a delicious treat and he worked on that on our drive over to doggy-daycare today - he didn't bark once.

I'm feeling really optimistic that he'll be highly adoptable in a few weeks. We tried getting some pictures of him, but he was too hyper and they didn't turn out well, which is too bad because he is SO CUTE. He's a great size, too - just 30 lbs at 9 months. Once his frustration levels drop and his reactivity goes away, people are going to be fighting to adopt him.

This is really important because the volunteers have been wanting to have a foster program for a really long time and staff has never been for it. It's an important part of the No-Kill Equation. Staff has mentioned that they are interested in trying this on a limited basis. I want them to see how well this can work so that they will let us do more of it.

"Studies"

One response from staff regarding their negativity about some of the dogs said this:

"In the studies that have been done about how people choose pets at a shelter and what factors have the greatest impact on whether an adoption is successful, it has been found that there are 2 consistent key factors that lead to successful, long-term placement... Get ready... 1. a soft coat! and 2. the adopters' expectations.

That's right, it's not whether a pet is a certain size, color, or breed, whether it is house-broken or not, whether it jumps up or not, whether it is friendly with other animals or children or not, whether it is easy to train or not. What matters most is that the animal has a soft coat and that an adopters' expectations of what their life will be like with that animal are close to what the pet can actually live up to."

A soft coat is what leads to successful, long-term placement. Really. That's really what she wrote. I hope that anyone who reads this, who has adopted a dog, will leave a comment on this posting and let me know if that's the reason why you've kept your dog.

Unfortunately, no sources were given to us for the studies mentioned. The second factor - the adopters' expectations - makes sense to me. However, when coupled with that first factor, I have a hard time buying into any of it.

Bonding "problems", Part 2

Here's a volunteer's response to the last email from staff on the issue of euthanization notices and why the policy seems to have changed:

It appears that our definitions of "Sadness" differ - that's unfortunate. Sadness for me, is not a label.

An animal that is brought into the adoption program, proves that that animal is mentally sound and healthy to deserve a shot at adoption. A lot of animals that qualify and don't even get this opportunity - that's tragic, but an animal that's pulled out of adoption because he/she succumbed to the stress and couldn't take it anymore (and thus now is a danger to all those around) is no less devastating. Hence, a dog's mental or physical disposition has no bearing on the sadness of a situation. Also, at the cost of being repetitive, How does informing the outcome for an animal hamper the safety of the environment? How are they even remotely related? It just sounds incredible.

Indeed, its a courtesy TLAC extends us by informing us about the status of the animals we toil and care for. Its much appreciated. Perhaps, if the staff had the time,
opportunity and encouragement to spend only an hour (or even a half) with an animal of their choice, once a week, such a courtesy might appear to be a natural and a compassionate gesture. But that's a whole different debate that needs a separate forum. But please, make no mistake, a volunteer who doesn't care much for being notified of the tragic news doesn't see the rationale or the emotions behind those to request such a courtesy. A compromise it may be, but both sides respect and empathize with other's feelings.

There also appears, and I repeat, a significant shift and contradiction in management policy. You first email categorically states, and I quote: "Notification of euthanization WILL NOT be made for an animal that must be removed right away for behavior or health issues" while your last email suggests that "Every effort to notify volunteers with a "sad news" is made . . ." So what has changed and why? Your emails do not explain this anywhere.

I appreciate Sarah for her efforts in writing a depressing email each time something happens. I think its brave and extremely difficult. Also, I don't think that TLAC management is without care, there are places where in volunteers don't have the opportunity to even express themselves as I do right now. But why do you refuse to take a hand that is offered to you? I've been here for over two years, the dogmanners program has come a very long way. Its never been as strong as it is now. How do you think this occurred? And more importantly, how do you expect it to go on, if you don't offer us the trust you expect in return? Volunteers can't expected to be dictated upon without offering a plausible explanation . . . we'd like to be seen as a worthy partner. I've said enough and I thank you for reading thus far. It's all I have to say and you won't be hearing from me on this issue anymore. This email is not directed at all at [the volunteer coordinator], I hold her in very high esteem . . . but it certainly deserves an honest introspection from management. "

And here's the result of the "honest introspection from management", yet still no direct answer acknowledging that the policy has changed or why:

Every effort will be made to notify volunteers with a "SAD NEWS" Yahoo! posting when an adoption animal is pulled from the program.

Check adoption outcome reports and "ALL" animals on our website by animal ID#. Remember to keep track of the animal ID # if you want to email me for the specific outcome of the animal.

Lizzie, Part II

The Austin American Statesman did an article on Lizzie and the Running Buddies program, which was totally awesome and probably a big factor in our recent adoption successes. I'm hoping that it will convince staff to keep this program going, since they've recently voiced concerns about it.

I want to document an email I received from another volunteer about Lizzie when the issue of staff negativity came up:

"I had the same thing happen to me with Lizzy. She only had 2 days to go before being euthanized. I was told that [the staff evaluator] had determined that Lizzy because of her behavior would not be a good candidate for adoption. But [the staff evaluator] only observed Lizzy inside her kennel and based her decision on what she saw. Once outside Lizzy was a completely different dog. I wanted to take Lizzy home for an overnight foster and get her away from the shelter. That staff member told me to focus my attention on another dog one that had a chance of being adopted and not to work with Lizzy. As a last resort I took her out on the trail that Friday night hoping someone would see her and show some interest, with no luck. Upon returning to the shelter I met a lady and one of the staff members at the front door. The lady was waiting to see Lizzy, she saw her flyer and wanted to meet with her. She immediately fell in love with the dog and adopted Lizzy."

(Hopefully you've already read the statesman article and know what a great pet Lizzie has been with her new family.)

Evaluations/temperament testing is another issue I'd like to explore more in this blog (I'll save it for a later posting). But I just want to get this thought out: Temperament testing is a great tool for evaluating the deluge of animals that come to TLAC every day. Statistically, it may be the best way with the budget that TLAC has for deciding which animals make it to the adoption program and which get euthanized. However, there's no test that is fool-proof and will accurately predict an animal's behavior 100% of the time.

Bonding "problems"

I had a very troubling conversation with staff about a month ago, which I've already once written about. In that conversation, they mentioned that they didn't like how bonded the volunteers are becoming with the dogs and that they perhaps need to start euthanizing dogs earlier who might become problems, to avoid the bond and the difficulties caused when they decide it's time to euthanize.

In the past few weeks, three dogs have been euthanized without a notice going out to the volunteers. We only know about this because of volunteers tracking dogs, noticing a dog isn't around and that it wasn't on the list of adopted dogs, and inquiring from staff in person to find out what happened. We've had an understanding with staff that we be notified of an adoption dog getting euthanized (as opposed to the unlucky 30 animals a day who are euthanized in the stray area and never even make it into the adoption program). I sent an email to find out if the policy had changed and here's the response:

"Notification of pending euthanization will occur only when we believe the animal is safe enough to leave in the adoption program. Notification of euthanization WILL NOT be made for an animal that must be removed right away for behavior or health issues. It is the responsibility of TLAC management to keep our environment safe and healthy. We respectfully ask that you trust us to make the right decision for everyone and every animal - even though it is emotionally difficult for all of us. We are still committed to notifying volunteers of any "Sad News" postings when appropriate."

Another volunteer replied to the group, expressing his disagreement of only getting the "Sad News" emails for certain dogs and bringing up the trust issue. Here was the response:

"The "Sad News" euthanization notification has not changed. This applies when the adoptable animal has been in the adoption run for an extended period of time. What makes it "sad" is the animal is healthy and its' behavior is fine, it just hasn't had an adoption We notify volunteers about the five day pending euthanization if an adoption is not made. This notification is a courtesy for the volunteers desiring to know the specific outcome of the animal. For volunteers that do not want to know, the "Sad News" posting is a compromise. But when the health or behavior of the animal compromises safe conditions for the public, staff, volunteers and other animals, it is the responsibility of TLAC management to remove the animal immediately. Every effort to notify volunteers with a "Sad News" notice is made. Does it always happen? No.

Why weren't you told? I can't say specifically without knowing the animal ID number. Is it because the animal was actually adopted with the new adopters giving a new name? Are you assuming the animal was euthanized because it no longer is in our care? That is not the case with all animals. With an animal ID number, I will be
happy to look up the animals to confirm their outcome. I cannot do it by name. "

By the way, two of the dogs' names were Abner and Lefty. Apparantly, we have so many Abners and Leftys that they can't find those dogs in the system using just their names nor can anyone remember them.

All of the staff responses have come from the volunteer coordinator, who does not have knowledge of the individual dogs. However, all of staff are included in these emails. The same staff members who told the volunteer about the dogs getting euthanized when she asked are seeing this email thread. So far, none of them have come forward to tell the group what has happened to the dogs. They're just letting the volunteer coordinator tell us that without an animal id, they don't know what happened, so we should just assume the dog has been adopted.

I'm sure that this isn't the end of this issue and I'll have another post about it soon.

Staff negativity, defensiveness

Recently, the volunteers have been talking with each other about our experiences hearing extreme negativity coming from staff to customers about certain dogs in the adoption program. Here are some examples:

Someone on staff evaluated a dog and on the way back to the pen with him told me that he doesn't belong in the adoption program (read: needs to be euthanized) and is a total nightmare. Soon after, the dog was adopted and was immediately calm and happy in his new home with another dog and cat.

A customer was in the adoption office and mentioned having a chihuahua at home and is interested in adopting the pit bull, Chickpea. As soon as the staff member heard this, she said "You have a dog at home? You do NOT want Chickpea." Chickpea plays very rough and did not do well on one meet and greet. The other dog wanted to be left alone, but she kept wanting to play. Chickpea had many play buddies at TLAC and got along great with them. So based on this one meet and greet, the adopter had immediately turned off the customer without giving it a chance. Remember, staff rarely interacts with the dogs. They base their comments to customers on a few items in their database.

One staff member told me one day how much she hates her job. Not that it's hard or frustrating, but that she "hates" it.

A couple was in this weekend looking at Chickpea. An experienced volunteer introduced them to the dog and talked to them for a long time about her special needs and how she'll need training and a strong leader. They were very open to all she had to say. They went in to the adoption office to fill out the paperwork to adopt her.

A little while later, the volunteer noticed them talking to another volunteer, so she walked over and saw the the women in this couple was crying. Apparantly, the staff member told her that Chickpea should never go to a dog park and would attack other dogs on walks in their neighborhood. Yes, the same Chickpea who had plenty of play buddies at the shelter.

The volunteers have seen what happens when an adoption match is bad. Usually when a dog gets returned after being adopted, it gets immediately euthanized. We've had some of our favorites get adopted, Yay!, to be returned in a few days and euthanized. It's devastating. We strongly believe that informing adopters about all behaviors noted at the shelter, and their possible implications, is crucial to ensuring a permanent match.

This is not what we've seen with staff, though. Instead, we're seeing extreme negativity about dogs and quick, biting comments that would scare off the most dedicated adopters.

So this volunteer sent out an email to the volunteers and staff, explaining the recent comments that volunteers have heard, along with this recent one, and suggestions that we all stop and think about how we relay negative information about a dog to customers. Not hiding anything, but not condemning the dog, either. This was staff's first response:

"It is not our job to be negative, it is our job to be informative and educational. Believe me, we want long stays dogs into appropriate homes as much as anyone because we see daily the dogs that do not even get a chance to come to adoption. Staff was very appropriately trying to make sure the adopters expectations met those with which living with Chickpea would be like...I feel confident that all of us, volunteers and staff, did the best possible job with this dog. We need to Remember, we are all on the same team. We all want the same thing and we need to trust in each other that we are all doing the best we can. "

Ok, the volunteer specifically said that we need to be completely honest about the dog. She only said that perhaps we need to reconsider how that message is being delivered. This was her response:

"I'm sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. Over and over I have heard the first words out of a counselor's mouth about a particular dog be very negative and discouraging. It is often an off-the-cuff reaction, not a well-thought out counseling session based on knowledge of that adopter's circumstances and skill level. I would not be surprised to find that many of our visitors find the attitude they are met with not only discouraging, but also demeaning to them. Worse, yet, the comments have often been ones that I found to be overstated or inaccurate based on my experiences. I'm certainly not claiming to be the all-knowing arbiter of dog behavior. The volunteers try to respect staff judgment. But very often, it is the volunteers who spend numerous hours with the dogs. It is the volunteers who see how they interact with other dogs and people over and over and over in the courtyard. If anyone has actually seen the potential adopter interacting with a given dog, it is a volunteer. So I think our judgment has value as well.

I can think of 2 dogs off the top of my head (Diesel and Santa anyone?) that I really liked that went to inappropriate situations and were returned and killed. So I know the stakes of a bad adoption. My post did not question informing or educating adopters,or ask staff and volunteers to have a Pollyanna attitude about the challenges of some of our dogs. It asked everyone to think about how they convey that information. This was intended to make everyone examine their own actions and re-think bad habits they may have unconsciously fallen into. And if this is a shelter policy, then it is a request to the management that the policy be changed.

Finally, I will once again ask everyone, staff and volunteers, to think of the numerous reports we have gotten about dogs that were troubled in the shelter and became model citizens once they left. When the first words out of your mouth are going to be the equivalent of, "you don't want THAT dog," please stop and think for a minue about whether you are unfairly condemning that dog. "

So staff replied, stating again that they must give the whole truth to the adopters, so the volunteer replied, stating again that she agrees the whole truth must be given to the adopters, she's just asking that everyone think about how they deliver their message. Then staff sent out this message:

As a courtesy to other volunteers, please do not continue to carry this thread into the Dog Manners Yahoo Group. This conversation is better served between the key parties and not the entire Dog Manners Volunteers - who often just want to come in and interact with the dogs without getting into these in-depth differences of opinion. We could not do all that is achieved without the abundant support, dedication, and cooperation from our volunteers. WE give a huge thanks to those of you continuing to serve the shelter. Volunteers are here to support the shelter in the manner in which TLAC Management deems to be in the best interest of the animals in our care. If you want to address the decisions of the TLAC Management team, bring your concerns to the team and not to the entire Yahoo Group.

Barney, Part II and more happy news...

After almost 4 months at the shelter, Barney was adopted this weekend. Not only that, but about 8 of our long stays, some with some difficult issues, have been adopted in the last two weeks. According to staff, the adoption numbers for January are way up compared to last year's January (haven't been given any percentages, though).