I founded a low-cost and free spay/neuter clinic, Emancipet, in 1999.
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
39More
Maddie's Fund - Using Data to Make Austin a No-Kill City - 0 views
www.maddiesfund.org/...ake_Austin_a_No_Kill_City.html
esterilización distémper mitos datos estudios no kill austin *
shared by pepa garcía on 03 Sep 12
- No Cached
-
The thought was to decrease the number animals entering the shelter through fewer births in the community so fewer would have to be euthanized in the shelter for lack of space.
-
By 2008 and after over 60,000 spay/neuter surgeries, I had expected to see a bigger reduction in city shelter intake numbers.
- ...36 more annotations...
-
Although there was an initial decrease in euthanasia from 85% to 50% between 1999 and 2001, after 2001 the AAC (the only open admission shelter in Austin, Texas) consistently took in over 23,000 animals and euthanized an average of 50 - 55% of the animals admitted each year.
-
In fact, AAC euthanized over 14,000 animals in 2007, which was a decade record and showed me that my efforts were not decreasing shelter intake or euthanasia like I had hoped.
-
The other piece of data that was eye-opening to me in 2008 was that the number of AAC live outcomes stayed static at 10,000 per year, year after year, even after budgetary increases.
-
By then, the City of Austin and the Austin nonprofit animal welfare partners were providing substantial community services for spaying, neutering, vaccinations, and wellness clinics; however, the city's live releases had not changed at all in spite of the wealth of community resources that were geared towards lowering euthanasia.
-
It was clear that the city had a system that was capable of producing no more than 10,000 live outcomes per year, regardless of intake numbers, which meant that euthanasia only fluctuated when intake numbers fluctuated. If intake went up, euthanasia went up. If intake went down, euthanasia went down.
-
For years, the city had been measuring "inputs" for city performance standards such as the number of spay/neuters performed, the number of microchips placed, the number of rabies vaccines given; and with the large amounts of city and donor funds going into free and low-cost spay/neuter, it appeared to politicians and foundations from a performance measure standpoint that Austin was at the top of its game.
-
The thing that really struck me was that although "outputs" such as euthanasia, adoption, return to owner, and transfers were being documented and measured, decisions to directly impact those numbers were not being driven by their measurement. Funds were never requested to directly improve live outcomes and city staff was not being directed to strive for higher live outcome numbers. In fact, there was no live outcome improvements projected for at least the five years after 2007 and that was apparent as plans for capacity in building a new shelter got underway.
-
It bothered me that we had no real conclusive studies that showed the impact of spay/neuter on euthanasia in the shelter
-
I felt strongly that there had to be a way to save more lives at the shelter and a more direct way to measure the work that provides that impact.
-
If it takes longer than a decade to see an impact at the shelter euthanasia level through spay/neuter, the work can never be tweaked to have a bigger impact.
-
There had to be a more direct method to save lives that could be measured month-to-month and tweaked quickly if the desired effect is not seen.
-
It appeared that a new and different kind of work needed to be created to really get measurable results on euthanasia figures since it also appeared that all current resources were operating at their max.
-
It was apparent to me that I needed to change what I was doing to effect faster change in the community.
-
The American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) Demographic Sourcebook dispelled my belief that there were not enough homes.
-
In the Greater Austin Area, AVMA calculates that at least 75,000 homes take in a pet less than one year old each year, and the ASPCA has reported that only 20 - 25% come from shelters and rescues. We only had to find homes for up to 14,000 pets per year.
-
the medical help that I provided did not help the sheltered animals leave alive in any larger numbers.
-
These were animals with mange or kennel cough, minor behavior issues like being scared, or animals with minor injuries. APA created a large-scale foster program to provide short-term foster for these animals as they overcame their minor problems.
-
By bringing in animals from other shelters, APA is able to prevent adopters from becoming pet store pet buyers and thus save a whole lot more lives.
-
adult large breed dogs with behavior issues are adopted each year because of improved customer service,
-
APA rescued over 5,000 animals last year. No cat, kitten, small breed dog, puppy of any breed, or large breed friendly dog, including pit bulls, died in the City of Austin in 2011 simply because it didn't have a home.
Tax breaks for pet foster parents...make sure you claim yours - Philadelphia Animal Wel... - 0 views
Foster a Lonely Pet for the Holidays 2010 - 0 views
'A Frightening Time in America': An Interview with David Foster Wallace by Ostap Karmod... - 0 views
3More
The Lie at the Heart of the Killing : Nathan J Winograd - 0 views
-
Because, like the pet overpopulation, they have been told over and over again, and for years on end, that it is.
-
Whereas the other programs of the No Kill Equation such as foster care, comprehensive adoption programs and proactive redemptions which are vitally important—even more essential—to saving lives than spay/neuter place the responsibility for lifesaving on the shelter; spay and neuter places the responsibility on the public.
8More
Wish You Were Here : Nathan J Winograd - 0 views
www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=5910
refugios no kill jennifer winograd artículos mitos ecuación programas lógica perros tp
shared by pepa garcía on 28 Aug 12
- No Cached
-
At a well run No Kill animal shelter, there are a variety of ways to respond to animals, depending on the reason that animal is in the shelter in the first place. There is not a one-size fits-all strategy of impound, holding period, adoption or killing, as is common in traditional, poorly run, high kill shelters. Each animal is treated as an individual, and the needs of every animal are addressed and met on a case-by-case basis.
-
When their animal control officers find lost animals in the field – they knock on doors or call the numbers on tags so that they can take the animal home instead of impound him/her.
-
If the animal is impounded, shelter staff is efficient at cross checking lost and found reports, so that the number of lost animals that are reclaimed by their people is much higher, and they have hours that allow people with lost pets to conveniently visit the shelter to reclaim them.
- ...5 more annotations...
-
Some animals entering a shelter are free-living cats. A No Kill shelter will spay/neuter and release those cats instead of kill them. Likewise, injured animals will receive medical attention, and then go into foster homes, as will other sick animals, orphaned neonatals, and dogs with behavior issues that need rehabilitation. And, lastly, further reducing the number of animals a shelter has to find homes for are local rescue groups. These groups take some of the animals entering the shelter, and a well-run No Kill shelter considers such organizations valuable allies, and has a friendly, cooperative relationship with th
-
the problem is not “pet overpopulation,” but a lack of imagination, commitment, and determination to treat each animal as an individual with distinct needs that must be met.
9More
Is No Kill More Difficult In Big Cities? « No-Kill Communities - 0 views
-
In this post, I look at the statistics and come to the conclusion that the answer to the question “Is no kill more difficult in big cities” is “no.”
-
So why do we keep hearing people say that no kill is a small-town phenomenon that cannot succeed in big cities?
- ...6 more annotations...
-
Big cities have a concentrated population from which to draw volunteers, fosters, and donors, and they also have ready availability of expertise in areas such as marketing and grant proposals.
-
if we could magically replace every old-fashioned shelter director in the US today with a director who supports no kill and has the ability to implement the No Kill Equation, then we could be a no-kill nation by the end of this year.
-
One point which needs to be added is that larger cities not only have more resources to draw from, they tend to have lower per capita intake rates.
15More
A commendable legislative measure to spare more pets - Our Take - BradentonHerald.com - 0 views
www.bradenton.com/...mendable-measure-to-spare.html
no kill márketing florida adopción fotos voluntarios fotógrafos
shared by pepa garcía on 27 Nov 11
- No Cached
-
intends to phase out euthanasia and progressively increase the pet “live release” rate from 61 percent to above 90 percent sometime next year. Only terminally ill, injured and suffering pets as well as vicious dogs will continue to be euthanized.
-
Manatee pet rescue and animal welfare organizations aim to boost pet fostering and adoption and promote free or low cost spay and neutering programs.
-
Thus, it would be illegal for shelters to kill animals when a qualified non-profit rescue organization expresses a willingness to spare the creature.
- ...12 more annotations...
-
requiring public animal control agencies and shelters maintain a registry of private rescue groups willing to take animals earmarked for euthanasia.
-
Animal advocates point to a No Kill Nation statewide survey of rescue groups that shows 63 percent of the organizations encountered a government shelter that rejected a collaborative approach and killed animals instead.
-
helters have a variety of rescue access policies, with half the respondents saying the criteria sometimes depended on the whims of staff on duty
-
An additional benefit is a savings for taxpayers as shelters lower operating costs by releasing animals to rescue groups.
-
Bennett cites both those savings and the additional shelter revenue from adoptions as rescue organizations would be charged a fee for saving animals.
-
The city and county of San Francisco saved almost $500,000 in animal control costs with a similar rescue access law and transferred 4,000 additional animals to private groups, according to Florida-based No Kill Nation.
-
a group of volunteer photographers is joining forces to boost the no-kill movement by shooting more becoming images and posting those at a new website, www.picture themadopted.com,
1More
Animals Petition: We Want Real Change, Not A Continuation of Failed Policies and Progra... - 0 views
2More
Small town animal shelter virtually no-kill | News - Home - 0 views
18More
Op-ed: Creating a No Kill Norfolk | AltDaily : Creating and celebrating local culture i... - 0 views
www.altdaily.com/...reating-a-no-kill-norfolk.html
norfolk no kill peta winograd shelters ordenanzas leyes
shared by pepa garcía on 19 Sep 12
- No Cached
-
in Norfolk, Virginia, seven out of 10 cats and almost half of all dogs are still being needlessly killed. Why? Because shelter officials are mired in the 19th century model of animal control based on an “adopt a few, kill the rest” mentality.
-
We’ve requested that the City Council pass an ordinance requiring Norfolk to run its shelter in line with those of the most successful communities in the nation, by requiring simple, commonsense and cost-effective alternatives to killing that most animal lovers would be shocked to learn are not already being comprehensively implemented voluntarily.
- ...15 more annotations...
-
One of the proposals is to make it illegal for Norfolk shelters to kill animals using taxpayer money when qualified non-profit rescue organizations are willing to save them at private expense.
-
That number now stands at over 58,939—a 370% increase in annual lifesaving, all at no cost to taxpayers.
-
Another of the Norfolk proposals would end the practice of killing animals simply because the mandated stray holding period has passed.
-
Before the California law went into effect, only 12,526 animals were being transferred from shelters to rescue groups statewide every year.
-
Can anyone with even a hint of common sense or compassion actually say it is better to kill baby kittens than have volunteers bottle feed them?
-
Right now, excluding laws imposed by health departments regarding the use of controlled substances, the disposition of rabid and potentially aggressive animals and mandated holding periods, shelter directors in this country have essentially unlimited discretion as to how they operate their facilities.
-
They can prevent other non-profits, such as rescue groups and other shelters, from saving the lives of animals in their custody.
-
Where shelters are not willing to do these things voluntarily or do so on a limited basis when they should be doing it for every single animal, every single time, we must pass laws forcing them to do so.
-
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity.
3More
Do Pets Belong on a College Campus? - 0 views
-
At at least Stephens, some students have also applied for pet-friendly housing to offer foster care to animals from local shelters.
-
Another issue that's been raised is the number of pets being abandoned or dumped at shelters at the end of the year by irresponsible students who didn’t consider what would happen when they had to either return home or find pet-friendly off-campus housing and roommates.