Houston Texas' Mayor's Animal Protection Task Force
On January 26, 2005 the Mayor of the City of Houston appointed an animal Protection Task Force to study the problems associated with the city's stray pet population and make recommendations for a community-wide initiative to better protect animals and citizens. Their report in November of that year identified a variety of problems with the operation of Houston's Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care (BARC). At the time the task force was appointed BARC was a virtual carbon copy of todays Edmonton Animal Services department. Consequently most of the problems and recommendations of this task force are applicable to Edmonton today.
As with Edmonton Animal Services, Houston's Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care was not primarily an animal shelter - it was the city pound. It was located in an out of the way industrial area of Houston some six miles north of the downtown. There were no signs on the freeway or elsewhere to direct visitors to the facility and it was difficult to find. The facility was old, consisting of extremely small, cramped cages for animals similar to those used in medical research labs. Like Houston's facility, Edmonton's facility is located in an industrial area just north of the Yellowhead Trail. The facility itself is poorly marked with no public parking other than that which is available on the street. Signage on the main thoroughfares is poor and easily missed by members of the public attempting to find the facility. As Animal Services does not allow members of the public to view the kennel facilities it is impossible to determine the size or condition of this part of the facility.
The Task Force found that while BARC explained it's high euthanasia rate on the grounds that the majority of the pets it receives are adoptable it had no policy guiding the distinction between adoptable or unadoptable animals. In addition the task force noted a strong bias in favor of euthanasia. It concluded that BARC's decision to declare an animal unadoptable was essentially a policy choice to euthanize the overwhelming percentage of pets admitted to the facility. Although Edmonton Animal Services does not provide any information to the public regarding it's policies it is not possible to determine the criteria it uses in deciding to euthanize an animal. In light of the high euthanasia rates which can be derived from the very minimal statistics Edmonton Animal Service will release coupled with it's refusal to allow adoptions it is clear that there is a strong bias for euthanasia within Edmonton Animal Services.
As with Edmonton's Animal Services the overwhelming majority of animals admitted to BARC's facility were euthanized if the owner did not reclaim them within the mandatory three or six day holding period. The task force concluded that years of high euthanasia rates and periodic news stories regarding the mistreatment of animals had branded BARC as a place for the killing of animals not their adoption. The effect of this reputation caused many Houstonians to shun BARC. In spite of the level of secrecy surrounding Edmonton Animal Services and the refusal of the director and other senior management to respond to inquiries from the public there is a significant degree of suspicion and a lack of trust on the part of many Edmontonians. This image was further cemented in the minds of many Edmontonians with the aggressive, threatening campaign announced by the Director of Animal Services this past spring regarding the licensing of cats.
Houston's task force found that, like Edmonton Animal Services, BARC did not actively try to place animals in it's care. It had no job positions assigned to the adoption program and did not allow volunteers to assist in the facility's adoption program. Even though BARC was not actively trying to place adoptable animals in it's care it at least had dome type of an adoption program in place unlike Edmonton which has no adoption program, whatsoever, in place. The task force noted that the only effort made by BARC to place the animals in it's care was to list them on it's website. Even this minute effort on BARC's part to place these animals is more than Edmonton Animals Services does. While Edmonton Animal Services maintains a website of what is alleged to be all of the animals in the pound facility it is of absolutely no use in finding the animals new homes as no adoptions are permitted from the facility.
The Houston task force noted that BARC had historically refused to recruit or allow volunteers to help adopt out animals at the pound facility itself resulting in BARC placing very few pets. Edmonton Animal Services takes this a step further by opposing the use of volunteers in any capacity whatsoever. According to Edmonton Animal Services and one sitting member of Council this opposition is due primarily to the ludicrous rationalization that it would be too expensive to utilize volunteers. It is beyond belief that the costs associated with the use of volunteers would be too high for Edmonton Animal Services when virtually every other animal services organization, including the Edmonton Humane Society, recruit and use volunteers extensively. The Houston task force state that it believed that volunteers are essential to the success of a non-profit shelter adoption program. It is worth noting that the Ottawa Humane Society, which operated with a surplus in 2006 uses volunteers extensively.
It seems far more plausible that Edmonton Animal Services opposition to the use of volunteers is due to the desire of the department's director and management to maintain a culture of secrecy regarding the operation of the pound and the department in general. This secrecy is calamitous to the animals and unacceptable for a department that is funded by taxpayer dollars.
The Houston task force condemned BARC's over-reliance on euthanasia by stating that, "the choice to euthanize is a relic of an outdated belief that pets are disposable property and that shelters exist to kill unwanted pets "humanely" not help them." It is clear that this belief is pervasive throughout the management of Edmonton Animal Services. The tragic consequence of this belief is that vast numbers of healthy animals are killed by Edmonton Animal Services each year rather than being given the chance to find new homes.
The report from the task force concludes with a significant number of recommendations, many of which are applicable to Edmonton Animal Services as well. I will include a number of these in the final section of this report.