pepa garcía's List: el mito de la esterilización

• the medical help that I provided did not help the sheltered animals leave alive in any larger numbers.
• I founded a low-cost and free spay/neuter clinic, Emancipet, in 1999.
• 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.
• 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
• and that the labors of all my work were not something I could see an impact from in a decade.
• 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.
• This seemed very doable when 75,000 homes are open each year for incoming pets.
• Using Data to Identify and Fill in the Gaps
• The first strategy
• The second strategy
• Using Data to Develop Programs: Filling the Gaps
• off-site adoption programs
• 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.
• increase the number of adoption venues
• additional exposure.
• neonatal nursery with all the supplies needed for around-the-clock kitten care
• • muestra al momento de la acción su argumentación. muestra que teniendo números, datos de lo que se hace y n se hace, se puede diseñar programas necesarios
• again built up a large-scale medical foster base for all the injured and ill animals.
• large breed dogs with behavior problems.
• Using Data to Re-Assess and Fine-Tune Programs
• The Austin community's demand for adopting a pet is higher than the supply from AAC
• 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,
• pet-matching practices,
• behavior modification
• 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.

38 more annotations...

• Does it matter that so many people still believe these myths? I think the answer to that is a resounding “yes,”
• because these myths seriously undermine the message of no kill.
• Both of the myths take the responsibility for shelter killing off of shelter management (where it belongs) and put it on the “irresponsible public.”
• Putting the responsibility for shelter killing on the public makes working for no kill a discouraging and hopeless endeavor, because the public is not going to change.
• For that reason, someone who believes that spay-neuter is the only solution to a pet overpopulation crisis is not going to be a very effective proponent of no kill.
• We need to have a bright line between the myth that shelter killing is caused by the irresponsible public and the truth, which is that shelter killing is the responsibility of shelter management.

4 more annotations...

• What is the single, most crucial step to becoming a No Kill community?
• If you ask 100 animal welfare professionals this question, all 100 would say spay/neuter. But all 100 would be wrong.
• That is not to say that high volume, low cost sterilization services aren’t important, they are
• But that is not why most dogs and cats are currently being killed in shelters. It isn’t “pet overpopulation.”
• is an overpopulation of shelter directors mired in the failed philosophies of the past and complacent with the status quo.
• We know how to stop the killing, but many shelter directors refuse to implement the No Kill model
• As a result, a widespread, institutionalized culture of lifesaving is not possible without wholesale regime change in shelters and national animal protection groups.
• Consequently, the most important single act—and the crucial first step—in achieving a No Kill nation is for private citizens to demand the firing of the current leadership of most animal control shelters across the country.
• And to replace them with compassionate ones who reject killing as a method for achieving results.
• The last five years have proved that. There are now dozens of No Kill communities across the country, some of which have ended the killing even before a comprehensive spay/neuter program has been put in place.
• Despite that, many animal welfare professionals and large organizations continue to sing the mantra that spay/neuter is not just the most important thing, it is the only thing that really matters.
• They did it through regime change and adoptions, not spay/neuter.
• the shelter was full and a spay/neuter initiative would not have helped a single one of those animals already in the shelter
• We needed adoptions
• and programs that kept animals alive long enough to get adopted like foster care, medical care, and behavior rehabilitation

13 more annotations...

• According to empirical evidence, the overwhelming majority of Americans have already spayed or neutered their pets.
• the only proven way to increase spay/neuter compliance is through the provision of low-cost and free spay-neuter services, not through regressive laws that focus on punishing poor families rather than empowering responsible behavior.

• One of the programs of the No Kill Equation is high volume, low cost spay/neuter services:  "Low cost, high volume spay/neuter will quickly lead to fewer animals entering the shelter system, allowing more resources to be allocated toward saving lives."  
• These laws are not having the desired effect i.e. a reduction in kill rates in local animal shelters.
• MSNL do not decrease the number of animals entering or being killed in shelters.
• increased voluntary sterilization does help reduce the number of animals entering shelters
• MSNL have resulted in more abandoned animals, higher shelter admissions, higher kill rates, lower compliance with licensing and rabies vaccination laws, and radically increased costs for animal control. 
• People become afraid to get pet licenses because proof of sterilization is required. 
• They are afraid to go to a veterinarian for rabies shots or medical care because veterinarians are required to report them
• People abandon their pets because they fear fines and penalties.
• Numerous studies have shown that the primary reason people do not sterilize their pets is costs
• When the result of not sterilizing is an unaffordable fine or confiscation/impoundment of the pet, animals die.
• more than 80 percent of owned cats in the US are already sterilized
• This means that the majority of unsterilized cats are unowned strays.
• MSNL would do nothing to increase the sterilization of unowned cats and would not reduce their deaths in shelters.
• Also, MSNL are a nightmare to enforce.
• hey burden already underfunded, understaffed animal control departments with more responsibilities.
• Each community must hire more animal control officers to enforce them so an enormous amount of additional money is spent to enforce a draconian law when a much better use of those funds would be to provide low cost or free spay/neuter services.
• immediately after passing MSNL, kill rates began to rise in L.A.
• after MSNL were passed, for the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased;
• successful no kill shelters have stopped the killing without these laws.
• Even though the author claimed that the economic downturn has caused kill rates to rise in L.A., clearly this isn’t the correct explanation.
• All of these shelters dropped their kill rates without MSNL.
• It is obvious that Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws are not a factor that helps to stop the killing in shelters. 

20 more annotations...

• Remember this: It doesn’t take five years to implement alternatives to killing. It doesn’t take five years to set up a foster program, to recruit volunteers, or to set up offsite adoption venues. All of these things can be done in a matter of days, weeks, months, whatever needs dictate to prevent killing. No Kill requires action, not endless planning and five years of fundraising. In fact, the communities across the country that have ended the killing of healthy and treatable animals, saving well in excess of 90% of all intakes, did so virtually overnight; as new leadership took over the shelter and did what the former refused to do: comprehensively implement alternatives to killing.

• • 1. No Kill News posted an article using statistical analysis to prove No Kill can be achieved regardless of human population and the claim that No Kill cannot be achieved or is harder to achieve in big cities is bunk: http://bit.ly/RgH5Nv. Cities like New York and Los Angeles have to stop making excuses and start making changes.
• 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.”
• • notable el uso de la lengua, enfatizando el pensamiento lógico
• So why do we keep hearing people say that no kill is a small-town phenomenon that cannot succeed in big cities?
• I could just as easily come up with a list of factors that could make no kill easier in big cities
• 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.
• What does correlate with no kill success? No-kill leadership at the shelter.
• 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.
• We need to focus on regime change, not on distractions like population size.
• the impediment was Washoe County’s regressive director
• 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.

9 more annotations...

• An HSUS/Maddie’s Fund survey has determined that 23.5 million Americans will take in a dog or cat next year. 17 million have not yet made a decision where that pet will come from.
• “In the U.S., 6 to 8 million animals enter shelters annually,
• about half are euthanized.
• If we convince less than 20% of these 17 million potential adopters to adopt from a shelter
• and if those shelters keep the animals alive while homes are being found
• the killing stops.
• The numbers are overwhelmingly in the animals’ favor. This is why the No Kill Equation has worked, always, wherever it has been rigorously applied.
• A brave city councilman, Andy Protogyrou, has proposed that Norfolk become a No Kill city
• Nothing would alter the landscape of animal welfare more than this: to have the city in which PETA is headquartered demonstrate that shelter killing is entirely unnecessary.
• Still, you must decide. The No Kill Equation depends upon the community.

8 more annotations...

• The author feels strongly that, in order to reverse the presently destructive impacts of Human Technology on the Global Biosphere, a Transformative Revolution in Human Consciousness must first take place.
• Such a “Magnificent Revolution” would take the form of Twelve Futuristic MetaStrategies…each of which would represent a Key SocioEcological Paradigm in itself. E
• the author feels we must move rapidly and efficiently beyond the entanglements of 20th Century Thinking
• and blaze adventurous new pathways into the Future.
• Together we must find the courage to explore the promising applications of alternative leading-edge Technologies,
• “If these Twelve MetaStrategies can be successfully integrated into the Biological and Social Fabric of Planet Earth, Humans can successfully complete their co-evolutionary journey into the Third Millennium and beyond…instilled with a renewed spirit of Enthusiasm, Enlightened Accomplishment, and Joyful Satisfaction for their new symbiotic relationship with Planet Earth and their Fellow Humans.”

4 more annotations...