The FixAustin.Org Blog

Texas Shelter Budget/Performance Comparison

2011-09-19T12:09:00.001-05:00

Last night, we spent some time gathering information on area shelters. The results were pretty shocking, and we'll continue to release more information as we can.

Shelter Intake Expenses Live Release
Town Lake (Austin) 24,542 ('09-'10) $5.5 million ('09-'10) 71% ('09-'10)*
SPCA of Texas (Dallas) 8,280 (2010) $8.45 million (2010) 65% (2010)
Houston SPCA 21,767 (2009) $6.83 million (2009) 49% (2009)**
Dallas Animal Services ~34,000 annually $7.7 million (2010) 26% (2010)
Houston Humane Society 17,552 (2004) $3.36 million (2007) 12% (2004)****

*Town Lake Animal Center is on pace for a 90% or higher live-release rate for calendar year 2011.
**Intake and outcomes reported to Guidestar.com
***Figures reported in Dallas Observer.
****Intake and outcomes reported by Mayor's Task Force.

Austin City Council Candidates Answer No Kill Questionnaire

2011-05-02T15:22:00.009-05:00

The top-five major candidates for the 2011 City Council elections answered a series of questions from the Austin No Kill Coalition regarding No Kill issues in Austin, Texas. The Coalition also held its first-annual City Council Candidate Forum on May 1, 2011, before a standing-room-only audience. FixAustin.org will be rating the candidates' answers in a full-page Chronicle advertisement this week. Forum co-sponsors included Love-a-Bull, Austin Pets Alive, the Austin No Kill Coalition, and FixAustin.org. Here are the candidates' answers to our No Kill Questionnaire.

Kathie Tovo: http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/Kathie_Tovo_No_Kill_Answers.pdf

Randi Shade: http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/Randi_Shade_No_Kill_Answers.pdf

Chris Riley: http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/Chris_Riley_No_Kill_Answers.pdf

Max Nofziger: http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/Max_Nofziger_No_Kill_Answers.pdf

Laura Morrison: http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/Laura_Morrison_No_Kill_Answers.pdf

Update!

FixAustin.org has released its annual City Council Voter Information Guide on animal-welfare issues. We rated the candidates based on their answers to the No Kill Coalition questionnaire as well as on their voting records. To read our short voter information guide, click here: http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/2011_FixAustin_Election_Ad.pdf

House Bill 3450 Will Save Lives, Ban Painful Gas Chambers

2011-03-30T13:03:00.003-05:00

It is a great time to be an advocate for lost and homeless pets in Austin, Texas. Last year, thanks to you--- the animal-loving community of Austin--- our City Council mandated that our municipal shelter implement proven and cost-effective programs and policies to dramatically reduce unnecessary shelter killing in Austin. And it worked. Since the Austin No Kill plan was passed in March of last year, our community's "kill rate" has plummeted, and more lives are being saved than ever before.

Through the combined efforts of Town Lake Animal Center and its placement partners (especially Austin Pets Alive), Austin's shelter is having great success. In December 2010 and January 2011, the shelter saved 88% of all dogs and cats surrendered to or found by the shelter. And in February 2011, that number jumped to 92%, the best "live outcome" rate ever in history of Austin's shelter. Thanks to you, Austin is quickly becoming the most humane city in the United States. And we also warmly welcome the shelter's new director, Abigail Smith, a proven leader in the national No Kill movement.

But now we have an even greater opportunity--- to help spread Austin's success to the rest of the State of Texas. Just days ago, State Representative Jessica Farrar of Houston filed a bill to comprehensively reform Texas's animal shelters. That bill, called the Texas Companion Animal Protection Act, goes a long way to protect companion animals at Texas's shelters.

The bill:

Bans the use of painful, unnecessary, and expensive gas chambers at Texas's shelters.
Bans the practice of killing healthy adoptable animals "for space" when cages sit empty.
Requires all animals adopted from Texas shelters to be spayed or neutered prior to adoption.
Bans breed discriminatory adoption policies at Texas shelters.
Requires shelters to collaborate with 501(c)(3) rescue groups to save animals.
Bans shelters from selling live shelter animals to research laboratories.
Requires shelters to honestly and publicly release their intake and outcomes data.

Simply put, this bill makes Texas's animal shelters treat animals humanely, respect their lives, and work smartly and efficiently to find loving homes for animals. But, like Austin's No Kill plan, it is being opposed by groups who would rather the public not know what goes on behind many shelters' closed doors.

Here's how you can help pass this historic bill. Please:

Call, write, and/or e-mail your Texas Representatives and ask them to support HB 3450 (the Texas Companion Animal Protection Act). You can find out who your representatives are here: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/. (Here is a sample letter if you would find it helpful: http://bit.ly/gBOliI)
Call, write, and/or e-mail the members of the Texas House of Representative's Public Health Committee (who will be considering the bill), and ask them to support HB 3450. You can find the members' contact information here: http://bit.ly/huspbu
Sign Change.org's petition supporting HB 3450 here: http://bit.ly/gtdGMp
Forward this message to all of your animal-loving friends, family members, and colleagues and ask them to do the same.

Thank you, in advance, for your important help!

Warmest regards,

The FixAustin.org Team

P.S. To stay in touch on animal-advocacy issues, please "like" us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FixAustin.org

Fosters Needed for Gatesville Rotties!

2011-02-16T14:15:00.004-06:00

We've received new information on the Houston SPCA/Gatesville seizure. One highest-level need right now is to line up fosters to volunteer to provide temporary (one-to-three months) foster care for seniors, medically compromised, and behaviorally challenged (rambunctious teenagers and timid females) Rotties. At this point, they are looking for 30-40 foster homes for these categories of higher-needs dogs.

The dogs are currently located in Houston, Texas, in the custody of the Houston SPCA. But once the legal process is over (a week to two), most of the dogs will be transferred to the custody of non-profit rescues as organized by the American Rottweiler Club. There is a preference for fosters to be in Texas or nearby states so that the dogs do not have to travel too far. Fosters will need to keep the dogs as in-house pets (not "yard dogs" or in kennels 24/hours/day) and may need to house train and leash train the dogs.

Once the dogs are available for adoption, they will be adopted out through local non-profit rescue groups. In addition, the dogs will be marketed on the website RottNet.net, and through adoption events.

If you are interested and available to help save these magnificent and abused dogs' lives, please send an e-mail to Lew Olsen at lewolson@earthlink.net. In your e-mail, please provide your name, location, and contact information, as well as any experience you might have with medically compromised dogs and timid females.

Together, we can save these dogs. We're just going to need your help to do it!

Thanks,

The FixAustin.org Team

What's the Deal with the Houston SPCA Raid?

2011-02-06T17:17:00.003-06:00

We don't know why the Houston SPCA was called in to rescue 240+ rotties from a ranch outside of Killeen, Texas, rather than various animal-welfare groups in Austin (which is much closer to the ranch than Houston is). But we do know that there is reason to be concerned for the seized animals: According to animal advocates in Houston and public information, the Houston SPCA has a 65% kill rate, won't release its current intake, adoption, and euthanasia data, won't commit to putting the rescued animals up for adoption, and has an official breed-discrimination policy.

You can read OisforOnward's analysis of the HSPCA raid here: http://oisforonward.com/2011/02/houston-spca/

And stay up-to-date on the dogs' care on NoKillHouston's Facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-Kill-Houston/117281633060

Other Cities' Leaders Could Learn a Lot from Austin's Government Leaders!

2011-01-30T20:42:00.003-06:00

If you haven't already seen it, check out the latest blog post on OisforOnward.com, which champions Austin's government leaders who have shown intelligence, compassionate, and integrity when it comes to Austin's lost and homeless pets. The new post highlights the great work of Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez, Council Member Laura Morrison, and State Representative Eddie Rodriguez. Check it out!

http://oisforonward.com/2011/01/dear-politicians-be-like-mike-and-laura-and-eddie/

Austin Hires Abigail Smith!

2011-01-14T10:47:00.000-06:00

This Just In From a City of Austin Press Release:

From: City of Austin Communications
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 10:37 AM
Subject: City of Austin Media Release: Chief Animal Services Officer selected

For immediate release
Jan. 14, 2011
Contact: Communications and Public Information Office, (512) 974-2220

City Manager selects Abigail Smith as Chief Animal Services Officer

City Manager Marc Ott announced today, Jan. 14, the appointment of Abigail Smith, Executive Director of the Tompkins County SPCA in Ithaca , N.Y. , as Austin ’s new Chief Animal Services Officer.
She will begin her duties in Austin March 15.
Smith is recognized nationally for her work on animal welfare issues, presenting at numerous conferences. In August 2010, she spoke at the national No Kill Conference on the topic “90% Club: Sustaining No Kill in an Open Admissions Shelter.” The City of Austin has set the 90 percent live outcome goal.
“Abigail has a wealth of knowledge and experience to bring to Austin ,” City Manager Ott said. “As a renowned expert in no-kill, she understands what Austin needs to do to reach its goal of becoming the first major metropolitan no-kill city. We are excited to have her join the City of Austin family and lead this very critical priority for our community.”
Smith served as Executive Director for the past four years at the Tompkins County SPCA which has operated as an open-admission, no-kill shelter for the past decade. While leading the agency, Smith focused on three major initiatives: animal control contracts, fundraising and spay/neuter programs.
Smith worked with Cornell University ’s College of Veterinary Medicine Program to implement a comprehensive shelter medicine program; created and strengthened collaborative partnerships, including those with civic organizations and animal rescue groups; expanded humane education programs; and secured funding for the Trap Neuter Release Program for feral cats.
Before her position in Ithaca , Smith served as Director of Development/Marketing and Manager of the Volunteer Program for the New Hampshire SPCA from 2004-2007.
She is a current member of the Society of Animal Welfare Administrators, the National Animal Control Association, the New York Animal Protection Federation and the Ithaca Rotary Club. She’s earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy, Pre-Medicine and English from Hamline University in St. Paul , Minn.
Smith was chosen after a nationwide search and an extensive interview/evaluation process that included a meet-and-greet forum with the public and a site visit to Ithaca by City staff and community stakeholders.
In March 2010 the City Council approved the No-Kill Implementation Plan for Austin . Since Oct. 1, 2010, the City of Austin Animal Services Office is actively working on the plan with the support of its partners and community. The City is making great strides in reaching the goal of 90 percent live outcomes, reaching 88 percent in December.
Filip Gecic, who served as Acting Animal Services Officer, did not apply for the position.

Why We Join the National Consensus Against Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws

2011-01-12T13:56:00.003-06:00

Every single data-based study of mandatory spay/neuter laws has demonstrated that such laws do not increase spay-neuter compliance rates, nor do they reduce shelter intake, nor are they cost-effective, nor do they save lives. In fact, the opposite is true: in community after community that has passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, shelter killing and intake actually increase because in poor communities, families who cannot afford the money or time to have their pets surgically altered are forced to surrender their pets (or the pets are seized). These pets are quickly replaced in the communities with additional unaltered animals, creating an enhanced cycle of killing. These laws do not work, have never worked in any community, and will not work.

Several points are important here:

1. Mandatory spay/neuter laws do not work: The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) did an extensive study on such laws (in many varieties), and concluded that there is absolutely "no credible evidence" that such laws have ever worked. See http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/mandatory-spay-neuter-laws.aspx. Another national organization, Alley Cat Allies, did a study of its own and concluded that such laws are "counterproductive, costly, and unenforceable." See http://www.alleycat.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=794.

2. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are based on a number of false policy assumptions. Mandatory spay/neuter advocates falsely assume that most people aren't currently spaying and neutering their pets, and that if there were a law requiring spay/neuter, they would do so. Both of these assumptions are false. According to empirical evidence, the overwhelming majority of Americans have already spayed or neutered their pets. In fact, a recent study demonstrated that over 90% of Americans earning $35K or more have already spayed or neutered their pets (see http://www.alleycat.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=650), and at least half of those families earning less than $35K/year have already done so. As a result, the population of Americans who haven't spayed or neutered their pets is relatively small, and it's near-entirely a matter of financial means--- not legal motivation. That's why study after study after study has concluded that 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. See http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/mandatory-spay-neuter-laws.aspx.

3. There is universal opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws among national animal-welfare organizations who have spent time to empirically study such laws' effects. Indeed, given the frequent hostility between national animal-welfare organizations, the universal opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws is telling. The organizations against such laws include: The ASPCA (cited above), Alley Cat Allies (cited above), the American Veterinary Medical Association (http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may09/090515j.asp), the No Kill Advocacy Center (http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf), Pet Connection (http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2010/08/24/mandatory-spayneuter-sacrificing-animal-lives-to-ideology/), both the American College of Theriogenologists and the Society for Theriogenology (which are the two groups of veterinarian specialists in spaying and neutering (http://www.theriogenology.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=59), and the Anti-Cruelty Society (http://www.anticruelty.org/site/epage/69344_576.htm), among many, many others. USA Today's veterinary expert has also come out against such laws (see http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/pets/2010-09-12-vetviews10_N.htm).

4. There are a number of significant, negative unintended consequences to mandatory spay/neuter laws:

According to the experts, the passage of mandatory spay/neuter laws not only doesn't increase spay/neuter compliance rates or responsible pet ownership, it actually reduces the provision of veterinary care to animals because the small group of remaining unaltered-pet owners (who either won't or cannot afford to alter their pets) will avoid getting veterinary care for their animals. According to the American College of Theriogenologists, "[m]aking spay/neuter mandatory . . . may make the public more hesitant to seek veterinary assistance because they are afraid of fines and legal repercussions as a result of failing to spay or neuter their pets. . . . By avoiding veterinary care for their pets, animals will be at increased risk of inadequate routine vaccination (including rabies) and inadequate deworming programs which may in turn result in increased transmission of disease to the public." See http://www.theriogenology.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=59.
The risk of higher rabies rates (which is nearly always deadly to children) is not purely theoretical. According to the Anti-Cruelty Society, Fort Worth's mandatory spay/neuter law resulted in a significant reduction in rabies vaccinations, and to "an increase in reported rabies cases" in the city. See http://www.anticruelty.org/site/epage/69344_576.htm.
In addition, San Mateo, California, experienced a 35% decrease in pet licensing registrations after passing such a law, meaning that fewer animals brought to the shelter were able to be reunited with their owners. (Same source.)
Fort Worth changed its law due to the reduction in rabies vaccinations. Spay/neuter is no longer mandatory due to the ordinance's failure (one can now have an unaltered pet without penalty or payment so long as they attend a free class).

5. The passage of a mandatory spay/neuter law has never led any community to a 90% save rate. And every No Kill community in America does not have a mandatory spay/neuter law.

The communities in America with the highest shelter save rates are: Reno, NV (90%), Ithaca, NY (95%), Charlottesville, VA (90+%), and San Francisco, CA (86%). None has a mandatory spay/neuter law. The communities with the highest shelter save rate in Texas are Austin (72%), Plano (77%) and Williamson County (77%). None has a mandatory spay/neuter law.
Los Angeles, CA, recently passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, and its shelter killing and intake increased by 30% following the law's passage. Kansas City, MO, recently passed a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter law, and intake and killing of those breeds increased by a jaw-dropping 80% according to local experts. Waco, TX, just passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, and even before the law's passage, it has seen a substantial spike in owner surrenders (and shelter killing) due to financial inability to pay.
San Antonio has a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, and its shelter kills more than 70% of all impounded animals. In fact, every large city in Texas other than Austin kills more animals than it saves. Austin, this past year, saved 72%.
Contrary to local talking points in favor of a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, not every large city in Texas other than Austin has a mandatory spay/neuter law. Houston, for example, does not have a mandatory spay/neuter law. Houston does have an ordinance that requires shelters to either alter pets before adopting them out, or get the adopter to sign a contract agreeing to alter the adopted pets. The ordinance does not reach out and affect owned pets or pets from sources other than animal shelters. Austin's policies are actually much more strict than Houston's. No Austin shelter adopts out unaltered pets, and Austin's pet-trader ordinance requires altering prior to retail pet sales. In addition, as mentioned above, Fort Worth's ordinance is not mandatory; it permits free unaltered pet licensing upon attending a class.

6. Austin's animal-welfare policy and results, without a mandatory spay-neuter law, are not only among the best in Texas, they are among the best in the country for large cities. By implementing proven and cost-effective programs and policies (including low-cost and free spay-neuter services, foster programs, off-site adoptions, etc.), Austin has recently and quickly made dramatic improvements in animal-welfare, and now has among the lowest shelter-killing rates in the United States (Note: This is due in substantial part to Austin Pets Alive.). In 2005, Austin's shelter killed over 14,000 animals. In just a few short years of implementing proven life-saving policies in our community, that number dropped below 6,800 in fiscal-year 2009-10. 2010 was the best life-saving year in Austin's history, and the best of any large city in Texas by a large margin (Houston, Fort Worth and San Antonio kill around 70%). While San Antonio's recent "No Kill" effort, which relied on a mandatory spay/neuter law, has been a miserable failure, Austin's effort, which relies on proven programs and policies, has been a dramatic success. In fact, December 2010 was the highest save-rate on record in Austin, with an 88% save rate of all impounded animals.

7. It doesn't matter whether you call it "mandatory" or not, the effect is the same. A local mandatory spay/neuter advocate has recently stopped saying "mandatory" when advocating for a mandatory spay/neuter law. The name of the ordinance makes no difference. If a government mandates a penalty for failing to alter an animal (in the form of either a fine, a seizure of the animal (or its surrender), or a "fee"), it is commonly referred to as a "mandatory" spay/neuter law in the national animal-welfare community, and based on empirical evidence, we know it will fail.

8. There is no evidence whatsoever that a mandatory spay/neuter law would increase public safety or decrease dog-fighting. Indeed, the opposite is true with regard to rabies and public health, and it is egregiously illogical to think that a criminal who willingly risks felony dog-fighting charges and prison time would somehow be swayed by a unaltered-pet registration fee. In addition, because we know that mandatory spay/neuter laws do not increase spay/neuter compliance rates, we can logically conclude that they will have no impact on dog bites either (even assuming that dog bites are correlated with lack of spay/neuter). In fact, the most preeminent national expert on dog bites and dog-caused deaths concludes that dog-caused deaths are nearly always caused by unsocialized, "backyard" dogs who have never been cared for, loved, or treated responsibly by a loving owner. There is absolutely no logic or evidence to suggest that such an irresponsible owner would be swayed by a fee or fine; again, the empirical evidence demonstrates that the opposite is true: the laws don't change irresponsible behavior.

9. Mandatory spay/neuter laws unfairly target the poor. It has been empirically proven that the lack of financial resources is the primary reason for the failure to alter pets by the small percentage of remaining unaltered-pet homeowners. Persons who cannot afford to alter their pets will be the primary targets for enforcement, therefore. In Kansas City, this resulted in Animal Control authorities doing "sweeps" through poor neighborhoods in which they would literally pull dogs and cats out of the arms of poor children and families. And, contrary to popular belief, there are not enough free spay/neuter resources to provide such services to all unaltered animals. According to estimates of the unaltered pet population by the ASPCA compared to the number of free spay/neuter resources in Austin, for example, it would take an astonishing 31 years to provide free spay/neuter services to the current population of unaltered pets. That means that only 1 in 31 pets could be altered in year one (much less in month 1) if such a law was passed in Austin. The remaining pets would be either surrendered to animal control, or seized, if the pet owner cannot afford the surgery. Such laws pit poor pet owners in an adversarial relationship with law-enforcement officers, dramatically increasing tensions in poor communities. Again, in Kansas City, animal advocates have had to go into communities to teach families about their legal rights in order to protect them from unlawful searches and seizures purportedly resulting from "enforcement" of the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.

If you've read this far, we thank you. We care deeply about this issue and have studied it for years. We would absolutely, positively, be in favor of a mandatory spay/neuter law if such laws worked. All of our pets are spayed or neutered, and all of our rescues are spayed or neutered before we adopt them out. We have paid to alter the pets of total strangers, and heavily support low-cost and free spay-neuter services. Once made mandatory, however, all results point to dramatic failure, negative unintended consequences, more killing, and higher rabies rates. That we can't support that. We hope you won't either.

A No Kill Austin Is Within Reach!

2011-01-01T13:35:00.001-06:00

Happy Holidays & New Year, Animal Lovers!

This year, great stides have been made towards Austin, Texas, joining the ranks of America's "No Kill" cities. Town Lake Animal Center celebrated its highest save rate ever: a full 72% of all animals that entered the shelter left alive this fiscal year! There is still a ways to go before we reach our goal of becoming a "No Kill" city--- defined as saving 90% of all impounded animals--- but it is inescapable that we're headed in the right direction.

Speaking of improvements, how about the amazing Austin Pets Alive!?! Seemingly out of nowhere, Austin Pets Alive has saved nearly 6,000 dogs and cats straight from the "kill list" at Town Lake Animal Center. The organization celebrated landing its own two-building complex this year (at 2807 Manchaca Road in South Austin), officially becoming the largest non-profit animal-rescue group in all of Austin! And to top off their amazing year, they are having an end-of-year adoption blow-out where you can name your own price for dogs and cats over 6 months old. Take a few seconds to watch this fun (and funny) YouTube ad for their sale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUi5kw25Thk&feature=player_embedded.

The upcoming year will bring some additional major (and, we hope, positive) changes for Austin's homeless pets. The City will shortly be hiring a new animal-shelter director from a set of talented finalists (the City is currently focusing on Tompkins County SPCA Executive Director Abigail Smith), and we'll also find out whether Austin Pets Alive will be partnering with the City to run its adoptions program at the shelter.

And lastly, Town Lake Animal Center and animal-friendly Council Member Laura Morrison issued a public statement today asking animal owners to please keep their dogs secured inside during New Years fireworks celebrations so that they won't escape and end up at the shelter. They also announced that for the month of January, all dogs weighing over 45 pounds can be adopted from TLAC for free! Read more about how you can safeguard your pets during the fireworks (and about the January sale) here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/health/pets/hpnews_details.cfm?nwsid=2934. Council Member Morrison has been a powerful advocate for Austin's homeless pets ever since she joined the Council, and she just announced that she is running for reelection. Although FixAustin.org does not endorse candidates, you can sign up as a "supporter" of Council Member Morrison, and/or make a donation to her campaign, by vising her campaign website here: http://www.lauraforaustin.com/. The campaign told us that any support would be greatly appreciated, but early support--- before the January 1st reporting deadline--- is especially appreciated.

That's it for now. We'll keep fighting for Austin's homeless and lost pets, and thanks so much for your support!

Warmest regards,

The FixAustin.org Team

FixAustin Endorses Jefferson, Smith, & Hinze for New Shelter Director, Rates Two Others "Unacceptable"

2010-11-10T12:05:00.002-06:00

AUSTIN, TX – November 10, 2010 – On Monday, four of five finalists vying to become the new director of Town Lake Animal Center interviewed with City officials, stakeholders, and the public. Today, Austin’s No Kill advocacy organization, FixAustin.org, gave its seal of approval to three of those candidates: Dr. Ellen Jefferson of Austin Pets Alive, Abigail Smith of the Tompkins County SPCA, and Laura Hinze of PAWS Chicago.

“Jefferson, Smith, and Hinze were the clear leaders among the shelter finalists. Because we believe Austin’s animals would be in good hands with each of them, we publicly endorse all three of their candidacies,” said Austin appellate attorney and national No Kill advocate Ryan Clinton, founder of FixAustin.org.

Dr. Ellen Jefferson, the only local candidate with direct insight into the shelter’s operations, founded and led low-cost spay/neuter provider EmanciPet, which recently celebrated its 100,000th low-cost or free spay/neuter in Austin. Dr. Jefferson currently serves as the Executive Director of Austin Pets Alive, a non-profit adoptions group that has saved over 5,000 from Town Lake Animal Center’s “kill list” in just two years.

Abigail Smith is the Executive Director of the Tompkins County SPCA in Ithaca, New York. Her shelter boasts the highest save rate—96%—of any open-admission shelter in the United States, and she is a sought-after national speaker on No Kill programs and policies. Before joining the Tompkins County SPCA, she was the Director of Development and Marketing at the New Hampshire SPCA.

Laura Hinze is the Operations Director at PAWS Chicago, where she manages the shelter’s spay/neuter program, shelter-medicine program, and humane-education program. She manages a paid staff of 15 and an army of volunteers. Among her most innovative programs is one in which persons who might not otherwise be able to spay or neuter their pets can earn free surgeries by providing volunteer hours to PAWS Chicago.

While Jefferson, Smith, and Hinze were endorsed by FixAustin.org, the organization deemed the two other candidates—Linda Haller and Julie Seal—“unacceptable” for the position.

“Linda Haller and Julie Seal seem like fine human beings whose hearts are absolutely in the right place, but we believe they are both very poor fits for the Austin animal-welfare community and its drive to achieve No Kill success,” said Clinton. “In fact, both candidates distanced themselves from No Kill as a community goal, and both said they do not even like the words ‘No Kill,’” Clinton added. “This obviously won’t work for a community aiming towards achieving No Kill.”

The group also pointed to what they say are Haller and Seal’s poor records of performance, and lack of qualifications for the position. Linda Haller, for example, has been a shelter director in three communities but has never achieved a save rate of more than 53%. Austin’s save rate was 72% during the last fiscal year, and the City Council mandated that the shelter achieve a 90% save rate within 18 months.

Julie Seal also has underwhelming credentials for the position, the group said. She has held and left multiple positions in a short period, including spending nine months or less at two shelter-fundraising positions in Arizona and California. She more recently was a fundraiser for an autism-related non-profit, but her position was eliminated. “There is no doubt that Seal is a smart and caring person, but neither her background or animal-welfare interests match Austin’s commitment to No Kill. She has never worked at a No Kill shelter, she expressed no interest in the No Kill movement in America, and she said she didn’t even like the words ‘No Kill.’ She’s far out of line with Austin’s goals or beliefs regarding companion animals.”

The group noted that Abigail Smith, one of their preferred candidates, was unable to participate in the interviews this week due to a serious family emergency. They have urged the City to offer Smith an opportunity to make up the missed interview sessions. “When the shelter director with the highest save rate in America is considering working for you, you’ve got to figure out how to give her a chance. We would be making a huge mistake not to give Smith a chance to interview for the position,” said Clinton.

CRITICAL MEETING: Who Will Be Austin's Next Shelter Director?

2010-11-07T17:06:00.003-06:00

Attention Austin animal advocates: Tomorrow, Monday, November 8th, the City of Austin will be releasing the names of the two or three finalists for the new animal-shelter director position, and will be making the finalists available to meet the public from 6pm to 8pm at Austin Energy, 721 Barton Springs Road.

This is perhaps the most important meeting in the history of Austin animal welfare because it will be the public's only opportunity to meet the candidates and give immediate feedback to the City regarding the hiring decision. And it goes without saying that the new shelter director will have an enormous impact on whether Austin reaches its dream of joining the nation's No Kill cities.

How much of an impact will the new hire have? Well, according to a study by the Oakland, California-based No Kill Advocacy Center, a shelter's leadership--- not its budget--- is the #1 factor in how that shelter will perform.

Please be there tomorrow: 6pm, Austin Energy, 721 Barton Springs Road.

The animals of Austin will thank you!

Best,

The FixAustin.org Team

No Kill Works! August 2010: Highest August Save Rate in Austin's History!

2010-09-09T14:35:00.003-05:00

Just wanted to send you all a note to share some fantastic news:

As a direct result of Austin, Texas's No Kill Implementation plan, a whopping 77% of all dogs and cats impounded at Town Lake Animal Center left the shelter alive in August 2010. This figure marks the highest August save rate (and lowest kill rate) in the history of Town Lake Animal Center-- by a significant margin.

Of course, there is still hard work to be done, and there is still considerable room to improve. We will be No Kill when we reach a 90% save rate, and there are core No Kill Implementation Plan programs that remain to be implemented.

Nonetheless, today should be a day of celebration and recognition of dramatic improvement. Thank you to Council, the Animal Advisory Commissioners, City Management and TLAC, and the non-profit groups that have helped make this a reality--- Austin Pets Alive, the Austin Humane Society, Animal Trustees of Austin, Emancipet, and the amazing rescue groups in this town.

No Kill works, and it's working in Austin.

Warmest regards,

The FixAustin.org Team

Better Off Dead?

2010-08-20T13:59:00.003-05:00

Who do you side with?

The No Kill Advocacy Center's Nathan Winograd, who says we should keep all shelter cages full to promote adoptions, isolate sick animals when necessary, foster baby kittens until they are old enough to be adopted, give every animal a chance at adoption, and keep up a strong cleaning protocol?

Or the ASPCA's assessment team member Dr. Sandra Newbury, who says we should "euthanize" animals to keep only half of available cage space open, "euthanize" animals that are sick or too young to be adopted at the moment (or too old to be adopted quickly), and keep a much smaller number of animals in foster homes?

This is a very real debate, with very serious consequences in Austin, Texas, because the ASPCA assessment team is about to release recommendations for Town Lake Animal Center. What do YOU think?

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies (or, on Mandatory Spay-Neuter Laws)

2010-08-17T20:41:00.008-05:00

Why animal advocates should never, ever, advocate for mandatory spay-neuter laws: They do not work, they have never worked, they increase shelter killing, and they divert limited funding away from programs that actually do work to decrease shelter intake and increase lives saved.

This is not to say that additional spay/neuter isn't needed in most communities. It is. Rather, it is to say that passing mandatory spay/neuter ordinances isn't an effective way to achieve greater spay/neuter compliance rates. If you want to learn more about how to effectively decrease shelter intake and increase live outcomes, read the No Kill Equation here: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/nokillequation.html. If you want to learn why mandatory spay/neuter laws are absolutely not the answer, read on.

Mandatory spay-neuter ordinances do not work. The ASPCA did an extensive study on mandatory spay-neuter laws and concluded that they have failed to decrease shelter intake. According to the ASPCA, there is no "credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay-neuter law." http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/mandatory-spay-neuter-laws.html.

Mandatory spay-neuter ordinances target the wrong population. The largest category of animals entering the shelter are feral and community cats and their kittens. These are unowned or "loosely" owned animals who no person will claim ownership of. As a result, instead of targeting the population that needs spay-neuter (community cats), the ordinances target the population that largely is already spaying and neutering their animals to the tune of 80 or 85% (pet owners). Money is virtually thrown out the window by targeting pet owners rather than the unowned animals contributing most to shelter intake. The non-profit group Alley Cat Allies has a long article explaining this phenomenon. As Alley Cat Allies explains, "Mandatory spay/neuter laws do nothing to address the real issue[s].... Instead, these laws divert public resources away from beneficial programs and into administering an unenforceable law." http://www.alleycat.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=794

Mandatory spay-neuter is extremely expensive. Enforcing the ordinance would require additional Animal Control officers and additional trucks and equipment. Just one employee and one truck would cost more than $100,000 in year one and more than $50,000 each additional year. Two would cost at least $200,000 to start. That money would come out of programs that work to save lives, like low-cost and free spay-neuter programs, Trap-Neuter-and-Release programs, foster programs for baby kittens, as well as adoption programs. In Los Angeles, mandatory spay-neuter required millions of dollars worth of additional funding at the cost of proven and workable solutions to shelter killing.

Mandatory spay-neuter laws kill more animals than they save. In Los Angeles, intake and shelter killing increased 30% after the City began enforcing its new mandatory spay-neuter program. In Kansas City, mandatory spay-neuter has been enforced by sweeps of poor neighborhoods, where healthy and loved dogs are handed over to Animal Control due to lack of funds for spay-neuter. Some cities (like Fort Worth, Texas) have abandoned their mandatory spay-neuter ordinances because the ordinances did not work.

Mandatory spay-neuter laws have negative and dangerous side effects. Cities such as Fort Worth, Texas, have experienced a decline in rabies vaccinations following implementation of mandatory spay/neuter ordinances. As a result, the public has become more at risk of rabies due to implementation of the ordinances. In addition, nearly every city to pass a mandatory spay-neuter ordinance has experienced a significant decrease in pet registrations, meaning that fewer pets who arrive at shelters are able to be reunited with their owners.

Mandatory spay-neuter laws unfairly target the poor. 90% or more of pet owners with the financial means to do so already spay or neuter their pets. The largest category of pet owners who haven't done so simply cannot afford to do so. For this group, cost--- not unwillingness--- is the primary obstacle to spay/neuter. As a result, Animal Control in Kansas City, for example, has done "sweeps" through poor neighborhoods picking up animals and killing them at Animal Control.

Mandatory spay-neuter laws promote backyard breeding and possibly even puppy mills. When Animal Control sweeps through a neighborhood and either seizes or, by "owner surrender" takes animals that families cannot afford to have spayed or neutered, families who lost their animals to the Animal Control authorities will replace it with another, feeding the backyard breeding industry and possibly even puppy mills.

Every major animal-welfare group who has studied the effects of mandatory spay-neuter laws is against them. The ASPCA is against them. So is Alley Cat Allies, the No Kill Advocacy Center, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and Best Friends Animal Society. We're not generally a group that defers to authority (and we're proud of it!), but the consensus against mandatory spay-neuter laws--- even among groups that rarely agree--- is highly compelling.

The Last Throes of the Status Quo Continue

2010-08-12T16:10:00.004-05:00

The last throes of resistance to a No Kill Austin continue: In this article, KUT complains of shelter employees having to work harder to save animals, and reports on allegations of "impropriety" in the No Kill movement brought by a notorious opponent of No Kill. After reading this, would it surprise you to find out that TLAC's Program Development Manager is married to KUT's Associate General Manager? The more important question is: Why isn't KUT disclosing their direct conflict of interest when they report on the shelter and specifically its employees?

And that notorious No Kill opponent who takes issue with No Kill advocates being on the Austin Animal Advisory Commission: why didn't he ever object when No Kill opponents were on the Commission? Double standard, anyone?

http://kut.org/items/show/22106

Blaming No Kill for Killing: the Desperate Last Stand of Austin's Status Quo

2010-08-10T17:53:00.009-05:00

Friends,

It looks like the old-guard animal-welfare status quo in Austin is finally rearing its head to unleash one final and very desperate fight against the grassroots movement of hope, change, love, and life for the animals at Austin's Town Lake Animal Center. We hoped this wouldn't happen, but honestly predicted that it would because this is exactly what happened in other communities that have achieved No Kill success: the status quo lashes out against the effort intended to change it.

First, the ASPCA "Mission Orange" program has hired a pro-killing, anti-No-Kill activist to "assess" Town Lake Animal Center right as the City embarks on its historic plan to end the unnecessary killing of lost and homeless pets in Austin. The activist in question is a notorious opponent of uncontroversial No Kill reforms (like increased adoptions and foster programs) who has gone on record arguing that (1) shelters should only use half of their cage spaces; and (2) shelters shouldn't have robust foster programs to save puppies, kittens, and medically treatable animals. Her advice has been followed--- then abandoned--- by at least one shelter in another state after following it led to a significant increase in shelter killing--- no surprise when you only use half of your adoption spaces and you indiscriminately kill to make those spaces available. We hope we're wrong, but we have every reason to believe that the Mission Orange "assessment" team will reach the same conclusions in Austin as they have reached in other cities: that we should kill more animals--- and use less of the shelter--- in order to somehow "save" animals. It doesn't make sense now, and it won't when they release their assessment either.

And now, incendiary and false anti-No Kill propaganda from the Austin Humane Society fills our inboxes. Et tu, Brute? As hard is this is to say, the Austin Humane Society will not receive another dime of support from me. Anyone pay attention to Fox News on occasion? One of the things Fox News likes to do is ask emotionally charged, incendiary questions to imply veracity to an argument that facts do not actually support. Now we see the Austin Humane Society doing the same thing, asking in their July 2010 newsletter: "Is No-Kill Killing Kittens?"

Well why don't we just answer the question for them: No, it isn't. Here are the facts:

1. AHS's newsletter states that since the Austin City Council unanimously approved the No Kill plan and banned the shelter from killing healthy, adoptable animals when there are available cages to house them, "adoption numbers are not increasing." That is false. Since the No Kill plan passed, adoptions of all animals at the shelter have increased 30% this year over last year. Adoptions of cats and kittens have increased 48% this year over last year. And transfers to rescue groups have increased 59%. Far more animals are leaving the shelter alive since the Austin City Council acted.

2. AHS's newsletter says that the city has allocated "no additional resources to accomplish [the No Kill] goal." That too is false. The City's new budget allocates an additional $800,000 to the shelter.

3. AHS's newsletter claims that "the misconception that TLAC is now a no-kill shelter" is causing "more kittens than ever [to be] surrendered to the shelter." False again. First, while it is true that cat intake is up after the No Kill vote this year over last year, it is also true that cat intake was up before the No Kill vote. It is impossible for something that was happening before and is happening after an event (in this case, the No Kill vote) to be caused by that event. Second, dog intake is actually down this year over last year. If the No Kill vote was actually causing pet owners to surrender their animals, then why on earth would dog intake actually be down this year over last year? Is AHS suggesting that cat people watch the news but dog people don't? And third, as a requirement of the No Kill plan, Town Lake Animal Center is now informing all persons wishing to surrender an animal that the shelter is not a No Kill facility. If the "misconception that TLAC is now a no-kill shelter" actually caused someone to take a kitten to TLAC, then they would turn around and leave--- with the kitten--- once the "misconception" was cured by the shelter staff.

4. AHS's newsletter claims that "[d]espite the hard work of TLAC staff, foster volunteers . . . are not increasing." While we have seen no published report on the number of TLAC fosters this year as compared to last year, we do know of at least one documented instance of a foster volunteering to foster a TLAC dog--- but being turned away by TLAC employees--- because the dog wasn't "young enough" to be fostered. That's right, TLAC has decided that if an animal isn't young, it's better off dead than in a foster home.

I am, personally, incredibly disappointed in the Austin Humane Society. They have harmed the Austin No Kill movement before. They have claimed that No Kill advocates were actually barriers to success in Austin. They have supported a (now-replaced) shelter director responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 lost and homeless pets. They heavily supported closing Austin's downtown shelter and moving it to an industrial area on the outskirts of town. But falsely blaming the Austin City Council's unanimous No Kill plan, which is demonstrably saving animals, for "killing kittens" is the last straw for me.

As a humane movement, we simply cannot support groups--- regardless of their name and history in Austin--- who wage incendiary and false attacks against No Kill reforms and policies in an attempt to take power away from a movement dedicated to saving lives. Let us not forget--- the Austin Humane Society carried the "No Kill" mantle in Austin in 1994 and, even with a multi-million-dollar grant from Maddie's Fund--- utterly failed to reach its promised goal. AHS was incapable of leading Austin to No Kill in 1994, and they evidently have not changed. Not a penny more from me. Not a penny. [Note: I'm sure AHS is shaking in its shoes not to receive my paltry annual donation...]

What can you do? E-mail the Austin Humane Society and tell them to stop blocking No Kill reforms in Austin. Either get on the No Kill bus, or go away. Here is their e-mail address: info@austinhumanesociety.org

Regards,

Ryan Clinton

[Added note: It is absolutely true that AHS does great work both in its adoptions and in its wonderful TNR program. This blog is in no way intended to communicate anything but the greatest respect for those programs (and probably others we don't know about). But when the powerful falsely attack the No Kill movement, as AHS did in its newsletter, their attacks deserve to be met with equivalent force. Of course we are stronger if we are all together, but that does not mean that we cannot or should not disagree. Only by questioning the status quo could we ever hope to change it.]

Austin No Kill Workshop Tickets on Sale Now!

2010-07-26T18:16:00.003-05:00

Tickets to the Austin No Kill Workshop are now available! Prices start at just $25 for the "early bird" registrants, but will move up to $35. For that price, you'll get speeches from the nation's top No Kill sheltering experts, a gourmet vegetarian (or vegan) lunch, and a copy of the award-winning Irreconcilable Differences by Nathan Winograd.

To purchase tickets, visit: http://nokillaustin.org/austin-no-kill-workshop

To learn more about the conference, visit the Austin No Kill Workshop Facebook page at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Austin-Texas/Austin-No-Kill-Workshop/134047909964371?ref=ts

Hope to see you there!

The FixAustin.org Team

Tix On Sale Soon for the Austin No Kill Workshop!

2010-07-25T19:29:00.003-05:00

We're very pleased to present an unbelievable line-up of No Kill experts at the September 28, 2010, Austin No Kill Workshop! The event will take place at the Westin at the Domain in Austin, Texas, from 8:30am to 5:30pm. Tickets will be available very shortly.

The speakers list for the No Kill Workshop include the nation's preeminent No Kill sheltering experts: Bonney Brown, Executive Director of the Nevada Humane Society; Mike Fry, Executive Director of Animal Ark of Minnesota; Nathan Winograd, Executive Director of the No Kill Advocacy Center; Mitch Schneider, Director of Washoe County (Reno) Animal Services; Michael Mountain, co-founder and former President of Best Friends Animal Society; Dr. Ellen Jefferson, Executive Director of Austin Pets Alive and founder of EmanciPet, and Dr. Linda Wolf, renown veterinarian and dog-behavior expert. (There's a rumor that another speaker may join the list too!)

The animal-welfare community has come together to support this amazing line-up of No Kill experts. Event sponsors include the James J. Wolf Family Foundation for Animals, the Baton Rouge Area Foundation, Animal Ark of Minnesota, Animal Wise Radio, the No Kill Advocacy Center, the Austin No Kill Coalition, the Central Texas Animal Alliance, and FixAustin.org. In addition, the event is supported by Town Lake Animal Center, the Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter, No Kill Houston, Love-a-Bull, Animal Defense League, and the Alamo Area Partners for Animal Welfare.

For the latest information, please join the Austin No Kill Workshop Facebook page: http://bit.ly/cKvSuD

See you there!

The FixAustin.org Team

Statesman Embraces "Whacking" Baby Kittens... On Mother's Day

2010-05-09T12:44:00.009-05:00

The Austin American-Statesman's Outdoors Editor Mike Leggett likes to kill animals. He gets a "thrill" out of killing deer. He enjoys killing fish. And Mikey likes to kill birds too; boy, does he: Mikey likes to kill quail. He thinks talk of killing doves is funny. And he just loves killing turkeys. In fact, he's mad as heck that the lefties who craft the State of Texas hunting guidelines are reducing the "joy" he gets from killing turkeys.

Mike Leggett likes killing animals so much that you're just going to have to forgive us for rolling our collective eyes when he waxes philosophical about how "necessary" it is to kill the kittens a momma cat brought into his buddy's garage because they may one day grow up and turn into the kind of efficient bird hunter he is. And you'll also have to forgive us for being unable to let go unnoticed the blatant hypocrisy in Leggett opining that (1) it's okay to "whack" kittens because they might one day hunt birds (like he does), and (2) his friend feeding birds in his backyard even though it attracts feral cats (and squirrels, presumably) is perfectly natural, normal, and defensible, but the lady he saw feeding a colony of feral cats is messing with God's will.

Putting aside Leggett's alarming lack of perspective, however, let's focus on the "science" he uses to justify "whacking" kitties in order to save birds (presumably, so that he can whack them later). To support his argument, Leggett relies on two allegations: (1) that a "study" proved that cats kill 39 million birds in Wisconsin alone; and (2) that a "published . . . article" demonstrated that the humane alternative to "whacking" cats--- trapping them, spaying or neutering them, and releasing them ("TNR")--- doesn't work. Both are illogical, unpersuasive, and wrong.

The first "study" that Leggett relies on is, in fact, not a study. It is an essay in a non-peer-reviewed magazine published in 1996 by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (or maybe it was a similar essay published by the Wisconsin Parks & Wildlife Department). In the essay, the authors assume out of thin air that there are 1.7 million free-roaming cats in Wisconsin. They assume (based on un-cited and unnamed "other studies") that cats in rural areas kill 91 animals each year. And they assume (again, based on un-cited and unnamed "other studies") that 25% of the animals killed by cats are birds. Multiply all of those together--- 1.7 million x 91 x 25%--- and you get roughly 39 million bird deaths in Wisconsin. This is not a "study," Mr. Leggett. It is not peer-reviewed. It is not replicable. There is no way to double-check unnamed findings, and one of the key factors is based on a guess.

Had Leggett analyzed the essay, he would have easily figured out that the number was nothing more than a guess--- it was not a study and is was not intended to be one. In fact, had Leggett spent even a few moments on Google to determine whether the numbers were accurate, he would have discovered this quote from the essay's author himself:

"The media has had a field day with this since we started. Those figures were from our proposal [for a study]. They aren't actual data; that was just our projection to show how bad it might be."

Plus, had Leggett bothered to look, there are, in fact, a large number of published studies concluding that the feral cat population does not significantly affect the population of American birds. This is a list provided by the nation's preeminent animal-sheltering expert, Nathan Winograd, from the same source as the last quote:

Roger Tabor found that cats have low success as bird hunters and that the bulk of their diet is garbage, plants, insects, and other scavenger material. In short, cats are not impacting bird populations on continents. Fitzgerald & Karl found that "cats suppress populations of more dangerous predators such as rats and thus allow denser populations of birds than would exist without them." Robert Berg found that cats were not impacting quail population in San Francisco even though quail nest on the ground. Mead found no evidence that cats are impacting overall bird populations. Colemand & Brunner concluded that "The common belief that feral cats are serious predators of birds is apparently without basis." A Worldwatch Institute 1994 Study found that birds are in decline due to drought, habitat loss, overtrapping, and water pollution. Cats are noticeably absent as factors. A 1988 study by the University of Georgia blamed forest fragmentation across Southern U.S. for decimating songbirds. A Colorado Wildlife Dept. study in 1994 blamed drought. National Geographic lined declines to poisons in environment, particularly lawn care products."

Leggett could have figured this out. It's not that complicated. But we think he was too busy trying to justify his friend "whacking" the kittens in his garage. Or, perhaps, he didn't care.

The next "article" upon which Leggett relies to justify his friend's cat "whacking" is even less persuasive. To support his argument that "trap-neuter-release" does not work, Leggett cites an article about a small TNR operation on an ecologically sensitive area on Catalina Island that demonstrated that spayed and neutered cats roamed just as far as non-spayed and non-neutered cats. That's right-- the study concluded that unaltered cats roam just as far as altered cats. But what Mr. Leggett did not point out (probably intentionally) is that the study concluded that the program would work to eliminate the feral-cat species on the island in about 10 years. It did not conclude that TNR was ineffective at reducing the feral cat population; it concluded the opposite. Mr. Leggett citing this study to disprove the efficacy of TNR is like the birthers pointing to President Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate as evidence that Obama was born elsewhere. It makes no sense at all.

In the end, none of the science mattered to Leggett or the Statesman. His article wasn't about that. Instead, it was about his need to figure out how to justify his buddy killing the kittens that a momma cat mistakenly brought into his garage. But you know what, Mr. Leggett? Not every act of killing can be justified--- even if performed by your buddy.

No Kill Foot-dragging by TLAC Management

2010-04-26T00:13:00.003-05:00

It has been a month and a half since the Austin City Council passed the historic No Kill Implementation Plan, which required the City's Animal Services Staff to issue a formal Request for Proposal ("RFP") from non-profit entities to run the Adoptions program at TLAC next year. Yet alarmingly, Animal Services has not released any information regarding the RFP, what it might contain, when it will be issued, or even a basic time frame for the process.

The public has a right to know: Why has the RFP not been issued? Has a deadline been set by which the RFP must be issued? If not, why not?

If the RFP does not go out soon, the City Council's will may be entirely thwarted by a shelter management that continues to embrace killing over obvious lifesaving solutions. Sadly, once again, it seems we are faced with a reluctant and stonewalling attitude by management to implementing the policies and procedures approved by Council on March 11th--- stonewalling that shows just exactly how right the Austin American-Statesman’s Editorial Board was when it wrote on March 18th:

…”the city needs to get moving on hiring a nonprofit to manage the city's animal adoption programs and make good on its promise to keep the current shelter open for at least six months (preferable longer) after the new one opens next year…For their part, Austin residents must continue their vigilance to make sure that Ott does not permit those directly overseeing the Town Lake Animal Center to again drop the ball on this priority…Austin has a good plan. But even the best plan can languish without a champion. And that is what Austin needs now.”

The citizens of Austin must demand that the City's Animal Services be accountable, and that the will of the people--- and the City Council--- not continue to be thwarted. Please take a moment to e-mail the Austin City Council and ask that the City issue the No Kill RFP immediately. You can e-mail all of them at once at this link: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/groupemail.htm

Thank you,

The FixAustin.org Team

Not Yet No Kill Austin

2010-04-12T15:56:00.005-05:00

Just a quick note on the status of No Kill in Austin, Texas.

Last month, the Austin City Council enacted a historic list of No Kill programs and policies. Many of the policies were enacted immediately--- such as the ban on killing healthy, adoptable animals while cages sit empty at the shelter. But other, larger programs have not yet been implemented and will not be for many months.

So if you are thinking about surrendering your animal to Town Lake Animal Center because you think it's a No Kill facility now, please think again. It is not. In the month of March alone (two-thirds of which occurred after the No Kill vote), the shelter killed 441 animals. Please do not take your beloved pet to TLAC unless you absolutely have no other option.

So what are your other options? First, ask for help. There are great resources available to you to find solutions to common pet challenges. Here's one from the ASPCA on common pet behavior issues. Or you could contact Austin Pets Alive's Positive Alternative to Shelter Surrender program. Second, before surrendering your pet to a pound, please also contact local rescue groups in your area to see if they might help you solve your issues or find another home for your pet. You should also contact your local limited-admission no-kill shelters (like Austin's Austin Humane Society). Third, you should attempt to use other resources (like Craigslist) to re-home your pet, or your family friends, or church members, etc. Here's another site with helpful information on re-homing a pet from Best Friends.

The point is: TLAC is not yet a No Kill shelter. It will get there, but it isn't there yet. Please don't let your pet be another statistic by surrendering it to TLAC at this time.

Best,

The FixAustin.org Team

Keeping Them Honest: TLAC Grossly Overstating Owner-Surrender Increase

2010-04-08T12:39:00.003-05:00

Hi folks,

Some of you may have seen news stories reporting an argument made by Town Lake Animal Center's management team that there has been a huge increase in animals surrendered to the shelter by their owners since the Austin City Council passed the historic No Kill resolution on March 12, 2010. It is appropriate for the shelter to let people know that the shelter is not yet No Kill and won't be until after all of the Council's No Kill reforms have been enacted. But it is not appropriate for the shelter to grossly overstate their case for a dramatic increase in owner surrenders, as the shelter is doing.

Here's the case being made by TLAC in the news: because owner surrenders over the 26 days following the No Kill resolution are up 46 over the same period last year, the resolution is causing an increase in owner surrenders. First of all, let's just say that any mathematician would giggle at the idea that because one thing happened after the other that the second was caused by the first. Mathematicians would also giggle at the idea that one could prove causation by statistics; to the contrary, one can only prove correlation by statistics.

But regardless, a plain look at the historical data demonstrates that TLAC is grossly overstating its case for the assertion that the No Kill resolution is causing an increase in owner surrenders. Why? Because the number of animals surrendered to the shelter by their owners was already increasing this year over last year before the No Kill resolution was passed. As a result, one cannot conclude that the resolution caused the increase because there was an increase both before and after the resolution was passed.

Please note that this is not to say that Austin going No Kill will not increase owner surrenders. That may happen when people think the shelter is a safe place. And given that intake is considerably higher in Summer months, we should anticipate a greater increase in owner surrenders this year over last year if the trend is already demonstrating an increase in owner surrenders. In any event, we make this point only to demonstrate that TLAC is grossly overstating its case now. The data simply does not prove what they claim.

Here's the data:

Change in Per-Month Owner-Surrenders from Last Year to this Year:

26-day Period After 3/12 Referendum (reported by KXAN): +46

March 2010: Not Yet Reported by TLAC

February 2010: Not Yet Reported by TLAC

January 2010: +37

December 2009: +29

November 2009: +36

October 2009: +31

Best,

The FixAustin.org Team

Austin City Council to Decide Whether to Make Austin a No Kill City This Thursday, March 11, at 10am

2010-03-06T12:34:00.003-06:00

This is perhaps the biggest news in the No Kill world since Reno, NV, went No Kill in 2007. This Thursday, March 11, the Austin City Council will decide whether Austin, Texas, will join the ranks of America's No Kill cities. The Council is considering a plan of proven methods to produce No Kill success: (1) low-cost and free spay-neuter programs; (2) a comprehensive adoption program including off-site adoptions; (3) keeping open the downtown shelter once the city's new shelter opens outside of the city center; and (4) a large-scale foster program.

The No Kill plan has now been posted on the City Council's website in Agenda Item #21.

If you want to help make Austin a No Kill City, we ask that you please send an e-mail to the Austin City Council members asking them to pass the plan. Their e-mails are: lee.leffingwell@ci.austin.tx.us, mike.martinez@ci.austin.tx.us, laura.morrison@ci.austin.tx.us, chris.riley@ci.austin.tx.us, randi.shade@ci.austin.tx.us, bill.spelman@ci.austin.tx.us, and sheryl.cole@ci.austin.tx.us.

THANK YOU for your help!

The FixAustin.org Team

Great News! The City Council Health & Human Services Subcommittee Embraces a No Kill Plan

2010-03-01T17:49:00.008-06:00

Today, the City of Austin moved one step closer to becoming America's next No Kill City. At a meeting of the City Council Subcommittee for Health and Human Services, Subcommittee members voted 3-0 to direct city staff to move forward with a No Kill plan that includes elements written by the Animal Advisory Commission including a comprehensive adoption program, off-site adoptions, and a moratorium on killing healthy, adoptable animals while cages sit empty and unused.

It is our understanding that the Subcommittee will formally review staff's revised plan this Thursday at 3pm at 505 Barton Springs Road in Austin. If the plan is approved by the subcommittee at that time, it will be soon presented to the full Austin City Council for an up-or-down vote.

Some people have asked us about the proposal that a non-profit animal-welfare group operate the Adoptions Program of the Town Lake Animal Center. Yes, we believe that is in the plan, and that proposals for operating the shelter's Adoptions Program will be open to a full and public procurement process--- not designated for any particular non-profit in advance.

We have a great deal to be proud of as residents of Austin, Texas, and today's vote was no exception. We hope this new No Kill plan will be approved and implemented by the full Austin City Council.

Best regards,

The FixAustin.org Team

Call Off the Dogs! The Austin Humane Society's "Action Alert" Is False

2010-02-18T14:47:00.005-06:00

Hello Animal Advocates,

For reasons we do not understand, the Austin Humane Society has embarked on a campaign to save the new animal shelter. Here's the problem: IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE SAVED. It is not on the chopping block. It is not being delayed. What they are communicating is pure fantasy.

Here are the facts: the shelter management asked the City Council to officially sign off on the construction contract for the new shelter in February 2010. But because the shelter management had neglected its duty to prepare a design for the future use of the current shelter as part of that process, the vote was postponed to the very next meeting (March 2010) to give the shelter management time to do their job and put together a complete plan as they have been repeatedly instructed to do by the City Council. That is all that happened.

Here is a second key fact: delaying the vote on the construction contract by one month will not delay the construction of the shelter. Construction will not begin any later as a result of the delay caused by the shelter staff in failing to meet their obligations.

Here is a third key fact: the shelter management is at fault for this delay. That's the same shelter management that the Austin Humane Society has publicly embraced time and time again. Why on earth would they bombard Council with incorrect e-mails given that their own ally caused the delay?

Don't believe us? Then listen to Austin's Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez, a proven and dedicated advocate for Austin's animals, who released this statement:

"Dear Sirs and Madams,
Thank you for your emails. We truly appreciate your concern for our new animal shelter and the welfare of our animals in Austin.
Unfortunately, and irresponsibly, you have been given incomplete, inaccurate or out of context information.
This council took no action, what-so-ever, to delay the construction of the new shelter. Any info to the contrary is simply false. Staff postponed an agenda item, to be brought back in March, regarding the construction of the new shelter. That item will come back and it will occur in March 2010. Construction will begin on time and the project will go as plan.
The reason for postponing the item is due to the fact that council gave explicit direction that our new shelter "will not" open without a full adoption facility in operation at the current TLAC site. The integrated plan to improve live outcomes will come before the Health and Human Service Council Sub Committee in early March and then to council at the very next available meeting. Once this occurs and all commitments have been adhered to, the item to proceed with the new shelter construction will occur on time.
This council remains committed to our animal welfare issues and we will continue to do all that we can to improve live outcomes and proceed with our, citizen granted, state of the art animal shelter. But we will do it with a comprehensive approach to achieve all of our goals in this regard.
Please feel free to forward this to the entire animal welfare community so all can be fully informed.
Any other info that is different from what has been provided only exist to serve a specific political agenda and should be corrected immediately.
Thanks,
Mike"

So what should you do? First, ignore the Austin Humane Society's alert; they are just wrong on this issue as a matter of fact. Second, stop sending the Austin City Council e-mails complaining about the shelter being delayed when that is not remotely true. If anything, commend the Mayor Pro Tem and the rest of the Austin City Council for enforcing their mandate that an Adoption Center remain open at the current shelter location when the new shelter opens in East Austin.

With kindest regards,

The FixAustin.org Team

Animal Animal Advisory Commission Passes No Kill Implementation Plan

2010-02-01T11:56:00.001-06:00

GREAT NEWS! After a five-hour marathon meeting yesterday, the Austin Animal Advisory Commission passed an implementation plan to make Austin a No Kill City. The pillars of the plan are: (1) Rewriting the mission of Animal Services to embrace lifesaving as a core goal; (2) Partnering with Austin Pets Alive to operate the City's Adoption Program (including the operation of 4 off-site adoption locations 7 days a week); (3) Saving ALL existing buildings at the current TLAC site for adoptions purposes once the new shelter in East Austin is built; and (4) Enhancing community spay/neuter efforts by partnering with Emancipet.

This is a great plan and is endorsed by Austin's animal-welfare community and its leaders. The next step is to convince the Austin City Council to pass it. We'll post a link to the plan as soon as we receive a final copy.

Help Lead the Way: Attend the No Kill Conference

2010-01-06T13:50:00.004-06:00

We're excited to be a part of the national No Kill Conference, America's preeminent national conference on ending the unnecessary killing of lost and homeless cats and dogs at animal shelters. This year's conference features the nation's most outstanding shelter directors, leading animal lawyers, and advocates who can help you reduce shelter killing in your community. FixAustin.org's own Ryan Clinton will be speaking on Reforming Animal Control through political advocacy and lobbying. Learn more about the conference at this link: http://www.nokillconference.org/. Reserve your spot quickly: this conference, like last year's, WILL SELL OUT.

Letters to the Editor

2009-11-02T22:03:00.003-06:00

Two letters to the editor were printed in the Austin America-Statesman today regarding Town Lake Animal Center:

Monday, November 02, 2009
Town Lake animal disgrace
I recently saved a sweet three-legged 12-year-old dog from Town Lake Animal Center's death row.
I was shocked that Austin has such a poor excuse for an animal shelter. We waited in the adoption room for 20 minutes before we were told no one would be staffing the adoptions room that day. We were shuffled to another room, interviewed, then left on our own.
Most dogs had accidents in their cages. When I got my adoptee out of his concrete cell, he was pooping and peeing as he walked because he was house trained and must had been holding it for a while.
The experience was not adoption-friendly: too many rooms; old, dirty, jail-like cages; highly stressed, uncomfortable animals.
I can't believe Austin treats its sheltered animals this way. Shame on the city and whoever is charge at the shelter.
Stephen Plyler
Round Rock
Re: Oct. 27 editorial "Pets, progress depend on civility in Austin."
Animals are being killed at Town Lake Animal Center because of the lack of civility? It seems that the Austin Animal Advisory Commission begs to differ, as do animal welfare groups across the country.
Animals are being killed because of lack of strong leadership at the shelter and at the City Council. Cities all across the United States are no kill, and it isn't because of civility. It is because of common sense, economically sound decisions and deciding that killing healthy animals is no longer an option.
How many no kill conferences are the shelter Director Dorinda Pulliam and/or her staff attending? Austin should be leading, not lagging behind.
Sasha Evans
saevan@gmail.com
Austin

BE THEIR VOICE THIS TUESDAY

2009-10-26T00:30:00.003-05:00

Every day, Austin Pets Alive rescues as many dogs and cats as they can from Town Lake Animal Center. But make no mistake, they leave some behind and they hate it. Thankfully, there’s something you can do to help this Tuesday: On October 27th at 6pm at the Rosewood Zaragosa Neighborhood Center (2800 Webberville Road), we need you to speak for those being left behind.

At Tuesday’s City-called public meeting, the City wants your input on what it should prioritize at the shelter. We need you to advocate for Austin Pets Alive’s efforts to increase “live outcomes”—more adoptions, transfers to rescue groups, and animals returned to their homes. We want no adoptable healthy or treatable dog or cat left to die today.

Believe it or not, there are powerful forces in our community who believe that the animals left behind are not worth trying to save—that they should continue to be “humanely destroyed,” day after day, while we exclusively focus on long-term goals. On the other hand, we think every healthy and treatable dog and cat who enters the shelter should have a chance to leave alive today. We’ve got the data to prove it can be done and Austin Pets Alive has the know-how to do it. In fact, Austin Pets Alive is already singlehandedly responsible for over 96% of the increase in live outcomes at the shelter this year over last. What we don’t have is the City’s buy in, and that’s where you come in.

We need the City to hear from you that even while it continues to employ long-term strategies, it must increase efforts to stop today’s shelter killing. For decades, the City and some other groups have focused exclusively on the latter, leaving shelter animals to die day after day. We need you to help us make Austin Pets Alive's short-term “live outcomes” strategies the City’s #1 focus today, while we continue with our already well-funded, well-planned long-term strategies to reduce intake tomorrow.

Please attend Tuesday’s meeting to advocate for Austin Pets Alive’s efforts to increase live outcomes now. We are unwilling to continue turning our backs on the dogs and cats left behind, and we need you to be their voice.

See you there,

The FixAustin.org Team

Animal Advisory Commission Holds TLAC Violating State Law

2009-10-21T23:04:00.003-05:00

Tonight, the Austin Animal Advisory Commission unanimously voted that Town Lake Animal Center is failing to comply with Texas law's mandate to humanely separate sick and healthy animals.

We were particularly struck by a comment from the Animal Commission's Chairperson, Larry Tucker, who said:

“With a $5.5 million annual budget, you would think that shelter Director Dorinda Pulliam could at least treat the animals humanely before they are killed. But we discovered that the shelter is routinely and inhumanely confining sick and healthy animals together, in direct violation of State law.”

We are saddened but unsurprised that TLAC is not treating animals humanely. Read more on the story here: http://www.fixaustin.org/page/HealthCode

We Don't All Want the Same Thing

2009-10-19T19:03:00.004-05:00

In a conversation with an aide to an Austin City Council member today, we were told again that we should all get along--- because we and the shelter manager who has presided over the unnecessary deaths of over 100,000 homeless dogs and cats "all want the same thing."

How do we say this nicely? Um... No. You are wrong. We do not all want the same thing.

We want our community to become a No Kill city by implementing the proven, cost-effective policies and programs that have led to dramatic reductions in shelter killing in communities all over the country. They want to continue the status quo policies and hope (against all rational thought) that continuing to do the same thing, over and over again, will effect a different outcome.

We want an off-site adoption program that will bring the wonderful, healthy and happy impounded dogs and cats to the people of Austin. They think that there is no point to having off-site adoptions because no one wants the dogs and cats that don't get adopted at the shelter anyway.

We want a foster program that will expand the capacity of the shelter by saving young kittens, young puppies, and dogs needing a little extra TLC to get adopted. They want to rely on old excuses and to blame the public for the deaths of all animals at the shelter.

And, perhaps most importantly, we want a shelter manager who embraces proven, cost-effective life-saving methods and rejects long-disproven myths to justify killing dozens of dogs and cats every single day. They... well... do not.

So can we please stop saying that we all want the same thing? We do not, and saying so doesn't make our disagreements go away. Worse yet, saying so fails to recognize that there are different paths from which to choose. The path of respect for every life and the path of bureaucratic resistance. Those are different paths, and they lead to different places.

So please stop saying it: We don't all want the same thing.

Is the Mueller Redevelopment Austin's Most Pet UN-Friendly Neighborhood?

2009-10-13T13:50:00.004-05:00

When the City of Austin released plans for its own, master-planned community at the old Austin Mueller Airport, a lot of people (including us) had reason to be excited. Mixed-use neighborhoods, parks, wide sidewalks and front porches were promised--- the kind of neighborhood we would all like to be a part of.

But then came the great animal-shelter debate of 2007. The City's shelter management decided it would be best to move the animal shelter away from its prime, central location in the heart of Austin's vibrant downtown in favor of a site in an industrial area on the City's eastern outskirts. At the time, we wondered why the Mueller Redevelopment wasn't being considered for the new shelter because it was city-owned property, being designed as a mixed-use, walkable development. What more could we want for the new animal shelter? Why Mueller was "off the table" was a question we didn't learn the answer to until years later: As is turns out, the leaders of the master plan lobbied the City Council against including the animal shelter in its design. Mueller 1, Animals 0.

If that wasn't enough to be pissed off at those who designed the Mueller Redevelopment, we've now discovered that the leaders of the neighborhood have also decided to ban all owners of pit bulls from the neighborhood. In Section K-2 of the Mueller Redevelopment's Rules and Regulations, there it is: breed discrimination in the worst form. The rules expressly ban ownership of a "pit bull terrier."

It is truly remarkable that in a City as progressive as Austin, the leaders of the City's own master-planned community have fallen to ignorance (at best) when it comes to breed discrimination. Anyone who has taken a moment to do a little research could have learned that pit bulls are among the best dogs you'll ever own, once considered America's Nanny for their calm, steady stewardship of families and children. Mueller 2, Animals 0.

So who would be banned from the Mueller Redevelopment based on its leaders' ignorance? Well, we could start with former Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. Throw in Helen Keller and General George S. Patton. Celebrities John Stewart, Jessica Alba, and Brad Pitt are also banned from living in the Mueller Redevelopment. Geez, come to think of it, I guess we're in good company.

"July 4th Dogs" Expected to Flood the Shelter - What You Can Do

2009-07-03T23:27:00.015-05:00

While Fourth of July fireworks and parties are fun and exciting for people, they can be terrifying for pets, especially dogs left alone in backyards. In their fear they break chains (illegal in Austin!), and go over, under, or through fences. They may be miles from home and unable to find their way back by the time the noise is over and they calm down. Shelters across America are so inundated with lost dogs over the next few days that they've even coined a term for them – "July 4th dogs." The fate of these family pets is often tragic - death in a frightening and unfamiliar place. Even if the "July 4th dogs" make it home again, other dogs who have been at the shelter longer may pay with their lives as shelters make room for the flood of new arrivals. Cats can be victims of July Fourth as well. Don't let your dog or cat become a statistic - keep them inside on the Fourth!

Here are some tips to keep your pets safe this Fourth of July:

Keep dogs and cats inside your home the evening of the Fourth.
Make sure all pets are wearing well-fitting collars with up-to-date tags. Better yet, get them microchipped and make sure to keep your contact information updated.
If you'll be away from home, provide safe chew toys (like stuffed kongs) to distract your pet.
Consider crating pets known to be especially anxious or who may become destructive or break out through a window. If you don't have a crate, confine them to one room with safe chew toys and remove any objects they could destroy or that would be harmful if chewed or eaten.
Leave a radio or tv on to cover the noise of any fireworks or loud parties.

Don't forget to keep pets safe during the heat of the day by providing a continuous supply of fresh water, a shaded place if outside, and limiting exercise to morning and evening hours. And NEVER leave your pet in the car in the summer, even in the evening.

Lost Pets
If your pet is lost, visit the shelter every day or check online until found. Post large flyers with color photos of your pet around your neighborhood. Post a lost pet ad on Craigslist and check the found pet ads. Contact your neighbors or post to your neighborhood's mailing list or newsletter.

Found Pets
If you find a lost pet after the Fourth, if possible keep them at your home while you look for their owner to ease the strain on the shelter and save lives. If the pet isn't wearing tags, you should take it to the shelter to be scanned for a microchip, photographed, and entered in their lost and found database, then bring it home with you.

Some other communities, like Albuquerque, New Mexico, are taking special steps to ensure pets and owners are quickly reunited this holiday. We hope to see Austin's shelter take such a proactive approach in the future.

Other articles of interest:
Pet Detective Tracks July 4th Orphans
July 4th Safety Tips for Owners
Tips to Keep Your Pets Safe This 4th of July
Don't Let Your Dog Become a July 4th Dog
Chew Treats Needed to Calm Shelter Dogs on July 4th (Austin)
Valley animal shelters to be closed on 4th for lack of space

KVUE News Seeks FixAustin.org's Comments

2009-07-03T23:06:00.003-05:00

In Austin, we're well known as the independent animal-welfare advocates in town. We don't take money or any other resources from the City, so we can speak with an unbiased voice on animal issues.

Today, we used that voice to speak against Town Lake Animal Center's ill-advised proposal to cut funding for low-cost and free spay-neuter services next year. You can watch KVUE reporter Steve Alberts's coverage of the controversy here: http://bit.ly/Hv4XS

Update on City's Proposed Cuts to Spay/Neuter Services

2009-06-27T15:12:00.000-05:00

A lot of people are appropriately fighting to keep Emancipet from getting its funding cut as TLAC staff has imprudently proposed to the City Manager.

But it's also important to point out that several of TLAC's alternative budget cuts (in addition to the Emancipet cut) propose to replace cut items using funds from TLAC's "donations fund," which is currently used essentially as a "slush fund" by TLAC's director. The donations fund has nearly half a million dollars in it. TLAC has argued, then, that the proposed cuts to Emancipet and other items (like microchipping, and medical services for feral cats) are not really cuts at all---because their funding will be replaced by the donations fund.

Here's the problem: the donations fund currently pays for lots of items, including emergency medical services and (most importantly) free and low-cost spay/neuter services. So if an item on the proposed list of cuts (say, microchipping) gets its funding cut but then replaced by the donations fund (as TLAC currently proposes), that too will effectively cut spay/neuter services because the money from the donations fund won't be able to be used for spay/neuter services.

So what's the alternative? We truly believe the only way to have a serious, open, and honest discussion about budget cuts is to have a real, line-by-line TLAC budget that is open to the public for all to see--- and for all to suggest cuts. While the Animal Advisory Commission has been given a more detailed budget this year than in prior years (after Council staff intervened), the more detailed budget still does not provide the level of detail necessary to propose real, honest cuts. For example, TLAC spent $13,300 on "cat tents" to use as give-aways at the same time they proposed to cut spay/neuter services. But there is no "cat tents" line in any budget anyone has seen.

This is not to say that real cuts haven't been proposed despite the (probably intentional) difficulty in comprehending TLAC's budget. Pat Valls-Trelles has proposed several real cuts, and a subcommittee of the Animal Advisory Commission is attempting to do the same. And, several FixAustin members are also attempting to come up with proposed cuts--- and those "cat tents" are a good place to start.

We will continue to attempt to find unnecessary spending in the TLAC budget that is of lesser priority than TLAC's proposed cuts to spay/neuter services. Just thought it was important to communicate where we are in this process, the main reason this is more difficult than it should be, and the importance of contesting not only TLAC's proposed cut to Emancipet, but also the proposed cuts to anything that will have its funding replaced by the donations fund.

Animal Lovers Needed in Williamson County!

2009-06-19T13:34:00.002-05:00

While we tend to focus on Austin's homeless pets, let's not forget about our neighbors to the north! The Williamson County Regional Animal Shetler is completely full of cats and kittens and needs people to come up and adopt or foster a cat or kitten. Williamson County's shelter director, Cheryl Schneider, believes that we should do everything we can to humanely save lives before resorting to euthanasia, so let's give her some help!

Please adopt or foster a cat or kitten from the Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter. They are located at 1855 S.W. Inner Loop in Georgetown, Texas. Check out their website at wilcopets.org, or call the shelter at 943-3597 for more details.

Thanks for helping Central Texas's homeless pets!

Historic Vote at Austin Animal Advisory Commission

2009-06-17T22:36:00.000-05:00

Hello all,

Tonight was an historic evening at the Austin Animal Advisory Commission. For the first time ever, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend that Town Lake Animal Center adopt programs and policies that have ended unnecessary shelter killing in other communities. Among the recommendations were that TLAC implement a comprehensive adoption program including off-site adoptions, a large-scale foster program, improved customer service, and candor and honesty with the public.

I cannot underscore how important this was. And I would specifically thank Larry Tucker, Vice Chair of the Commission, for drafting the plan and getting it unanimously passed by the citizen commission.

The next step is that we need the Austin City Council to adopt these recommendations and implement them as a mandate to staff. Please begin e-mailing the City Council at http://bit.ly/19xZG to tell them to implement the Animal Advisory Commission's No Kill recommendations.

Please forward and cross-post.

Warmest regards,
The FixAustin.org Team

A Few Notes on Mandatory Spay-Neuter Laws

2009-06-03T00:28:00.004-05:00

Every so often, someone in Austin will adamantly swear that passing a mandatory spay-neuter law is the key to ending shelter killing in Austin and beyond. The biggest problem with that statement is, of course, that mandatory spay neuters have never worked to end shelter killing in any jurisdiction. It's important to govern with your head, not your gut, and based on all available evidence, your head should tell you that mandatory spay-neuter laws do not work.

But Christie Keith has published an article on the Daily Kos that adds a new argument against such laws: mandatory spay-neuter laws are regressive. The number one reasons people don't spay or neuter their animal is cost. So if you make all spay/neuter mandatory and you don't provide a free or low-cost option, persons of lower means will be disproportionately forced to hand their beloved pets over to animal control-- likely to be killed in most jurisdictions.

Fostered Pets Need Loving Homes

2009-05-25T13:43:00.015-05:00

The FixAustin.org Management Team not only advocates for homeless pets; we also roll up our shirtsleeves and do the hard work necessary to save lives. Three of our foster animals are almost ready for loving homes. Are you the right forever owner for them?

"Happy" is a fun-loving, big, goofy mutt found as a stray in Central East Austin. We've searched for several weeks to find his home but no one has come for him. He'll get fixed this week and wants to find a loving home that appreciates his smarts and loyalty and can handle his strength. Happy is obedient, handsome, and strong!

These two sweet kittens are also scheduled to get fixed and will soon be ready for their forever homes. Brother and sister, they make a great team but can also be separated. "Brie" is a fun and inquisitive calico female, and "Ozzie" is a gentle, cuddly orange tabby.

Please consider giving Happy, Brie, or Ozzie a loving home. They anxiously await your e-mail! Contact fixaustin@gmail.com for more information.

Congratulations to Animal-Friendly Candidates!

2009-05-09T23:35:00.002-05:00

We are so pleased to congratulate "5 Paw" City Council candidates Mike Martinez, Chris Riley, and Bill Spelman for their elections to the Austin City Council tonight. We look forward to working with you as we look ahead to a No Kill Austin.

Full-Page Ad in the Austin Chronicle

2009-05-08T10:36:00.001-05:00

Check out FixAustin.org's full-page Voter Information Guide in the Austin Chronicle this month. You can view the full-page guide by clicking here.

FixAustin a National Leader in Shelter Advocacy

2009-05-08T10:03:00.004-05:00

Congratulations to FixAustin.org, which has become a national leader in shelter-reform advocacy. In fact, FixAustin.org founder Ryan Clinton, an appellate attorney who has five times been named one of the best attorneys in Texas under 40, was a featured speaker at the No Kill Conference in Washington D.C. at the beginning of May. Three cheers for animal advocates!

FixAustin Foster Kittens on Fox 7 News

2009-05-06T18:46:00.004-05:00

This evening, Fox 7 News ran a story on the importance of having a foster program to reduce the completely unnecessary killing of young kittens. As the story mentioned, Town Lake Animal Center killed 32 completely healthy kittens in April 2009 alone just because they were too young to adopt out. A large-scale foster program at TLAC would save these cats, but of course, TLAC says it doesn't need a foster program (or it alread has one?).

Click here to watch the story!

The FixAustin.org Voter Information Guide Has Been Released!

2009-05-04T13:01:00.002-05:00

Hello friends,

We're happy to announce that FixAustin.org's annual Voter Information Guide was released this morning. Four City Council candidates received the highest marks for their commitment to animal-welfare issues: Mike Martinez, Bill Spelman, Chris Riley, and Perla Cavazos.

You can read our guide, along with links to each candidate's response to our questionnare, on FixAustin.org's homepage linked here.

Happy Voting!

The Team

FixAustin.org is now on Twitter!

2009-04-29T22:51:00.004-05:00

Just in time for the No Kill Conference this weekend in Washington, D.C., FixAustin has joined Twitter! Visit http://twitter.com/FixAustin or text "Follow FixAustin" to 40404 from your cell phone to follow our updates.

Several members of the FixAustin team will be attending the conference and will be tweeting about our experiences. The conference will feature forward-thinking shelter directors saving over 90% of the animals in their communities and animal law experts using the legal system to protect animals. You can keep up with all the news from the conference by watching #nokill on Twitter or by visiting http://thenokillnation.ning.com. Animal Wise Radio will also webcast from the conference.

Candidate Ratings Coming!

2009-04-25T20:39:00.005-05:00

As FixAustin.org has done before past elections, we'll be posting City Council candidate animal-welfare ratings and also their responses to our animal-welfare questions.

As a teaser, you'll be shocked to hear what one leading candidate plans for the future adoption center on Town Lake... or should we say "lack thereof."

Stay tuned!

Two New, Limited Time Free and Low-Cost Spay/Neuter Options in Austin

2009-04-19T16:19:00.003-05:00

Emancipet and Animal Trustees of Austin have announced two new, limited-time low-cost and free spay/neuter opportunities in Austin. We've tracked down the details and highlighted them below.

As you may know from reading this blog, decreasing intake is a critical part (though only part) of bringing a community to no-kill success. While the City of Austin does a deplorable job on keeping animals alive once they've reached the shelter, it does a great job in supporting low-cost spay-neuter programs to decrease shelter intake. Here are two great new programs run by Austin-area non-profits. The second program is funded by the generous donations of Austinites to the City pound's donations fund.

Three cheers for Emancipet and Animal Trustees of Austin for providing these services!

1. Emancipet's "5 Saves Lives!" program:
For the month of May only, puppies and kittens up to 5 months old will receive spay/neuter surgery for just $5. Schedule your appointment now at Emancipet. Call 512.587.7729 or visit www.empancipet.org. Mention "5 Saves Lives."
The 5 Saves Lives special is at Emancipet (stationary clinic) only. It is a new effort to highlight the importance of spay/neuter at an early age (preferably between 3 and 5 months old). An appointment is required, so pet owners should call now to book one, and this is good for the entire month of May - all puppies or kittens 3- 5 months old get surgery for $5.
2. Emancipet's and Animal Trustees of Austin's "Summer of Love" cat special:
Emancipet and Animal Trustees of Austin are providing free cat surgeries for all pet cats. Free Microchip. Free Rabies shot will be provided if there is no proof of current vaccination. Schedule an appointment at Emancipet 587-7729 or Animal Trustees of Austin 450-0111.
The free cat surgeries are available the first full week of each month in May, June, and July (May 4 - 9, June 1 - 6, and July 6 - 11). The special includes surgery, rabies, and microchip for all cats who come into either clinic those weeks. At Emancipet, the cats will also get a free collar and custom ID tag. Appointments are required and spots are limited, so book early. This is for owned cats only - not for rescue groups or feral cats.

Oops The Chronicle Did It Again

2009-04-12T21:56:00.005-05:00

In it's April 10th issue, the Chronicle admitted (in a correction titled "Oops") that it had mistakenly reported, based on information from the ASPCA and Austin's pound, that the percentage of animals killed at Austin's pound has declined each year since the current shelter director was hired in November 2000. As FixAustin.org pointed out at the time (and here), that claim is not remotely true.

So the Chronicle editor issued this statement in its latest edition:

In "How Many Cats Did Austin Save Last Year?" News, April 3, in briefly summarizing long-term trends, we mischaracterized the euthanasia rate over the last nine years, and we regret the error. Although the total numbers of animals killed at the Town Lake Animal Center slowly declined over the previous decade, the marked improvement in the euthanasia rate (that is, the percentage of received animals killed) has occurred over the past year in connection with the new Mission: Orange partnership. The larger trend is that, for most of the Nineties, Austin was killing two-thirds of the animals received at the center but is now killing less than a third.

One would think the Chronicle would have bothered to fact-check its factual correction to its incorrect factual claim, but on the subject of Austin's pound, it has become clear that the Chronicle does not bother to verify that its factual claims are true. The editor's new claim--- that "the total numbers of animals killed at the Town Lake Animal Center slowly declined over the previous decade"---is also wrong.

Starting with fiscal-year 2000-01, the total number of animals killed each year at the shelter is (in date order): 11,567; 10,722; 12,466; 12,887; 14,304; 12,343; 14,055; 10916. While we feel safe speaking for most Austinites in celebrating the most recent decline in shelter killing, we wish the Chronicle would limit its reporting to "facts" that are actually true.

Shop at Book People, Keep Austin's Pets Alive!

2009-04-07T23:11:00.003-05:00

On April 25th, Book People will donate 10% of purchases made at the store that day to off-site adoption group Austin Pets Alive, which is saving nearly 100 dogs and cats each month off of the kill list at Town Lake Animal Center.

The only catch is that you must use Austin Pets Alive's coupon. To get your coupon, hit this link: http://www.austinpetsalive.org/events/10perc-coupon.pdf. It's a great way to help Austin's lost and homeless pets find loving homes.

Sticking to the Facts

2009-04-07T13:15:00.010-05:00

In case anyone is wondering where FixAustin gets its statistics on Austin's pound, we get them directly from the source: Austin's pound. In Texas, there is a Public Information Act that makes most government documents available for public review. In Austin, TLAC makes its sheltering statistics available to the public as a result of this law.

More recent months are actually even available on-line on the City of Austin health department's website: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/health/animal_services_reports.htm. The reports available on-line cover the months from September 2007 to the present. Older reports are available upon request from the City's public information department.

For more information on requesting public information, visit the Texas Attorney General's website: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/requestors.shtml.

Best regards,

The FixAustin.org Team

Math Is Not Their Strong Point

2009-04-06T10:48:00.000-05:00

From the Austin Chronicle's latest pro-shelter propaganda:

"During Pulliam's tenure, according to animal shelter records and those of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the euthanasia rates have dropped each year since 2000, her first year."

Here are the actual figures:

Year Live Intake Killed Kill Rate

00-01 22907 11567 50.5%

01-02 21163 10722 50.7%

02-03 23283 12466 53.5%

03-04 24121 12887 53.4%

04-05 24815 14304 57.6%

05-06 23480 12343 52.6%

06-07 25897 14055 54.3%

07-08 23446 10916 46.6%

Kinda makes you wonder whether you can trust anything written by Patty Ruland on this subject.

Mr. Goss, Your Response

2009-04-05T12:34:00.003-05:00

A local citizen, Delwin Goss, recently attacked FixAustin.org founder Ryan Clinton's upbringing and personal life in a letter to the Austin Chronicle that appears on the newspaper's website. Mr. Goss did so because he disagrees with FixAustin's emphasis on enacting proven, life-saving policies to reduce shelter killing in Austin, and evidently has trouble separating policy disagreements from personal lives. In any event, after giving Mr. Goss time to remove the post, Ryan e-mailed him this response this morning. Please also feel free to share this with anyone who may have read his post.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ryan Clinton
Date: Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Subject: Mr. Goss, Your Response
To: DElwingoss

Mr. Goss,

I applaud your passion for animal welfare and your efforts to spay and neuter feral cats. On the other hand, I had held out hope that, by now, you would have come to understand the imprudence of criticizing someone's family, upbringing, and childhood in a public forum. Since you have not, I feel compelled to answer your letter to the Chronicle.

You insulted my childhood (as you have done before) and suggested that my family failed to meet your standards. Although I find your infatuation with my childhood creepy (and I am not alone in this regard), I will answer your inquiry: My family had far more love to share than money. My mother stayed home to raise us, and my father worked in government and non-profits. My grandfathers, a mill worker and a teacher, died before I was born. One of my grandmothers never knew that the checks she wrote to reimburse friends and family for groceries were worthless.

One of my brothers has struggled with many of the demons you have, Mr. Goss. Through him, I understand how difficult the drug addiction you have publicly described on the Chronicle's website is. And although my brother has never been a drug dealer as you have publicly claimed to have been on the Chronicle's website, my understanding of my brother has helped me understand you.

You've also questioned my commitment to doing work. Let me first answer this way, Mr. Goss: my parents instilled in me the value that when you do something good for the right reasons, you find no need to tell anyone you did it. Nonetheless, I hope there are times when exceptions to that rule are appropriate, because I'm making an exception on this occasion in an attempt to satisfy your fixation: This month alone, I've worked well over 250 hours at my job as an attorney in a boutique appellate law firm based in Dallas. I've done my best to help support an immediate family member who has been hospitalized for a month. I've done my best to support another immediate family member who was diagnosed with an incurable disease this month. And I've done my best to help support my mother, who two weeks ago had a long-suffering friend die in her home. I've also met with a City Council member to discuss ways to continue to improve the outlook for Austin's homeless pets, I've lobbied an old friend, who is a state representative, against House Bill 1982, which irrationally risks criminalizing the ownership of dogs weighing over 40 pounds (among other things), and I've been to animal-welfare meetings that you did not attend. I've spent a weekend helping research for and prepare a response to a Chronicle reporter's questions on animal welfare---answers that were not included in the article, probably because they were fair and rational in a way that conflicted with the reporter's vision for the story. This week alone, I also rescued, fostered, and homed two dogs and found a foster home for another. I also this past month donated $100 to the Austin Humane Society, $100 to Austin Pets Alive, $100 to the No Kill Advocacy Center, and $50 to Emancipet. And I'm currently working on a speech that I've been asked to deliver at a No Kill Conference in Washington, D.C., at the end of the month. On top of all that, I've done my best to spend time with my own rescued animals, my friends, and my significant other, who continues to forgive me for all the time I spend working in and outside of my day job.

So there are your answers, Mr. Goss. I hope your infatuation with my life has been temporarily satisfied. While you do wonderful work for animals in Austin, I fear that your antics do more harm than good. By electing to attack the childhood and personal lives of those with whom you disagree rather than addressing policy issues in a rational and reasoned way, you risk becoming marginalized and harming the movement that we both care about. For your own sake and for Austin's homeless pets, I pray that you'll stick to issues, and avoid personal lives, in the future. But if you don't (and I don't expect you will), I will continue forgiving you.

Best of luck,
Ryan

Where Oh Where Has Our Watchdog Gone?

2009-04-02T18:46:00.002-05:00

You may have seen the Austin Chronicle's most recent coverage of Austin's animal-services department. As we have said here and elsewhere, the Chronicle has officially abandoned any pretense of being a government watchdog in favor of the pound-cheerleader mantle.

The reporter on the "animal" beat, Patty Ruland, has repeatedly attacked those who ask for more for Austin's lost and homeless pets. In this latest series of articles, she has displayed her disdain for balanced reporting. She obviously spent a great deal of time with those who defend the shelter at all costs (TLAC Director Dorinda Pulliam, TLAC Promoter Karen Medicus, and Pulliam's Supervisor David Lurie). Know how much time she spent with those who advocate for less killing at TLAC? None.

Ms. Ruland did, however, send us one e-mail, which we answered. She did not follow-up, nor did she call us. Nor did she even bother to mention that we expressed great appreciation for the lower level of killing in Austin this year.

But you can decide for yourself. Below is the e-mail we sent Ms. Ruland. See for yourself how much she decided to consider for her story:

Hi Patty,

Ryan forwarded your questions to me and asked that I respond on behalf of FixAustin.org.

We are delighted that fewer animals have been killed at Town Lake Animal Center this year as compared to last year. It appears that the improvements in this year's data are attributable primarily to two things: first, Austin Pets Alive's new off-site adoption program that is saving many of the dogs and cats that TLAC has set to kill; and second, a significant reduction in intake that we believe has resulted from the low-cost and free spay/neuter programs offered by Emancipet, the Austin Humane Society, and Animal Trustees of Austin. We still have a long way to go and the reported fiscal year-to-date numbers (Oct –Feb) contain the lowest intake months. So, the improvement may not hold through-out the year, but we sure hope they do.

This being said, we continue to advocate for the implementation of proven, low-cost programs and policies that have dramatically reduced shelter killing in communities across America, such as a comprehensive adoption program that would include off-site adoption locations throughout the city seven days a week, and a full-scale foster program. These are programs that TLAC claims to implement but does so in name only and/or not at a level necessary for true success. In communities that have rigorously implemented proven no-kill methods, kill rates are at or near ten percent-- far better than Austin this year. Communities with kill rates far lower than Austin include San Francisco, CA; Ithaca, NY; Reno, NV; and Charlottesville, VA. More recent examples of communities that have seen dramatic improvements by adopting proven no-kill programs include Montgomery County (Conroe), Texas, which saw its kill rate decline from 80% to 18%, and Shreveport, Louisiana, which saw a 245% improvement in positive outcomes at its pound. The fastest way to no-kill success in Austin has been and continues to be the adoption of programs and policies that have produced results in other cities.
We also believe that the City of Austin should immediately impose a moratorium on the killing of healthy, non-aggressive animals when there open kennels at the shelter to give them the opportunity to find loving homes. Most Austinites probably assume that dogs and cats are only killed at TLAC when they are suffering or aggressive, or when there is no room. But the sad truth is that healthy nonaggressive animals are frequently killed at TLAC when there are more than 100 cages sitting empty. We find this practice to be completely unacceptable and out of line with our community's values.
Last year, TLAC killed 47% of the animals it impounded. This fiscal year's year-to-date figures (low-intake months October 2008 through February 2009) show significant improvement, but it is important to take a close look at them to understand what is causing the improvement so we can improve even further.
The first and most important improvement demonstrated by the data is a substantial increase in the number of animals saved by rescue groups. But a closer look reveals that 100% of the increase is attributable to Austin Pets Alive. Last fiscal year to-date, TLAC transferred 1361 animals to rescue groups other than APA, and none to APA. This fiscal year to-date, TLAC has transferred 1275 animals to rescue groups other than APA (a disturbing 6% decline), but 470 to APA, resulting in a net gain. Other rescue groups (like two awesome groups, Austin Dog Rescue and Austin Siamese Rescue) are necessary partners to success in Austin, but the data clearly demonstrate a decline in TLAC's work with rescue groups other than APA. If it weren't for APA, 6% fewer animals would have been saved to rescue groups this year as compared to last year. In the same vein, this year's data shows a 3% decline in animals returned to their owners by TLAC year-to-date. Statistically speaking, APA is nearly 100% responsible for the additional lives saved this year over last year to-date, and they have saved only those animals that TLAC would have otherwise killed. And even with APA's new program, the total number of lives saved this year to-date as compared to last year to-date is essentially stagnant, meaning that APA has made up for a significant decline in the lives otherwise saved by TLAC.
We don't think this point can be sufficiently underscored: Any story written about success in Austin animal welfare this year should be written about Austin Pets Alive, whose remarkable accomplishments are attributable to their visionary leadership and tireless volunteers. By implementing the off-site adoption strategies that have worked in other cities (strategies that TLAC has reluctantly acquiesced in allowing and even then, not nearly to the extent as other more successful cities), Austin Pets Alive has achieved inspiring and promising results in a very short period and with few resources.
As previously mentioned, the data also demonstrate that intake levels have fallen sharply so far this year as compared to last year. That's great and should be celebrated, but it should also be noted that comparison figures are misleading because last year's figures were abnormally high (among the highest this decade). Moreover, given the relatively few months behind us this year, it is near impossible to make accurate predictions regarding end-of-year figures. For example, year-to-date TLAC data from 2002 are very similar to this year's year-to-date data (excluding APA's rescues). The early fiscal-year 2002 data did not accurately predict year-end figures. Despite reporting a historically-low kill rate in February 2002, TLAC ended up killing 51% of impounded animals that year. As a result, the only year statistically similar to this year demonstrates a need for caution when attempting to make full-year projections based on early-year data. This is especially true because early-year figures represent low-intake months when small changes can make a big statistical difference. Because of the difficulty in making full-year projections based on partial and early-year data, making projections that we hope to but may not achieve as a community should be avoided. Indeed, every time we promise the community that we'll be no-kill soon, but fail to produce no-kill success (as we have now done twice in Austin), we further solidify the dispelled myth that no-kill is somehow not achievable.
You also asked for our views on TLAC's categorizations/definitions. We prefer not to use TLAC's categorical terms but to instead focus on the overall lifesaving rate and the programs proven to improve that rate. This is because terms like "adoptable" are highly subjective and can be manipulated to give the appearance that a shelter is doing more lifesaving than it really is. Saving 90% of pets that come in the door, as some shelters following the No Kill Equation are doing, is much more meaningful than saving 100% of pets labeled as "adoptable" by TLAC, especially when TLAC only labels around 30% of impounded animals as "adoptable." The fact that multiple communities have been able to save 90% or more over several years indicates the 90% figure is a more accurate indication of the number of lives that can be saved at an open-admission facility. In addition, APA's success shows that TLAC's "adoptable" labels are near-meaningless. APA only saves animals that TLAC has scheduled to kill. Thus, a significant percentage of animals taken and placed into loving homes by APA have been labeled "upadoptable" by TLAC. In addition, very young puppies and kittens may be labeled "unadoptable" due to nothing but their age--- even though they can be saved and are otherwise highly adoptable. Again, we stress that healthy, non-aggressive animals should not be killed when there are frequently more than 100 cages going unused each day.
If you want to report the actual data and not projections or spin, the truth is that Austin Pets Alive is the real hero in Austin. But we still have a long way to go. We don't know what will happen with intake the remainder of this year or in future years, and historical data demonstrates that we should be cautious when making full-year projections from partial-year statistics. Moreover, APA is currently able to save only a fraction of the animals TLAC would otherwise kill. Thus, we believe APA’s role should increase dramatically in the near future.
Again, we are very happy to see fewer animals killed this year at TLAC, but we could be doing far better with a more progressive shelter management.
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to respond,
The FixAustin.org Team
Lorri Michel

Winograd in Houston; Free Books for Journalists

2009-03-27T12:14:00.003-05:00

We've received a couple of notes from the No Kill Advocacy Center worth passing along.

First, Nathan Winograd will be giving a full-day seminar on no-kill sheltering on March 28, 2009, in Houston, Texas. You can purchase seminar tickets and learn more about the presention---and the efforts of Houston's no-kill advocates---by clicking here.

Second, the No Kill Advocacy Center is giving away free copies of Redemption, the most important book on no-kill sheltering in America, to elected officials, staff reporters, and animal-control directors. To get your free copy, follow the directions in this link. If you are open-minded enough to learn the inconvenient truth about America's animal-sheltering system, we strongly encourage you to pick up a copy of Redemption. And if you don't qualify for a free copy, you can purchase one on Amazon.com through this link.

$114,649.50

2009-03-06T00:28:00.009-06:00

In light of the City of Austin's budget crunch, the Austin American-Statesman just released a list of all City employees whose base salary was greater than $100,000 in 2008. You might be surprised by one of the names on the list. In case you're curious (we feel bad, but hey, it's a matter of public record, you pay her salary, and it's already in the Statesman), see page 6 of this link: http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/03/030509_citysalaries.pdf

Austin Chronicle Turns Its Back on Austin's Homeless Pets

2009-03-05T14:37:00.008-06:00

We have to believe that at one point, the Austin Chronicle played the role of City watchdog, a role necessary given the Statesman's conservative predisposition to avoid angering City leaders. This story shows, yet again, that the Chronicle has abandoned that role on Austin animal-sheltering issues in favor of attacking community advocates who lend their voices to Austin's lost and homeless pets.

It is worth noting that the Chronicle did not contact FixAustin.org to verify facts for this story, and it is therefore unsurprising that the reporter gets the order and nature of the events wrong (e.g., the City's memo admitting the possibility of an animal incinerator was in response to e-mails following two shelter-staff presentations, not a website posting purportedly leading to council phone calls). But the Chronicle's inaccurate portrayal of the facts is less important than its spin.

Indeed, if you read the article closely, you'll actually see that the FixAustin.org statement referenced in the article (available here: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:751806 and here) was entirely accurate, not "a false alarm."

FixAustin.org's statement reported two things: (1) the planned new animal shelter will have 20 fewer "adoption" kennels for dogs, and though the shelter staff argues their larger size will allow for greater capacity, that claim is difficult to believe given that shelter staff leaves 100+ cages empty as it kills healthy pets every day at TLAC; and (2) shelter staff is still considering building an animal incinerator at the East Austin site.

All of those assertions are true. The City is planning fewer cages in the dog "adoption" area at the new shelter. The current shelter management does leave over 100 cages empty as she continues to order the killing of healthy pets at TLAC. And the City is still considering building an animal incinerator at the new shelter site in East Austin.

Given the veracity of FixAustin.org's statement, it is just plain odd that the Chronicle's headline is that the charges were "rejected." They weren't; they were confirmed.

If the Chronicle at one point provided a critical eye on city government, it doesn't anymore--- at least not on animal-sheltering issues in Austin. It now provides the role of pound cheerleader. And that's a shame for the roughly 10,000 lost and homeless pets who will be killed there this year--- especially given that more progressive shelters around the country no longer kill animals at the terrible pace that Austin does.

Industrial Animal Incinerator at East Austin Shelter Site?

2009-02-23T23:36:00.002-06:00

We're writing tonight to communicate our continued concern over what appears to be either merely incompetent or openly misleading communications regarding the City of Austin's Health and Human Services Department's preparations for the new animal shelter in East Austin.

You've probably already heard from others about the Department's remarkable "forgetfulness" when it comes to answering basic questions such as how many kennels are planned for the new site. We speculate that their collective amnesia on the subject may result from embarrassment that despite their lofty promises and assurances during the shelter-move controversy, they may actually plan fewer kennels at the new shelter than the number present at the current downtown facility.

But we're writing about something else: our concerns over the potential for a massive industrial animal incinerator at the East Austin site.

Just a few short years ago, animal-shelter director Dorinda Pulliam told us of her considerable interest in moving the shelter so that a large animal incinerator could be included in the new plans. She touted what was, in her mind, a great benefit of having an industrial animal incinerator: a profit-making enterprise that would attract business from (1) residents of Austin who want to cremate their pets, and (2) other municipalities that would pay Austin to burn the bodies of all of their impounded and killed animals.

We hadn't thought about that rather sickening conversation until tonight, when Department representatives met with residents and leaders of East Austin neighborhoods. When the topic came up about whether the new shelter might include such an incinerator, the until-that-point conversational Department representatives evidently had trouble forming their words. And when they did, they would only say that an incinerator was not in the "current" plans. Critically, they would not rule out building a large, industrial animal incinerator at the East Austin shelter site.

As was stated at the shelter-move meeting in October 2007, we cannot imagine 44 acres of real estate in West Austin being targeted for municipal development without engaging the local residents to build a plan together for the land. We would bet our lives that the City of Austin would not build an industrial animal incinerator in West Austin with or without engaging local residents. With that in mind, we cannot stay silent while City Staff leaves open the possibility of building a giant incinerator at the site in East Austin.

This is all we ask: If the City is planning for the possibility of building an incinerator on the site--- in the first phase or merely leaving open the possibility for a future phase--- why won't they own up to it so that we can have a proper, democratic discourse over it? And if the City is not planning for that particular contingency, why won't they put the issue to rest?

The residents of East Austin (and we're among them) deserve to know the truth about what will be in the air our kids will be breathing for the next 50 years.

Surprising Details Omitted from New Shelter Planning

2009-02-19T12:02:00.003-06:00

At last night’s Animal Advisory Commission meeting, city staff and their selected architects presented an update on the status of the new animal shelter. Based on the drawings in the presentation, it appears as though there are far fewer “adoption” kennels than “stray” kennels. This is a concern because pets in the “adoption” kennels are not frequently euthanized, while pets in the “stray” kennels are subject to euthanasia at any point. This demonstrates a priority for killing rather than saving. Despite talking about the “whimsy” designs planned for the walls and such, no mention whatsoever of the actual number of kennels was made during the presentation.

Citizen questions concerning the shelter design were not permitted, but the vice-chair of the commission asked how many “adoption” and how many “stray” kennels are planned? Shockingly, neither the architects nor the shelter manager knew the answer to that question. This not only demonstrates the continued misplaced focus of shelter management, but also conveys an apparent attempt to, once again, keep citizens in the dark or not “awakended” (to use chairperson Babette Ellis’ phrase) about multi-million dollar planned investments until it’s too late to consider citizen input.

Further, since no mention was made regarding the adoption center that is to remain at the current shelter site, the commission inquired about this too. City staff indicated they had no plans to spend any money on the adoption center and offered no explanation as to how they would or could outfit the current site for adoptions without spending any money. This came as a surprise, since we have long heard from staff how deplorable, dangerous and otherwise inadequate the current site is.

Confidence in current shelter management was lost long ago. We see no indication of a need to reconsider this conclusion. It is time to replace current shelter management with a progressive manager committed to implementing 21st century sheltering strategies.

What Austin Pets Alive Is Proving

2009-01-28T23:15:00.003-06:00

Town Lake Animal Center's director, Dorinda Pullima, likes to take credit for the lives being saved every day in Austin by a new group, Austin Pets Alive. The group, having just started this summer, is now on pace to save over 100 animals each month. They are simply awesome.

But if Pulliam thinks APA's success is proof of her own stewardship, she's got another thing coming. You see, APA is doing what TLAC should have been doing years ago. The strategy is simple: take the animals to the people; don't expect the people to go to the pound. By taking dogs each day that TLAC deems "unadoptable" and driving them down the street and getting them adopted--- within days and for twice TLAC's adoption fee--- APA is proving wrong every one of Pulliam's favorite myths.

Myth #1: "Nobody wants the dogs we kill." APA is proving that's not remotely true. It's about getting the dogs to the people, and asking the public for help. When you do, the public will reward you. APA is proving that the dogs Pulliam "sends to God" (her quote, not ours) are wonderful, adoptable animals.

Myth #2: "It doesn't matter where the shelter is because people will go anywhere to adopt a shelter animal." This was one of Pulliam's favorite things to say during 2008's shelter-move controversy. She couldn't be more wrong. Again, APA is taking dogs and cats that Pulliam believes need to be "sent to God" for being "unadoptable" and then adopting them right down the street! If people would "go anywhere to adopt a shelter animal," then why is it that they aren't going to the shelter now? And why is it that they'll adopt a dog Pulliam finds "unadoptable" right down the street from the shelter?

Myth #3: "Off-site adoptions won't work in Austin because we have plenty of traffic at the shelter." The argument that off-site adoptions don't work is just stupid at this point. APA is taking TLAC dogs and getting them adopted in high-traffic, high-visibility areas minutes away from TLAC. Off-site adoptions work. Period.

Myth #4: "TLAC is doing everything they can to save animals." We wish this were true, but it isn't remotely true. Not only is TLAC still not doing it's own off-site adoptions (see Pulliam, supra), but they also aren't letting APA make use of the more than 100 cages that TLAC leaves empty and unused every day--- despite killing adoptable dogs in the mean time. TLAC could help save more dogs and cats tomorrow if they would would either use the empty cages, or allow APA to do so.

So what does all of this tell us? It tells us that Pulliam's old-guard, old-fashioned, 1950's style shelter management belongs in the 1950's. The world has moved on and left her methods and excuses behind. It's far past time for Pulliam to go. In fact, under her leadership, the pound has killed more than 100,000 dogs and cats. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

Pulliam Orders Kills Despite Empty Cages

2009-01-22T22:30:00.007-06:00

On any given day at Austin's Town Lake Animal Center, dozens and dozens and dozens of cages sit empty and unused. In fact, two recent audits by the State of Texas indicated over 100 empty dog and cat cages at the time of inspection.

With all those empty cages, one might think it's time to celebrate the lack of killing at the pound. But it isn't. Instead, TLAC's 6-figure-salary director, Dorinda Pulliam, continues to order the killing of adoptable pets day in and day out at the pound.

That's right: our hard-earned tax money is used to kill and dispose of the bodies of our community's lost and homeless pets despite plenty of cage space to shelter them. It is an indefensible and horrific policy, and a community as progressive as Austin deserves better.

So what can you do? E-mail the Austin City Council right now and demand Pulliam's immediate replacement. Ordering that adoptable cats and dogs die while cages sit empty and unused is not okay.

Entrenched Resistance to Reform

2009-01-05T19:15:00.003-06:00

Yesterday, a pro-no-kill advocate in Indiana sent us a link to an amazing essay. It is well worth reading, if you are interested in reducing shelter killing: http://www.saveourstrays.com/duvin.htm. Among other things, it analyzes the resistance shelters and their defenders (the ASPCA, the Humane Society, PETA, etc.) often show to the implementation of obvious, readily available, cost-effective alternatives to killing.

Here is one insightful passage:

"Once leaders accept the proposition that killing the innocent is a proper role for a movement committed to justice, they tacitly place their stamp of approval on the very injustice they profess to abhor. This inevitably leads to an intensely defensive mindset among the leadership, as they must continue to defend the indefensible — not only to others, but to themselves."

Of course, we see the same kind of resistance to reform in Austin. The ASPCA "Mission Orange" Team (which includes the pound and the Austin Humane Society) has issued a report calling the current shelter director's track record of killing 50% of impounded animals for the last eight years an example of "strong leadership." They've also said that those who question the killing at TLAC are actually barriers to progress in Austin. Brilliant, eh?

Dumped pups finding new homes!

2008-09-15T22:31:00.012-05:00

Last week my friends arrived at their new home to discover that someone had dumped a litter of seven puppies on their property. Rather than calling Animal Control, they got in touch with me and I sent them to the good people at AustinPetsAlive!, who were willing to take the pups into the adoption program.

Once we APA! signed on, I contacted a wonderful neighbor who does lots of dog rescue and she was happy to loan me a large crate so that these seven furballs could be transported from the Cedar Park area to my house. My friends stopped by and picked up the large crate and hoped for the best for Wednesday. I say hoped for the best because these puppies were terrified of humans. So far my friends hadn't been able to wrangle these pups to put them anywhere, although they noted that the pups were very distracted when dining.

Wednesday morning, my ingenious friend placed their food inside the crate that would carry them to my house. All but six of the pups ran straight into the crate! It was an easy catch to get number seven and they were on their way, with the enormous crate turned catawampus to fit in the back of a Cooper Mini.

Once at my place, the pups

settled into my garage well. Another wonderful neighbor gave me two small crates so I was able to separate out a couple of the pups who were getting pushed away from the food dish. Everyone was fed and drank a LOT of water, and a couple even romped around the garage briefly. (I considered this a pretty big accomplishment given their level of terror of humans.) Everyone settled into a puppy pile and slept the night away.

Bright (okay dark) and early Thursday morning, I got everyone loaded up and taken to Emancipet where they would get spayed or neutered and microchipped. I am pleased to report that they were taken to off-site adoptions Friday and Sunday, and it's my understanding that all but one of the pups has a new home! Thanks to everyone who assisted in this effort to place these sweet puppies.

Save the Date: October 17th "Road to No Kill Austin" Featuring Nathan Winograd

2008-09-05T14:01:00.006-05:00

Some of you may not know that Austin's pound currently kills more than 13,000 dogs and cats each year as it has for decades. That's why we founded FixAustin.org with the goal of reducing Austin's shelter killing through the use of cost-effective, proven programs that have effectively and dramatically reduced shelter killing in other communities across the country.

So we're very, very pleased to announce that on Friday, October 17th from 6pm to 8:30pm, FixAustin.org is hosting a major event for those who care about Austin's homeless animals. That evening at Austin City Hall, we'll host "The Road to No Kill Austin," a public-policy forum on ways to dramatically reduce Austin's killing of companion animals.

The event will feature presentations from a few of Austin's brightest minds in animal welfare, and the keynote presentation will be delivered by national no-kill expert Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center.

Attendance is free and open to the public. Donations are encouraged, and attendees are also encouraged to enjoy our silent auction to raise funds for homeless pets.

UPDATE: Ready to reserve your free spot at the conference? Please let us know you'll be attending by filing out our reservation form here.

Customer Service? That's Crazy!

2008-08-27T20:59:00.002-05:00

Our friends at PetConnection.com wrote an important blog today about adoptions at animal shelters--- or the lack thereof. The blog makes two really important points.

First, when shelters blame the public for everything (not enough spay/neuter, too much breeding, irresponsible pet owners, etc.), they put themselves in a position against the public. So what would happen if shelters asked the public for help instead of blaming them for all that is wrong?

Second, if we increased the percentage of pets adopted from shelters rather than other sources from 21 to 24%, no more homeless dogs and cats would be killed at municipal shelters.

Think about it. That's not an intimidating task. But it takes a seismic change in attitude and direction--- a major challenge for shelter bureaucrats across the country (and Austin is no exception).

Read the PetConnection blog by clicking here.

Meet Sophia (Shall She Be Yours?)

2008-08-24T23:24:00.015-05:00

Some people like to suggest that the FixAustin.org management team "talks the talk" but doesn't "walk the walk." That's because some people don't know what they're talking about, and would rather hurl uninformed insults than confront the reality that Austin's staggering shelter killing (one every 12 minutes this decade) is not inevitable.

Rather, it is the predictable result of Austin's pound management's lack of focus or interest in increasing adoptions. Let's just put it this way: if Austin's animals shelters adopted out homeless pets to the same percentage of citizens as Reno's shelters did in 2007 (~4%), not a single animal would have been killed at Austin's pound.

But let's get back to the whole "walk the walk" thing.

We would like to introduce you to Sophia. She's just about the sweetest little German Shepherd you'll ever meet in your life. With her piercing black eyes, she's already figured out when humans want her to be calm (inside, preferably in your lap, says Sophia) and when they want you to run around and have fun (outside on the lawn). And at just 2.5 months, she's already mastered the science of going to the bathroom outside rather than inside--- no small feet in the puppy world.

Speaking of small feet, Sophia has none (small feet, that is). Hers are big (and clumsy), and the back ones have six toes. And she endearingly wraps her front feet around your arms when she's being carried. "Safety first," she says.

You can probably tell that we love Sophia. We really do. She's going to make someone a really happy dog owner. Could it possibly be you?

Update: Sophia has been adopted. Woohoo!!!

No Kill Conference 2009

2008-08-24T14:54:00.007-05:00

We're delighted to pass along an e-mail we received this morning from no-kill expert Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center. The NKAC will be hosting a No Kill Conference in Washington, D.C., in May 2009, and we're honored to report that FixAustin.org founder Ryan Clinton has been invited to participate in a panel discussion of shelter-reform advocacy at the conference.

Please join us in D.C. in May 2009. You can find out more, and register for the conference, by clicking this link. Below is the e-mail from the NKAC:

Dear Friends/Colleagues:

I wanted you folks to be among the first to know about our May 2009 No Kill conference in the nation's capital and hope you will choose to join us. The No Kill Advocacy Center is teaming up with the Animal Law program at George Washington University Law School to bring together the nation’s most successful shelter directors and the nation’s top animal lawyers. They will show you how to create a No Kill community and teach you how to use the legal system to save the lives of animals.

Learn from animal control/shelter directors who are now saving over 90% of all animals using the building blocks to No Kill success—programs and services that have had results in both urban and rural communities—to increase adoptions, reduce length of stay, increase redemption rates, rehabilitate animals, and much, much more.

Learn from animal law experts who have challenged our legal system to help animals: Whether it’s drafting model laws, fighting breed specific legislation, eliminating the gas chamber, filing impact legislation, or protecting condemned dogs, learn how to use the legal system to save the lives of animals.

Learn from activists fighting entrenched and regressive shelters in their own community as they show you how to launch successful campaigns for reform.

Register today for a No Kill conference unlike any you have ever been to.

This is a must attend conference for animal lovers, activists, rescuers, shelter directors, shelter staff, humane society board members, lawyers, paralegals and anyone who wants to be a force for change.

For more information, including speakers, workshops, registration, and more, go to www.nokillconference.org or click here.

Old Guard v. New Guard

2008-08-15T23:49:00.004-05:00

For animal lovers who haven't read a great deal about the No Kill Advocacy Center, the ASPCA, HSUS, and PETA, it can be difficult to understand why the animal-welfare groups don't "just get along." Well, the short answer is because they are different: they have fundamentally different philosophies and institutional interests.

Today, we found a very well-written blog about the difference between the old guard (ASPCA, HSUS, and PETA) and the new guard (NKAC) that really helps explain the current status of animal welfare in America.

Please take a moment to read the No Kill Revolution's current blog here.

Fox 7 Morning Show Talks Shelter Killing

2008-08-14T21:44:00.003-05:00

Wednesday morning, Fox 7 news invited FixAustin.org founder Ryan Clinton to talk about the results of shelter-reform efforts in Reno, NV, and Austin, TX. As Ryan explained on the show, Reno doubled its adoptions and cut its kill rate in half in just one year. During the same period, Austin's shelter killing increased 11% and its adoptions declined almost 4%. It was a bad year for Austin, but a great year for Reno's homeless pets. As Ryan summed it up on the show, "We have a lot to learn from Reno."

To watch the segment, just click here.

Get Involved with AustinPetsAlive!

2008-08-12T21:06:00.011-05:00

For those of you who haven't heard, AustinPetsAlive! is saving the lives of animals each day! If you are looking for a place to donate your time, talents, money or home, APA! wants to hear from you. APA! has many ways to contribute, and I encourage you to visit the APA! website to see what activities best suit your abilities. A few of the opportunities are highlighted below.

Fostering

Perhaps the greatest need right now is for fosters for the dogs that APA! pulls from shelters or takes in from its P.A.S.S. program. (Positive Alternatives to Shelter Surrender helps to find pets new, loving responsible homes). There are many dogs that need temporary homes while waiting to find their forever homes. If you can provide a temporary home, even if only for a few days, you should consider volunteering as a foster for APA!

Who wouldn't want to offer me a home??

Off-Site Adoptions

As you may have read in other posts on this blog, APA! is currently sponsoring off-site adoptions in an effort to place sweet and deserving dogs in forever homes. And APA! can really use the help

at these events, keeping dogs cool, walking the dogs, keeping the area neat and tidy, and answering questions about APA! I have participated in a few of these off-site events on South Congress and they are lots of fun!

A couple of satisfied customers!

Donations and Supplies

Of course, monetary donations are always appreciated and needed. It takes money to keep these furry friends cool, fed and watered. That said, supplies are also welcome. Check out APA!'s wish list online for a sampling of the types of supplies needed to keep things running, but here are just a few:

** transport vehicles

** office supplies

** food, toys, dishes, rawhides, beds

** exercise pens, leashes, collars

I enjoy coolin' my heels on hot off-site days!

I hope everyone will consider giving in any way they can to APA! as it strives to make Austin a no-kill City by providing dogs with loving, permanent homes.

Houston Chronicle Endorses Winograd

2008-08-09T18:40:00.008-05:00

Today, the Houston Chronicle's Editorial Board wrote about the need to reduce Houston's horrific, 80% animal-shelter kill rate. In the editorial, the Editorial Board publicly demanded that the City of Houston look to the No Kill Advocacy Center's Nathan Winograd to lead Houston's shelter-reform efforts.

This should not be a momentous occasion. The No Kill Advocacy Center is largely responsible for dramatic reductions in shelter killing in other cities. Today, the nation's lowest-kill communities are Ithaca, NY, Charlottesville, VA, and Reno, NV--- all cities whose efforts were led or inspired by the No Kill Advocacy Center's no-kill sheltering method.

Yet for some reason, Austin's press doesn't seem to get it. The Austin American-Statesman has on several occasions bashed those who question Austin's shelter killing, and this week, the Austin Chronicle wrote an otherwise very informative and powerful story that unnecessarily took several shots at Nathan Winograd.

So what gives? Frankly, we don't know.

But we are glad to see the Houston Chronicle's Editorial Board take a stand in favor of a progressive effort to reduce shelter killing based on empirically proven methods that have reduced shelter killing in communities across the country. We will continue to hope that Austin's press will someday follow.

Vets Speak Out Against Mandatory Spay-Neuter Ordinances

2008-08-05T14:43:00.004-05:00

Much has been said (here and elsewhere) about the fact that mandatory spay-neuter ordinances do not work to reduce shelter killing--- and often actually increase shelter killing due to increased owner-surrenders.

The Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association recently chimed in against a proposed ordinance in Chicago. Their conclusion paragraph is damning:

"You do not hear an overwhelming call for mandatory spay/neuter laws from animal health professionals because many of the proposed benefits simply cannot be substantiated. Mandatory spay/neuter laws have had a mixed result in reducing the number of unwanted pets, placed an undue and unenforceable burden on police and animal control officials, reduced vaccination compliance for rabies, and unintentionally restricted access to healthcare for pets. The idea that mandatory spay/neuter will change a gangbanger’s behavior or that dog bite injuries will vanish is absurd. At the end of the day, no progress will be made on gang behavior or pet overpopulation and honest tax payers will be forced to give up yet another right in making health decisions for their pets. This ordinance may seem like a quick-fix for aldermen seeking solutions to challenging problems, but the reality is that it will not fix the problems they are looking to resolve. This ordinance will, however, create a nightmare for those who have to abide by it--veterinarians, police officers, animal control officials, public health providers and honest law-abiding taxpayers. Laws should be designed to solve problems, not create more. The Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association recommends that this proposal be allowed to die and welcomes a chance to help the city and citizens of Chicago and Illinois craft well written, meaningful and thoughtful animal legislation."

Read the full ISVMA letter here.

The Power of Off-Site Adoptions

2008-07-31T09:55:00.006-05:00

For years, Town Lake Animal Center, supported by the ASPCA's "Mission Orange" effort, has opposed bringing TLAC animals to off-site adoptions at high-foot-traffic areas throughout the City.

As recently as February 2007, "Mission Orange" released a statement to the Austin American-Statesman defending TLAC's "lack of an offsite adoption program" because, according to "Mission Orange," the animals being killed at TLAC are not "desirable and placeable."

Boy is the ASPCA wrong.

A wonderful new effort by Austin Pets Alive, led by Dr. Ellen Jefferson, is blowing the doors off of the blame-the-animals excuse for shelter killing. They have rescued over 100 dogs off the TLAC "kill list" (we assume the ASPCA would call this the "undesirable and unplaceable" list) in just a few short weeks.

Take a look at APA's awesome new off-site adoption program. Take a look at the "undesirable" puppies finding new homes. They look terrible, don't they?!?

To see FixAustin.org volunteers Ryan and Tom helping find homes for the "undesirable" pets saved from TLAC, click APA's photo site here.

Announcing FixAustin Fosters!

2008-07-18T16:25:00.000-05:00

FixAustin.org is delighted to announce our new partnership with non-profit animal-adoption group Austin Pets Alive to help reduce the needless killing of homeless pets at Austin's Town Lake Animal Center. Like FixAustin.org, Austin Pets Alive is dedicated to reducing the killing of Austin's sheltered pets through the use of innovative programs and policies that are already working to reduce shelter killing in other communities.

Today, we're asking our supporters to volunteer to become foster parents for animals saved from the TLAC kill list. FixAustin Fosters would provide loving care for fostered homeless pets, and Austin Pets Alive would provide multiple weekly adoption events to give those great pets multiple opportunities every week to find a new loving home.

We believe that Austin Pets Alive's great work--- in proving that off-site adoption events can dramatically increase shelter adoptions--- will eventually help tear down the walls of bureaucratic resistance to reform at Austin's animal shelter. At the same time, we can help save the lives of dozens, if not hundreds, of wonderful pets every year. And if that were not enough to convince you, we're also giving away free FixAustin.org t-shirts to any of our supporters who fosters a homeless pet through Austin Pets Alive's foster program. Just tell them you're a FixAustin Foster to make sure you get a free t-shirt.

To learn more and sign up to become a FixAustin Foster through Austin Pets Alive, please click this link: http://www.austinpetsalive.org/get_involved/foster.php. Thanks, in advance, for helping save the lives of Austin's sheltered pets!

FixAustin on the Radio

2008-07-04T23:41:00.002-05:00

We've been amazed by the attention that our Austin v. Reno report has received. The report has been downloaded more than 6,800 times from readers all across the country, it has been talked about on national animal-welfare blogs, and we've been contacted by animal-welfare advocates from California to Florida for advice on how to achieve shelter reform through public advocacy.

We've also been interviewed on local and national radio. The nationally syndicated radio show "Animal Wise Radio" interviewed FixAustin.org's Ryan Clinton on live national radio this Sunday to discuss FixAustin.org's efforts, its goals, and the Austin v. Reno report on shelter-reform efforts in each city. To listen to the roughly twenty-minute segment, just click this link: http://www.fixaustin.org/page/FixAustinRadio. To learn more about Animal Wise Radio, visit their website here.

Local radio station KUT also interviewed Ryan in a story about Austin's shelter adoptions. You can listen to their brief interview here: http://kut.org/items/show/13146.

You can help Austin's homeless pets too!

1. Listen to the radio segments and tell your friends about them.

2. Tell the City Council to implement the no-kill method at Austin's animal shelter by clicking here.

3. Donate to FixAustin.org's no-kill efforts by clicking here. All donations over $50 get a free FixAustin.org t-shirt!

Thanks and best regards!

The FixAustin.org Team

Austin Pets Alive! Resource Center: The Future of Austin's Pound?

2008-05-08T23:30:00.002-05:00

We're delighted to tell you about an amazing new program in Austin. Dr. Ellen Jefferson, founder of Emancipet (Austin's lost-cost spay-neuter provider) is taking on a new project: creating a Resource Center that will keep pets in homes, redirect pets away from Austin's pound, and remove animals from Austin's pound before they are killed. We believe that if anyone can pull this off, it's Dr. Jefferson. Please wholeheartedly support her new effort to reduce the killing of Austin's pets. Here is a recent letter from Dr. Jefferson about her new endeavor:

Dear Austin,

How is it possible that a city like Austin is still killing over 50% of the animals in it's shelters?

It is unbelievable but true: dogs and cats just like yours and mine are still dying in Austin.

Just today I read about a young husky mix with a wonderful temperament and good behavior, who will likely get euthanized because he won't be given the opportunity to get adopted.

I am tired of being heartbroken every day for these animals wishing I could do something more for them. Aren't you?

For those of you that don't know me, I founded EmanciPET Spay/Neuter Clinic in 1999 because I believed that spay/neuter was the only answer to the problem of too many pets being euthanized in our animal shelters. I still believe that spay/neuter is an integral piece if the No Kill recipe. EmanciPET is doing a great job getting over 80,000 animals fixed in and around Austin. However, I no longer believe that it is the only piece needed to create a No Kill city. One reason is that there are now statistics that show that there are many more homes available for a new pet each year than the number of animals we kill in animal shelters. Spay/neuter is still a cornerstone but there is more that needs to be done.

As I have gotten to know the shelter system better over the years, I have come to realize that a community like Austin could have a shelter that does better in terms of life saving. Does that mean that I think Town Lake Animal Center is bad? No, I actually think that the fact that the city funded shelter is charged with animal control rather than animal welfare makes it impossible for our city to think in terms of "no kill". Austin is lucky enough to have a Humane Society that saves about 2500 animals a year. While this is definitely admirable, we need more animals saved.

I recently joined Austin Pets Alive! as President because I don't want to wait for our city government to change the mission of TLAC. I don't want to wait the years it will take to build a new city shelter that might be able to save more animals. I am not the only one that doesn't want to wait- the 13,000+ pets killed each year don't want to wait either. I believe Austin Pets Alive! is the organization that can make this happen.

Austin Pets Alive!'s mission is to promote and provide the resources, education and programs needed to eliminate the killing of companion animals in Austin. APA! has been creating smaller safety nets for pets for 10 years. With that mission in mind and the massive amount of work that needs to occur to get Austin to No Kill, I am asking you to help Austin Pets Alive! create a facility that can temporarily shelter all the animals that need our care so they don't have to go to TLAC. Help us create the facility that will implement life saving programs. The Austin Pets Alive! Resource Center will focus on prevention, retention, and adoption with innovative, efficient, and most importantly life-focused procedures.

Please join me in solving this problem NOW. We can do it. Our organization is run solely by dedicated volunteers. The amount of time and energy our dedicated volunteers are spending on this project is astounding. We need more people to help. If we all pitch in, I have no doubt that Austin, over every other place in America, can become No Kill in a very short period of time.

I am bringing to the table the background and expertise to implement the operations. I need you to help APA! by donating for a building, volunteering to help implement these life saving programs NOW, and spreading the word so that all of Austin knows about our plans. There is hope for these pets, we just have to unite and make it happen. Let's stop the daily killing of 30+ animals at our shelters.

Sincerely,
Ellen Jefferson, DVM
Austin Pets Alive! President
www.austinpetsalive.org

PS With as little as a $50 donation, we can save one animal today and find it a new home using our PASS program (read below). With a bigger donation, we can continue to grow our fund to move into a facility where we can actually shelter animals and not rely solely on foster homes.

Read about some of the programs that are already in place with Austin Pets Alive!:

1. Positive Alternatives to Shelter Surrender- a program run entirely on foster/volunteer time that gives owners a chance to place their pet using our adoption locations such as PetSmart and Petco. This creates outlets so animals don't have to go to TLAC where they will likely die.

2. Thanks to APA! and the working relationship we have with Town Lake Animal Center, the TLAC long-stay adoption dogs get a chance at off site adoptions before their time is up. We are able to take these animals, that would be euthanized due to time constraints, out to get adopted.

3. Rescue- due to the wonderful (but very few so far) foster homes we have, we have been able to take puppies and dogs from TLAC that would normally be euthanized for minor skin problems. Our foster homes give them the time they need (we provide the medications) and they are good to go in as little as 2 weeks (and highly adoptable!). We know that by choosing animals that would be slated for euthanasia, we can decrease the number of animals killed at TLAC.

Just imagine how many animals Austin Pets Alive! could save with a facility!

Click here to get involved!

As city council elections are pending, please think about getting out to vote.
Laura Morrison and Randi Shade both took time out of their incredibly busy schedules to come hear about Austin Pets Alive! last night. I am truly amazed that they found this to be a high enough priority to listen with the election so close. They both are concerned about Austin's animals and want to see Austin be a leader in the animal world.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter Success? Not Remotely

2008-01-20T15:49:00.000-06:00

One of the methods proposed to reduce shelter killing in Austin is a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. As you may already know, the nation's leading shelter expert, Nathan Winograd, has repeatedly written that such ordinances do not work. See, e.g., http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf.

Nonetheless, a very vocal supporter of mandatory spay/neuter ordinances in Austin has touted King County, Washington, as proof that mandatory spay/neuter ordinances work. Specifically, he reports that King County has a 0% kill rate, and provides this website as evidence: http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety/AnimalServices/about/statistics.aspx . I decided to take a look to judge for myself.

What I found is that the actual statistics from King County's website reveal not success, but instead a common shelter-management lie: by labeling all killed animals "unadoptable," King County is able to report a 0% kill rate of adoptable animals. Meanwhile, its shelter continues to kill 40-50% of the animals it takes in each and every year. If we use that standard, then basically every shelter in the country is successful and wonderful because they are able to define away their killing by calling all animals they kill "unadoptable."

In fact, if we use King County's formula for calculating a kill rate--- that the relevant figure is the percentage of "unadoptable" animals killed, then Town Lake Animal Center too has a 0% kill rate because TLAC (like King County) defines all animals it kills as "unadoptable." Thus, using the same logic, TLAC is a shining example of perfection in animal care WITHOUT a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance-- even though it too kills roughly half of the animals it takes in each and every year.

In truth, neither King County nor Austin is an example of success. They both kill about 50% of homeless pets each year. That's because neither a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance nor TLAC's management has succeeded in ending the killing. On the other hand, every shelter that has fully adopted Nathan Winograd's methods HAS ended the killing. Here is a link to his method: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/nokillequation.html .

In Winograd-led Charlottesville, Reno, Ithaca, Ivans County (UT), and Orange County (VA), open-admission municipal pounds are killing less than 10% of ALL animals. And in Winograd-led Philadelphia, where the kill rate was 90% just three years ago, they are expecting a 20% kill rate in 2008.

In King County, on the other hand, they are generally killing 40-50% of all animals. That puts King County in the same category as Austin. Here are King County's kill figures:

2006: Total Killed (4331) / (Total Disposition (11259) - Dead on Arrival (381)) = 40%

2005: 4666 / (11990 - 392) = 40%

2004: 5436 / (12413 - 437) = 45%

2003: 5935 / (12701 - 493) = 49%

2002: 6142 / (13649 - 660) = 47%

2001: 6300 / (14588 - 983) = 46%

2000: 6069 / (14735 - 1336) = 45%

1999: 6061 / (14640 - 1378) = 46%

1998: 6432 / (14743 - 1318) = 48%

These figures clearly demonstrate that a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance is not the answer to Austin's animal-killing problem. The real solution is to adopt the methods of the cities that have ended shelter killing--- not those who have failed to end shelter killing. If we are serious about saving animals, we have but one choice: adopt the Nathan Winograd method in full.

LET'S ROLL!

2007-10-07T16:55:00.000-05:00

This is it, folks. On Thursday, October 11th at 6pm, the City Council will hear testimony on--- and make a decision on--- the location of our new animal shelter. The fate of hundreds of thousands of sheltered pets is in their hands: will they favor compassion and rebuild the shelter downtown? Or will they favor bureaucracy and skyrises in order to ship our sheltered pets out-of-mind and out-of-sight?

Council Members Martinez and Kim have shown great leadership in proposing an immediate halt to the East Austin move in favor of thoughtful deliberation and consideration of all other possibilities--- including rebuilding on Town Lake. And on the other side, Council Member Dunkerley (surprise, surprise) and Mayor Wynn have now come out in favor of getting rid of the downtown shelter to make room for (and the area prettier for) more condos. That leaves Council Members Cole, Leffingwell, and McCracken to decide the issue on Thursday. We hope you'll contact them early and often this week, by phone and e-mail, to let them know where you stand.

Council Member Cole's e-mail address is: sheryl.cole@ci.austin.tx.us. And her phone number is: 974-2266.

Council Member McCracken's e-mail address is: brewster.mccracken@ci.austin.tx.us. And his phone number is: 974-2256.

Council Member Leffingwell's e-mail address is: lee.leffingwell@ci.austin.tx.us. And his phone number is 974-2260.

If you care about the future of our homeless pets, the time to act is now. Waiting just a few days may leave your voice silenced. Please e-mail and call them today.

Thank you so very much!
The FixAustin.org Team

And Now for the Rest of the (Statesman) Story...

2007-09-24T23:38:00.000-05:00

We wanted to share with you a few more comments on the recent Statesman article on shelter relocation.

First, the headline "Should new animal shelter be closer to adopters or strays?" is disingenuous. The proposed Levander Loop location isn't closer to strays because --- as the article says --- the City's own numbers show that 60% of strays come from West of I-35.

The Humane society evidently supports relocating our animal shelter. But when the Humane Society itself was facing relocation, here's what it had to say about the importance of a central location: "The Board looked at several options: be a non-sheltered organization doing humane education and foster care, buy land outside the city limits and start from scratch, or find an existing building with a central location that could be renovated as an animal shelter. They decided it was important for the survival of the organization to continue to house animals and be in a central location. This of course was the most expensive option but the one that would keep the Humane Society in the public focus. " Why does the Humane Society now feel that same logic doesn't apply to the City's shelter?

Emancipet, which is already located at Levander Loop, also supports the move. But they recently issued a press release conceding they were struggling so much to fill their spay/neuter surgery slots at the stationary clinic at Levander Loop, that they might have to reduce staff. The entire release can be found here. And, their website includes a map to Levander Loop with this warning: "IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO PRINT OUT THESE DIRECTIONS AND TAKE THEM WITH YOU! IT IS VERY EASY TO GET LOST AND THE RECEPTIONISTS AREN'T ALWAYS ABLE TO ANSWERTHE PHONES TO HELP YOU IF YOU GET LOST!!!" What does the Emancipet situation say for the suitability of the Levander Loop location for the new animal shelter?

Many people will go anywhere to save a life and adopt a pet. But what percentage of Town Lake's current visitors and adopters fall into that category? Nobody knows. Has any type of study been done to find out? If 22,000 animals come in the door each year, then a mere 5% decrease in adoptions could result in another 1,100 animals dying. Casual visitors may not adopt, but maybe they donate money or tell their friends.

And what about the volunteers who supply 22,000 hours of free labor each year? What about the potty patrol program which tries to get housebroken dogs out each day and which requires volunteers to be at the shelter very early in the morning? What about the brand new trail walking program that both promotes the dogs and gives them much needed exercise and mental stimulation by walking them on the hike and bike trail? What about the after-hours volunteer program? How will a move impact these programs?

Finally, the City has never done a fair analysis to show what could be built at the current site for $12 million dollars. $12M certainly sounds like enough to build a good animal shelter, but we need a professional analysis where the person hasn't been told in advance what the outcome is supposed to be. Without that information, it's hard for me to see how the City can gamble with our pets' lives and our taxpayer money and simply decide to ignore public opposition and build at Levander Loop. Williamson County ignored a lot of advice from animal advocates in building their new regional shelter. And we all know how well that turned out.

(One thing Levander Loop might be suitable for is a temporary location while construction proceeds at TLAC. It is city-owned, there appears to be a large empty gymnasium that might house animals, empty land for exercise areas, and underutilized surgical space on-site.)

If You Care About Austin's Homeless Pets, the Time to Act Is Now

2007-09-18T00:53:00.000-05:00

According to today's Austin American-Statesman, the Austin City Council will vote on whether to hire an architect to move Austin's animal shelter from downtown to the eastern outskirts on October 11, 2007. If you, like us, believe that moving our shelter away from the heart of our community---and away from the animals' primary adopters---is both immoral and inconsistent with the compassionate character of our City, the time to voice your opposition to the move is now.

Please take the time to e-mail the Austin City Council right now to tell them not to move our animal shelter to a mostly industrial area on the outskirts of town. You can e-mail the entire council at one time by clicking on this link: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/groupemail.htm. Please also urge your friends, family, colleagues, and neighbors to contact the City Council as well. You can do so by writing them an e-mail, asking them in person, calling them up, or dropping by printed-out FixAustin.org advocacy cards from this link: http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/documents/saveshelter_card_SS_20070528.pdf.

Please act today. Generations of Austin's lost and homeless pets will thank you.

The Truth About No-Kill: Austin Should Be Saving 90% of Our Lost and Homeless Pets

2007-08-27T01:43:00.000-05:00

At the August 23, 2007, Austin City Council Meeting, Council Member Lee Leffingwell asked a very important question to Austin Animal Services Director David Lurie: if all adoptable pets at Austin's shelter were saved, what would the shelter's kill rate be?

Mr. Lurie elected not to answer that question. Instead, he answered a completely different question--- one that was not asked: What is the national ASPCA's goal for Austin? (The answer to that question, according to Mr. Lurie, is achieving a 75% save rate--- a rate that the national ASPCA's efforts have notably never achieved in any city.)

Because Mr. Lurie did not do so, we're writing to answer Council Member Leffingwell's question based on Mr. Lurie's staffs' criteria for "adoptable" pets, and based on empirical evidence from the nation's leading--- and considerably more progressive--- animal shelters.

Town Lake Animal Center's manager, Ms. Dorinda Pulliam, has made clear that under her criteria, just 33% of the animals sheltered at TLAC are "adoptable." She said so as recently as last week in this Austin Chronicle story titled "Gimme (Animal) Shelter," which was published within hours of Mr. Lurie's presentation: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A527009.

Thus, the answer to Council Member Leffingwell's question is that if all adoptable animals (as defined by Mr. Lurie's staff's criteria) were saved at Austin's animal shelter, the pound would kill 67% of the dogs and cats it shelters. Applying staff's definition of "adoptable", then, as Ms. Pulliam points out in the Chronicle story, leads to only one conclusion: her performance--- killing just over 50% of sheltered pets each of the last six years--- is a resounding success.

Now for the real answer: Based on the empirical evidence provided by animal shelters that don't define away their poor performance by deeming animals they kill "unadoptable," the actual percentage of adoptable pets that enter municipal pounds is around 90%. Thus, the real answer to Council Member Leffingwell's question is this: if Austin saved all adoptable animals that entered TLAC, it would still kill around 10% of our community's homeless pets.

According to the nation's preeminent no-kill sheltering expert (the only national expert who has both achieved no-kill success in a city and replicated that success in other cities), the nation's leading shelters--- currently Ithaca, NY, Charlottesville, VA, and Reno, NV--- each save around 90% of their sheltered pets. Here is an article confirming those cities' performance and explaining the national expert's belief that 90% should be our guide: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/enews_000.pdf.

Based on empirical evidence, then, we have two routes from which to choose. We can either follow the path of those who define away poor performance by calling 67% of dogs and cats "unadoptable"--- as Mr. Lurie's current staff does--- or we can follow the path of the nation's preeminent animal shelters and do considerably better.

Achieving a 90% save rate in Austin can be done; indeed, there is a roadmap to do so: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/nokillequation.html. But we must change course and elect to follow it.