Industrial Animal Incinerator at East Austin Shelter Site?

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

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

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

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

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?