Statesman comes out strong for No Kill

COMMENTARY: ALBERTA PHILLIPS
To make Austin a no-kill city, Town Lake Animal Center must increase adoptions
Alberta Phillips,
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Every day the Town Lake Animal Center kills cats and dogs largely to make space for new arrivals. It does not pause its euthanasia machine on weekends or holidays, though it limits the killing when the center is closed to animals that are sick or suffering. Nearly half — about 48 percent — of animals that are put down are classified as "unnecessary euthanasia."
Those are mostly healthy pups and kitties whose only offense was that no one came to claim or adopt them. No group rescued them. During the past year, the center euthanized 6,362 animals of which 3,036 were unnecessary.

That is too many. Given Austin's goal of becoming a no-kill city, I thought there would be a vigorous effort on adoption. But I was disappointed to learn that the city will continue to rely heavily on the status quo — spaying, neutering and putting down animals — to manage Austin and Travis County's pet population rather than ramping up adoption efforts.
As I reported previously, the city-run animal center has made tremendous progress in reducing its kill rate to about 32 percent. About two-thirds leave alive either through adoption or rescue groups. Just two years ago, the kill rate was 52 percent, meaning that animals had less than a 50-50 chance of leaving the place alive. Last week, the Austin City Council, led by Council Members Bill Spelman and Mike Martinez passed a resolution to expand spay and neuter services to weekends in a move that would treat 2,000 more dogs and cats.
A good move, but it won't in the short run reduce the center's kill rate. Clearly, the city needs a more vigorous adoption initiative. But those in charge of running the animal center have no plans to do that.

I asked Dorinda Pulliam why the center does not invest more in adoption efforts or why it does not divert money used to kill dogs and cats to the rescue groups that put them up for adoption? She is assistant director of the Austin-Travis County Health and Human Services Department that oversees the animal center.

"I'm not sure how to answer that," she said. "I think we have a good program. To give them money to take animals ... it's part of their mission to help us."

She talked about Austin's model animal programs, about not relying on government to fix the whole problem, and about striking a balance in which nonprofit rescue groups and Austin residents step up to fill more of the gap. But that avoids the question of why the center will not divert more of its $5.5 million budget (from our tax dollars and fees) to adoption efforts. Doing so would immediately affect the kill rate. And isn't that the goal?

It's a point not lost on Spelman, who said the center falls short when it comes to adoption. The center, Spelman said, should take pets to the people, showing them on weekends at public places around town to increase their chances of being adopted. That is a good idea. It is especially important, he said, because the animal center will lose visibility when it moves from its downtown location to a site in East Austin.

On the day that I recently visited the animal center, 15 dogs were on the kill list. There was a female pit bull mix and her male offspring. He jumped, yelped and played while she looked from the kennel with a cocked head in a stare my boxer gives when he is confused about my commands.

Twenty-four hours later, all but three of the 15 dogs had been put down. The three lucky ones were rescued by Austin Pets Alive.
I still remember them — some were still playful despite their ordeal. Others were listless or curled in fetal positions and obviously depressed. Twelve were injected with a lethal dose of phenobarbitol.

Local attorney and former Travis County Judge Bill Aleshire said the county and city have been too slow in reaching the no-kill goal, which has been talked about since 1997, when he was a member of the Travis County Commissioners Court.
"This heartless situation does not have to exist," he told me. "The city and county have plenty of money to implement a no-kill policy. They just chose to spend that money on bureaucracy instead."

To be fair, the animal center, which gets funding from the city and county, has dramatically improved its adoption rate since 1997. But its own figures prove how vital adoption is in decreasing the kill rate, along with spay and neuter services. In 1997, the center completed adoption for 8 percent of its animals. It put down 69 percent of center animals that year. This year, the center's adoption rate is 22 percent and its kill rate has dropped to 32 percent.
If Austin is going to be serious about reaching its no-kill goal, then it must get serious about adoption.

aphillips@statesman.com; 445-3655