Analyzing the March No-Kill month by Anonymous, we find:
In review of the March 2007 statistics I see a few main problems. One, animals actually leaving the shelter alive have decreased. Two, animals dying in the shelter have increased dramatically. Three, animals being held in the shelter have increased dramatically.
Boks is holding onto the animals so he doesn't have to euthanize them. He is juggling the animals in order to improve his numbers. Had he not held those animals much longer, his euth rate and numbers would have been up.
To see what's really happening in the shelter we need to look at the out-alive rate. How many were adopted, returned to owner, fostered or taken by New Hope.
The number of animals that left the shelter alive in March 2007 was down in number and percentage. Fewer animals made it out alive. This is for cats, dogs, bunnies and others. The point of a No-kill director is to get the animals out alive, not to warehouse them in cramped, stressful and unhealthy conditions.
More animals are now dying in the shelter than ever before. One, because there are more animals in the shelter. Two, because he's holding them longer and they are getting sick and dying. Three, because the vets are overtaxed and can't treat them all as well. Here is the total dying in the shelter. Over three times as many animals are dying in the shelter than before he got here.
2007 247 11%
2006 167 7%
2005 70 3%
CATS: Cat adoptions way down from last March, down 30%. Cat euth is down because he's holding onto them. Cat intake is the same. Died in shelter the same as 2006, which was way up from 2005. New Hope is up over 2006 but still down over 2005. If Boks hadn't held all those cats, the euth rate would be up.
Cats out alive is way down. He failed cats.
RABBITS: Rabbit adoptions down 50%, euth up over 2006, dying in shelter up, intake is down. He failed rabbits.
OTHER: Other adoptions only up by two animals. New Hope is way down, 50% down.
Dying in shelter up 100% over 2006. 2006 was 8x 2005 so this is pretty bad. Euth is up over 2006. Intake is up. He failed "others."
In order to try to improve the cat numbers, he kept more cats in March 2007 than before, same with dogs. If Boks had euth'd those animals, his euth rate and numbers would be up overall.
As it is his left-alive rate is down from last year. Notice, he is keeping more animals longer but adopting way fewer. Cats 2006 adopted 367, 2007 adopted 259, down 30%.
Holding the animals longer is not improving their chance of adoption. In fact, it seems to be making the adoptions go down. Maybe because they look sick, are frightened, stressed out from being kept longer? Maybe because the shelters are full which overwhelms potential adopters? Maybe he's just not doing a good job getting cats adopted. Adopting out cats is very different than adopting out dogs. Dogs are good at mobiles, cats aren't as good.
The below numbers show that Boks is holding onto the cats so he won't have to euth them. He did not increase adoptions so the shelters just filled up.
--CATSMarch 2007, 1,022 came in, 576 left alive 56%+102 net cats, kept in the shelter.
--March 2006, 1,021 came in, 644 left alive 63%-54 cats.
--March 2005, 1,199 came in, 552 left alive 46%+74 cats.
"survival of the fittest"
n. "Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce."
Boks' philosophy for achieving no kill is to greatly overcrowd the shelters with dogs and cats. This is only effective if successful techniques for adoptions are implemented. The effects of overcrowding living creatures has been well documented. When there is a very predictable outbreak of illness and aggression animals die in the shelter or he classifies these animals as "unadoptable" and kills them. Those that make it through the first stage of survival of the fittest are then labeled as "aggressive." All are subject to the mass killings. His tortuous "technique" is the legal equivalent of hoarding, animal fighting, animal cruelty and neglect. HIS path to no kill is covered with blood.
This is most horrific for the animals. With all the reports from rescuers and employees concerning dog fights I can imagine it is traumatizing for them as well. They need to understand why this is happening, if they do not already understand.
I agree with the first post. Boks is making animals which are not already sick and fractious, sick and fractious. Then he can kill them saying he was doing them a "favor." "It was a mercy killing." He did the same exact thing in New York. This was one of their biggest complaints.
Boks tries to manipulate the numbers by using the animals. This is indeed animal cruelty. There's a reason why you're only supposed to put one dog to a kennel. They could get in a fight or get a transmittable disease. That is exactly what's happening. They should lock Boks up in a kennel with a few big nasty pitbulls and see how he likes it.
Here's another thing. The animals that do get adopted out are all sick. Rescuers have no problem treating this but I saw a guy return two kittens because they had URI. They then instantly killed those kittens. The guy went to pick out two more. He will return those also as ALL the cats have URI now. ALL the dogs have kennel cough. What's the point of getting them adopted if they will be returned and killed? Oh, because it will look like they were adopted when they actually weren't.And they will look like they were sick coming in when they weren't. That's probably why the impound rate is going up, returns.
Boks does not care about the actual animals. He only cares about his numbers.
"They should lock Boks up in a kennel with a few big nasty pitbulls and see how he likes it."
That would be nice, except first you'd have to get Boks to the shelter.... something he rarely ever does.
The cycle of madness described contributes to breed stigmas and more killing. Let's see, which breeds of animals are most likely to survive in a competitive overcrowded kennel with stressed dogs? The ones Boks likes to kill the MOST.
Adoptions are down? Perhaps the most naive, friendly pets like that innocent, owner surrendered white German Shepherd killed by other stressed dogs in the same kennel, don't last long enough to be adopted or rescued. And the neglected strays will become ill first. The statistics do indicate that many more animals are dying in the shelters than previously. Why? Due to sickness and aggression from overcrowding.
Overcrowding brings out the worst in all of us, animal or human. Road rage is an example. But, do we kill humans for succumbing to it? Most everyone has done it at one time or another on the 405 during rush hours. Does that mean that they are uncontrollable? A killer? Bad? Usually not. And they learn not to do it. It's a display of being in a stressed, overcrowded environment. Think about that the next time the issue of TEMPERAMENT TESTING comes up. What's YOUR threshold?
This is a comment to the first comment above RE: "They should lock Boks up in a kennel with a few big nasty pitbulls and see how he likes it."
As a shelter volunteer, I know it would be difficult to find even one "nasty pit bull", let alone a few. It's obvious you haven't ever truly known a pit bull, or know pit bulls in general. It's these kinds of comments that add to the hype, create ignorance and fear, and then murder. Please educate yourself before you make irresponsible comments like that.
And thank you Ed M. for your great blog and all you do for animals.
Post a Comment