My Heart Is Breaking UPDATE

Research the shelters in your area - you can probably find one that offers the expierence you are looking for. Not all 'kill' shelters are bad - many only put down the dangerous and very ill animals - I worked for one like that for several years. The volunteers never got to know these dogs, for the most part (because of their behavioral and medical concerns).

I'd LOVE a volunteer groomer! We have several in our area that will do one every now and then for us -and many that do lower cost grooming... we've been so lucky with some really good community support.

shamrockmommy

They keep the dogs until the runs are full and then someone has to go. :(  It sucks.   I'm still asking around and trying to spread the word that he's a really great puppy.

 Sounds like a shelter problem instead of an overpopulation problem. What is their reason for having so few runs and not allowing foster homes? Most likely it is a case of heing easier and cheaper to just kill the dogs than to try too hard to place them. Very sad. Glad this boy got lucky!

Nice assumption....sheesh.  Just because a shelter has to euth due to space does NOT mean it's a "shelter problem".  We get 18000 animals a year and have to euth; I somehow doubt that we can house all those animals in the 360+ kennels and the few fosters we have.  It sucks, but I'm tired of shelters being blamed for everything - it's a COMMUNITY problem.

stardog85

Nice assumption....sheesh.  Just because a shelter has to euth due to space does NOT mean it's a "shelter problem".  We get 18000 animals a year and have to euth; I somehow doubt that we can house all those animals in the 360+ kennels and the few fosters we have.  It sucks, but I'm tired of shelters being blamed for everything - it's a COMMUNITY problem.

 So you think it is appropriate for a shelter to turn down foster homes and then kill dogs "for space"? How is that a community problem?

It's not necessarily so cut and dried - we don't know the situation.  Would you think it appropriate to place the dog in a foster home with no training, support, or screening of the home?  Just because a shelter does not take all people who apply or those who ask to foster a specific dog, does not mean it's saying no in every situation.  Foster programs take a ton of work to get up and running - how do you know that they aren't working on it?

AgileGSD

So you think it is appropriate for a shelter to turn down foster homes and then kill dogs "for space"? How is that a community problem?

Is the community going to spend the money to have someone screen and approve those fosters? And then check to make SURE that those fosters are not really hoarders, or otherwise evil people?

The shelter I work at...yes, we occasionally euth for space. Sorry, we only have so many kennels, and if there are 10 ''hound mixes'' and #11 comes up HW positive, #11 probably has a pretty slim chance of being adopted.

I dare ANYONE who says we 'kill dogs' to come do my job for a freaking DAY, one day, and see how much your perspective changes. Kill dogs, my left foot.

AgileGSD

Most likely it is a case of heing easier and cheaper to just kill the dogs than to try too hard to place them. Very sad.

Oh my word, ''cheaper and easier'' -- AgileGSD, have you ever even euth'd a dog? I'm sorry, it's NEVER easy, EVER, even if you've know the dog for 5 minutes. I'm sorry to hijack this thread but I'm SO SICK of assumptions like this.

Wow. Such assumptions.....

I'm not going to say what I want to say right now....

Stand on the other side of a needle, for just one euthanasia. And then tell me it's 'easier'

To the OP: A shelter that euthanizes could probably use your help the most. Many of these shelters would love to have their adoptable dogs look like movie-stars, but can't afford to hire additional staff to take on this task. No-kill shelters/rescues are often bombarded with volunteers, which is wonderful, but it can leave the other shelters in the area with few volunteers. It can be tough to do, but I think you'll find it well worth it. ;)

stormyknight

I am also a bit shocked at the "easier to kill dogs" stereotyping going on.

  So it is acceptable for a shelter to kill dogs based on space while turning away willing foster homes for those dogs? I'm surprised people are ok with things like that. Stuff like that is why shelter dogs will continue to die, not because of the community and not because of "overpopulation". Those dogs aren't dying because there is no other option, they are dying because the people in charge make excuses for not pursuing options for them. And PC to say or not, it very often is a case that killing is the easier/cheaper option in government run shelters.

  The pound here used to be extremely high kill and it wasn't due to "lack of homes" or "overpopulation". It was because the pound did nothing to promote adoptions, didn't have a foster program, held stray dogs dogs for extremely short times (and sometimes killed owner turn-ins as soon as they were dropped off), had limited "viewing hours" for potential homes to come see the dogs, had no place for said people to even get the dogs out of their cages to interact with them and were very difficult for rescues or other shelters to work with. It was done this way because the ones in charge didn't want to put the money or effort into doing it any other way. They were very much stuck in the dark ages of animal sheltering. Things have gotten better there, still not ideal but MUCH better. The pound now has a team of volunteers, work closely with a local rescue when space becomes an issue, have their dogs posted on Petfinder and have extended their adoption hours at least one night a week. And guess what? It has made a vast difference in the number of dogs getting homes. It is still the same community, still the same numbers coming in - the only thing that has changed is the effort being made on the shelter's part to encourage adoption.

 What I find surprising is blind acceptance of what pounds or shelters do and the assumption that they must be doing everything they can (even when it is obvious, such as in this case that they are not). And the assumption that anyone who criticizes a shelter must have no experience with rescue work. 

AgileGSD

stormyknight

I am also a bit shocked at the "easier to kill dogs" stereotyping going on.

  So it is acceptable for a shelter to kill dogs based on space while turning away willing foster homes for those dogs? I'm surprised people are ok with things like that. Stuff like that is why shelter dogs will continue to die, not because of the community and not because of "overpopulation". Those dogs aren't dying because there is no other option, they are dying because the people in charge make excuses for not pursuing options for them. And PC to say or not, it very often is a case that killing is the easier/cheaper option in government run shelters.

  The pound here used to be extremely high kill and it wasn't due to "lack of homes" or "overpopulation". It was because the pound did nothing to promote adoptions, didn't have a foster program, held stray dogs dogs for extremely short times (and sometimes killed owner turn-ins as soon as they were dropped off), had limited "viewing hours" for potential homes to come see the dogs, had no place for said people to even get the dogs out of their cages to interact with them and were very difficult for rescues or other shelters to work with. It was done this way because the ones in charge didn't want to put the money or effort into doing it any other way. They were very much stuck in the dark ages of animal sheltering. Things have gotten better there, still not ideal but MUCH better. The pound now has a team of volunteers, work closely with a local rescue when space becomes an issue, have their dogs posted on Petfinder and have extended their adoption hours at least one night a week. And guess what? It has made a vast difference in the number of dogs getting homes. It is still the same community, still the same numbers coming in - the only thing that has changed is the effort being made on the shelter's part to encourage adoption.

 What I find surprising is blind acceptance of what pounds or shelters do and the assumption that they must be doing everything they can (even when it is obvious, such as in this case that they are not). And the assumption that anyone who criticizes a shelter must have no experience with rescue work. 

I have run a few different animal shelter, so my opinion is not based on assumption - I know what goes on behind the scenes. I know what outward appearances can look like and yet what is actually happening in the background is completely different, for good or for bad. When I took charge of a shelter 18 mos ago, there was no foster program. No adoption program to speak of. No promotions going on, no advertising. No behavior mod program. No medical protocols to speak of. No volunteer program. No money, no resources - paying employees every two weeks was a challenge. Euthanasia for space was through the roof. With all of those problems, I wasn't able to fix everything overnight.

The first time the shelter launched a foster program (before I was there), it was an incredible disaster. There was no support set up for it. We had well-meaning, willing people taking animals into foster that they had no business taking - but there wasn't a good screening process going on at that time. Some foster parents tried to steal dogs because it turns out that they weren't such good people after all. Foster parents had no idea what to look for in kittens that a URI was coming on, or what kennel cough looked like, nor did the shelter have the manpower to check up on foster parents. People got bit by their foster dogs b/c they had resource guarding problems, but oops - there was no behavior screening going on at that time. There was no plan set up for foster animals after they came back to the shelter, so some were euthanized anyway. It was an absolute disaster.

When I got to this shelter, it took me a solid three months to get a foster program started. Because first I had to put medical protocols in place, behavior mod/temperament testing in place, put together a foster manual/application, get the volunteer program started, form partnerships with local adoption events so that we would have a place to take adoptable animals. Then, and only then, was I able to even begin to think about starting the foster program. It is not as simple as saying "Let's start a foster program now!" and let people start taking animals home to foster if you are starting with nothing to begin with. People like yourself would have been criticizing the shelter for its euthanasia rate and continued to criticize the way the shelter was run because you would have had no idea what we were planning. 

My point is that while I was doing all of this behind the scenes, no one outside of my office had any idea what was going on. Not potential adopters, not volunteers, definitely not the general public. They had no idea what was going on behind the scenes, the planning, the instating of new policies that benefited the animals, the protocols being put in to place. I am saying that it is ignorant, unless you work there, to say that you KNOW that they are not doing everything that they can - nothing is OBVIOUS unless you are there. I would rather give a shelter the benefit of the doubt, knowing how hard the job is, rather than assume that it is "most likely a case of being easier and cheaper to just kill the dogs than to try too hard to place them." I would be very surprised if anyone with experience running a shelter, especially a county or municipal shelter, would be so critical of another shelter's problems without knowing what is really going on there. Can most shelters improve what they have or what they are doing? Of course. Does it happen overnight? Very rarely.

Before you criticize someone else, walk a mile in their shoes first - it is not as easy as it seems. However, it is much easier to criticize without walking the mile first.

Great post, stormyknight. 

THANK YOU stormy!! 

As I always say in these sorts of threads - at least around here a shelter can be doing almost everything right and STILL need to euth for space.  No one likes it, seriously, but we also can't allow ourselves to warehouse animals either.  You may not realize it, but there ARE worse fates than humane euthanasia and it's our duty to ensure the animals in our care do not end up in those situations.

Our shelter is the only open admission shelter in the county and we are a nonprofit, not government run.  We have contracts for housing animals from animal control (city and county) and recieved about 18000 animals last year.  Our capacity is around 360 animals at any one time.  We  have humane ed programs, low cost behavior services, low cost s/n services, low cost vet care for those who qualify, periodic adoptathons, weekly newspaper spots, monthly tv spots, radio time periodically, a vibrant volutneer program, in kennel training for adoptable dogs, behavioral enrichment for all animals, even the pocket pets, on site vet care for shelter animals, and are *working* on starting a foster program (only a few homes are currently trained).  We just started a transport program that should move about 30 animals once or twice a month and we have a number of active rescue placement options.  Our adoption rates are still not where we want them, and that's with an open adoption process.

What else could we do?!  And keep in mind that we don't have the ability to get funds for additional staff because of the economy - donations are way down.  We do utilize grants and community groups to fund many of our programs and hold several big fundraisers a year.

OP - we currently have a number of grooming students who are doing their hands-on hours through our facility and they are an AMAZING help.  I'm sure there are a ton of other shelters who would love to have a groomer that can work their magic on the shelter dogs!  Even if you can only do an hour or two a week it can make a huge difference!

stormyknight

My point is that while I was doing all of this behind the scenes, no one outside of my office had any idea what was going on. Not potential adopters, not volunteers, definitely not the general public. They had no idea what was going on behind the scenes, the planning, the instating of new policies that benefited the animals, the protocols being put in to place. I am saying that it is ignorant, unless you work there, to say that you KNOW that they are not doing everything that they can - nothing is

Before you criticize someone else, walk a mile in their shoes first - it is not as easy as it seems. However, it is much easier to criticize without walking the mile first.

  Sounds like you felt this shelter needed a lot of work and was not being well run before you got there. It'ds great that there is now a more capable person in charge, not unlike what I mentioned with my local pound.

  I don't claim that it is easy at all. In fact, I said that it was easier and cheaper to kill the dogs than to make serious attempts at placing them (which involves housing them, providing medical care, setting up a foster program, promoting adoption, etc).