Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Scofflaw Management

March 10, 2010 by awlahawk

The paragraphs in italics below are excerpted from a letter that an AWLA employee recently sent to the Office of the State Veterinarian at the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. This employee was concerned and alarmed by the events and practices she witnessed at AWLA.

The first event, which occurred about a year and a half ago, was the League fabricating information to the State of Virginia’s Health Department regarding a rabies test. At the time rabies vaccinations were in short supply and the League had hired a new employee that needed, due to League rules, pre-exposure vaccinations. Apparently the League was told that there was not an adequate amount of vaccinations in the state and the supply was to be kept for individuals that needed to receive post exposure shots. In order to get the employee vaccinated the League fabricated a bite report. The health department was told that the employee was “exposed” to a positive raccoon and she needed to receive the post exposure shots. Not only is this false, but she received six doses instead of the usual three. For some reason twice as much was used as is necessary and certainly contributed to the short supply of vaccine. Also, In order to get the vaccination the employee was forced to lie to the Health Department as well.

I was called into the Chief’s office [ed note: AWLA's Chief Animal Control Officer] days after finding out this had happened and was asked what I was saying regarding the “raccoon case”. I told her that we should not be fabricating information because if the league ever gets caught it would hurt its ability to prosecute cases and ruin our credibility. I was told to “keep my opinions” to myself and “there are reasons why we do things around here.” I wrote an email to the Executive Director informing her of the conversation I had and she said she would discuss it with me. After telling her about the conversation in person, the Executive Director informed me that she had authorized it herself. I was shocked and felt I could not pursue the matter further as I needed my job and was concerned the League would retaliate if I spoke out again.

Then I noticed other things happening such as case information disappearing from computer files. I brought [this] to the attention of the Communications Manager as did another employee and asked if there was a way to prevent access or the ability to delete information on activity’s we entered in the system. So far nothing has changed and reports were being changed after we finish filing them. We were told someone would look into it but it seems to have been dropped…

Lastly, I feel the whole Operation of the League needs to be investigated. They “pre-mix” Ketamine and Xylamine which I believe this is against State Regulations. I do not have faith in the current operational processes and am uncomfortable about the potential lawsuit exposure as well as worried that I may be put in a position where I am told to lie to the State or lose my job. Since these are the things I have seen am very concerned as to what else might be going on or what other regulations might be ignored.

I would like to emphasis that the current Chief of Animal Control seems to have an unusual amount of control over the whole League and that any complaints against her or regulations she ignores are not pursued or even looked into by the Director or Board…

Things have gotten so bad that I understand that the Arlington County Board has taken more of an active interest and might be investigating funds misappropriation as well as what appears to be over-aggressive euthanasia practices. The Leagues new contract is coming up and the residents of Arlington County Virginia deserve to be represented by individuals who can administer the League with Honor and Integrity and won’t cost the taxpayers’ money with easily avoidable lawsuits and fines.

That a scofflaw attitude should have emerged within AWLA’s management — and that this attitude could manifest itself in falsified reports, data manipulation, and drug-maintenance violations — is reprehensible but not surprising. Year after year, AWLA benefits from an Arlington County contract which is single-sourced and accompanied by zero or minimal oversight from the County.

And AWLA’s Executive Director reports to a Board of Directors that she helps select, the members of which have no independent experience with animal-shelter management. So the Board is incapable of challenging AWLA management or holding it accountable for its shortcomings.

And as is typical in mismanaged shelters around the country, it’s the homeless animals who suffer.

Posted in AWLA Policies, AWLA Stories, County Contract, Principles | 3 Comments »

One Step Forward?

February 26, 2010 by awlahawk

Arlington-based animal-welfare advocate Debbie Marson pointed out to us that AWLA recently took a step in the right direction by simplifying the application that 501(c)(3) rescue organizations must complete in order to have a relationship with AWLA. Once this relationship exists, AWLA can theoretically transfer animals to the group (though this rarely happens.)

The original application had 50 questions, many of which were either unnecessarily tedious to answer…

– List the number of foster homes your organization had in 2007. How many in Arlington? Alexandria? Fairfax? Falls Church? Prince William? Loudoun? Other Virginia? DC? Maryland?

…or painfully open-ended:

– describe all physical, medical, behavioral, or other characteristics for which your organization would disqualify an animal from adoption

– describe how you recruit, select, and train fosterers

– describe how and by whom an animal’s care is managed, supervised, and evaluated while in foster care

– describe home visit procedure and who does home visits

Etc.

The new, simplified application has 30 questions, most of which can be answered with one or two sentences. I guess that represents progress.

But if AWLA really wants to expand the number of dedicated and capable rescue organizations it works with, it should discard the application entirely. For an established organization staffed largely by volunteers, completing the application is a frustrating and mindless waste of scarce unpaid time, while for a scam artist, it’s trivial to falsify the answers.

So what does the application really accomplish, except to demoralize and dissuade the groups that genuinely want to help?

Here’s all AWLA should need from any rescue organization that wants an affiliation:

– a link to its Form 990 filings to prove it’s a valid 501(c)(3) organization
– the URL for its website
– its policy handbook or equivalent documents
– five references from the local rescue community

Any legitimate and committed rescue organization could provide this information in minutes. No scam organization would be able to do the same. Everybody wins, especially the animals that AWLA could transfer instead of killing.

How about it, AWLA?

Posted in AWLA Policies, DC Area Rescue Orgs, Principles | 1 Comment »

Yardsticks: Recap

February 19, 2010 by awlahawk

The shelters we’ve used so far as yardsticks for AWLA — Tompkins County SPCA, Nevada Humane Society, Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA, and Richmond SPCA — are committed to animal-outcomes transparency, so they use the standard Animal Statistics Table produced by Maddies Fund to aggregate their annual results, then post the completed table on their websites.

Our previous comparisons have been based on CY 2008 data for these organizations, which we’ve compared to the results published in Pawpourri for AWLA’s FY2009, which ended in June, 2009. (If AWLA were as committed to full disclosure as its leading peers, it would use the more-detailed Maddies Fund table and post the results on its website.)

The animal outcomes data for 2009 should be available soon and allow for updated comparisons, so let’s summarize the essential data from 2008 before we move on. These percentages are for cats and dogs and exclude lost-and-found animals and owner-requested euthanizations.

A or T = adopted out or transferred to a rescue organization

 
 JurisdictionA or TKilled
NHSWashoe County, NV95.3%3.6%
TCSPCATompkins County, NY93.3%7.1%
CASPCAAlbemarle County, VA84.4%13.1%
RSPCA+RACCCity of Richmond, VA77.3%21.0%
AWLAArlington County, VA65.2%29.5%
 

Like the other organizations listed, AWLA is an open access shelter and must accept any animal offered to it. Some of these are terminally ill animals brought by their owners to be euthanized. Others have been separated from their owners and are quickly reclaimed. Handling animals in these categories is straightforward, and AWLA should and does do its job in these situations.

But what separates an effective animal shelter from an underperformer is how it handles the other animals it is required to accept, i.e. the healthy or treatable cats and dogs that are surrendered by their owners or brought in as strays. These are the truly homeless and friendless animals for whom the shelter offers the last chance at finding a loving family and living a full life. We’ve seen recently what is possible for animals like these.

And this is where — despite its larger resources and the smaller task it confronts — AWLA fails to meet the standard set by its peers. The difference is compassionate leadership that is committed to doing what it takes to save as many animals as possible. The best animal shelters have it. Unfortunately for Arlington’s neediest animals, AWLA does not.

Posted in Yardsticks | 2 Comments »

Yardsticks: AWLA vs. Richmond SPCA

February 9, 2010 by awlahawk

The City of Richmond in central Virginia has the same population as Arlington County, distributed over a geographic area more than twice as large. Per capita income for the City of Richmond is about 75% that of Arlington.

Richmond Animal Care and Control and Richmond SPCA perform animal control and animal sheltering for the City of Richmond, so together they handle the services that AWLA undertakes for Arlington County. Richmond has many more homeless animals than Arlington — while AWLA received 1,683 homeless dogs and cats in its fiscal 2009, RACC received 6,990 in calendar 2008.

Unlike Arlington County, the City of Richmond has a recent history of above-average violence and crime; it was ranked the fifth most violent city in the US by Morgan Quitno Press in 2004. By 2008 Richmond was only the 49th most dangerous city, but its murder rate was still six times the national average and seven times the Virginia average. So it’s probably safe to assume that a higher percentage of the dogs turned over to Richmond Animal Care and Control are “bully breeds” or victims of abuse than those received by AWLA.

Let’s look at how Richmond’s homeless dogs and cats fare composed to those received by AWLA. (These percentages don’t include lost-and-found pets, i.e. dogs and cats that are reclaimed by their owners after being received by animal control, or untreatable pets euthanized at the request of their owners.)

 
  DogsCatsTotal
Euthanized
 AWLA29.2%29.7%29.5%
 RSPCA + RACC23.0%18.3%21.0%
 
Transferred to Rescue Orgs
 AWLA3.1%0.3%1.1%
 RSPCA + RACC16.5%21.0%18.5%
 
Arlington County kills a significantly higher percentage of its homeless dogs and cats than does the City of Richmond.

This is despite AWLA’s funding advantage on a per-animal basis and the much easier task that AWLA confronts, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Why is RSPCA + RACC so much more successful than AWLA at saving homeless dogs and cats?

Enthusiasm for working with local rescue organizations is an obvious difference between RSPCA and AWLA. Other specific programs and goals underlying that success are explained in detail on the RSPCA website.

But the fundamental explanation is simple — Richmond SPCA and RACC demonstrate compassionate leadership, a commitment to saving animals, and effort.

Arlington’s homeless animals deserve the same from AWLA.

Posted in Principles, Yardsticks | Leave a Comment »

What’s Possible

February 4, 2010 by awlahawk

A reader alerted us to this story about Nico, a six-year-old dogo argentino who was discovered in a South Los Angeles shelter last July by members of an animal-rescue group who were visiting to transfer other dogs.

When the picture on the left was taken, Nico was homeless, friendless, abused, unnamed, and scared — like thousands of bully-breed dogs that end up in animal shelters every year in this country. After his picture was posted on Facebook, dedicated rescuers began working to save him. He was pulled from the shelter and spent time in the hospital before being trained in foster care. By Christmas he had moved into his forever home in Indiana, touching and inspiring a small army of volunteers along the way.

Nico was also untrained and deaf. How likely would he have been to pass AWLA’s behavior evaluation? Yet a rescue organization was able to foster, train, and find a forever home for him.

Nico represents what’s possible for the abused and abandoned dogs that find themselves confined in small kennels, awaiting a death sentence. The biggest obstacle dogs like Nico face is the combination of prejudice, lack of compassion, and lack of effort embodied in the managers of animal shelters that prefer to keep on killing innocent dogs.

Posted in Principles | 1 Comment »

Prejudice Prevails

February 2, 2010 by awlahawk

HB 429 was voted down 5-3 last night by the agricultural subcommittee of the Virginia House of Delegates. The bill had proposed adding a single sentence to the section of Virginia Code governing animal shelters.

However, no pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed.

AWLA Executive Director Kay Speerstra testified against this bill (see posts below for details), helping to ensure that dogs in Virginia will continue to be killed based on discredited breed stereotypes alone.

Here’s an example of a dog whose prospects would be grim were he to find himself abandoned in Loudoun County. In Arlington County, his fate would hinge on the flimsy evidence of a behavior evaluation conducted by prejudiced strangers in a bewildering and alien setting.

In the not-too-distant future, breed-based killing will be an anachronism, and those defending it now will be distancing themselves from the medieval practice or pretending it never happened.

Posted in Principles | 9 Comments »

Help Support VA HB 429!

February 1, 2010 by awlahawk

A reader asked us to post this important message explaining how you can support VA House Bill 429. Don’t let AWLA undermine this legislation, which will give thousands of homeless animals a chance to survive and find homes!

*****

A new Virginia law has been proposed (HB 429) which will prohibit city or county pounds from having breed-specific euthanization or adoption policies. Currently, many publicly funded animal shelters have policies which require them to kill many dogs based solely on breed — HB 429 will put an end to that.

HB 429 will be heard by the Agricultural Subcommittee on Monday afternoon, Feb. 1. We must act quickly — this bill needs our help to succeed –
so please do the following immediately:

STEP 1:
Send an email to the members of the Agricultural Subcommittee:

To:

DelMLohr@house.virginia.gov,
DelBOrrock@house.virginia.gov,
DelEScott@house.virginia.gov,
DelDMarshall@house.virginia.gov,
DelCPoindexter@house.virginia.gov,
DelDBell@house.virginia.gov,
DelJShuler@house.virginia.gov,
DelMJames@house.virginia.gov

Subject: HB 429–SUPPORT

Body (modify as desired):
HB 429 Animal welfare; prohibits city or county from euthanizing or adoption of any dog solely on breed.

Please support HB 429. Many publicly funded animal shelters in our state currently have inhumane breed-specific policies which result in many friendly, safe, loving dogs being put to death needlessly. Virginia needs HB 429 to put an end to this cruel practice.

Sincerely,

[ your name ]

STEP 2:
Forward this email to every Virginia resident you know who cares about animal welfare.

That’s it!

If you are willing to do more, please contact your representatives and ask them to support HB 429. The contact information for your representatives is here:
http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform

Thanks for protecting homeless and friendless dogs that desperately need your help!

Posted in AWLA Policies, Principles | 1 Comment »

AWLA Explains Stance on VA HB 429

January 31, 2010 by awlahawk

Last week, the agricultural subcommittee of the Virginia House of Delegates considered House Bill 429, which would add the add the following sentence to section 3.2-6546 of the Virginia Code:

However, no pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed.

AWLA Executive Director Kay Speerstra traveled to Richmond to testify in opposition to HB 429, and her testimony helped defeat the bill in subcommittee. When this sequence of events triggered an uproar in the local animal-rescue community, Speerstra sent an e-mail message to AWLA volunteers explaining her position. Here’s the substance of that e-mail message:


In my comments on HB 479 (sic), I specifically stated that AWLA does not employ breed bans, and I noted my personal opposition to breed bans in general. To be clear, my comments focused on the importance of permitting local municipalities to set their own adoption policies. Rather than having the Commonwealth set these policies for us, I support local decision-making on these issues. Communities throughout Virginia face varying fiscal, safety and security conditions, which may call for different and flexible approaches on many issues surrounding the animal adoption process. Local decision-making in this case will best meet the different needs of each locality and is ultimately in the best interest of the animals we care so much about. The comments that I made in Richmond expressed my concerns about this component of the legislation.

In other words, Speerstra personally opposes breed bans, but it’s important to her that animal shelters retain the right to prohibit adoption and euthanize animals based on breed alone.

In October, 2006, the Attorney General of Virginia issued the opinion that euthanizing a dog in a public shelter based on breed alone was illegal, but Speerstra believes this prohibition should be subject to “local decision-making.” A few decades ago, that philosophy was used to suppress voting rights and preserve school segregation. There’s a reason that laws defending basic rights of life and liberty are not left to local decision-making in this country.

Here’s the language of HB 429 in context, i.e. inserted into the relevant paragraph of section 3.2-6546 of the Virginia Code:

D. If an animal confined pursuant to this section has not been claimed upon expiration of the appropriate holding period as provided by subsection C, it shall be deemed abandoned and become the property of the pound.

Such animal may be euthanized in accordance with the methods approved by the State Veterinarian or disposed of by the methods set forth in subdivisions 1 through 5. However, no pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed. No pound shall release more than two animals or a family of animals during any 30-day period to any one person under subdivisions 2, 3, or 4.

Why should this one provision be left to local decision-making?

Or if we accept Speerstra’s argument, then surely other provisions in the applicable code should also be left to the discretion of local animal shelters. How about this one?

B1. The pound shall be accessible to the public at reasonable hours during the week;

Clearly some localities might find this provision more burdensome than others. Why not let the shelters decide how and when to provide public access?

How about this provision of the Code?

B2. The pound shall obtain a signed statement from each of its directors, operators, staff, or animal caregivers specifying that each individual has never been convicted of animal cruelty, neglect, or abandonment, and each pound shall update such statement as changes occur;

Maybe that provision should be removed and the degree to which staff are vetted be left to local decision-making. And how about these provisions of the Code?

C. An animal confined pursuant to this section shall be kept for a period of not less than five days, such period to commence on the day immediately following the day the animal is initially confined in the facility, unless sooner claimed by the rightful owner thereof.

The operator or custodian of the pound shall make a reasonable effort to ascertain whether the animal has a collar, tag, license, tattoo, or other form of identification. If such identification is found on the animal, the animal shall be held for an additional five days, unless sooner claimed by the rightful owner. If the rightful owner of the animal can be readily identified, the operator or custodian of the pound shall make a reasonable effort to notify the owner of the animal’s confinement within the next 48 hours following its confinement.

Why should the Code be bogged down with such minor and specific restrictions?

Maybe because Virginia residents want to ensure that even homeless and friendless animals retain some basic rights and a fair shot at finding a home.

Posted in AWLA Policies, DC Area Rescue Orgs, Principles | 4 Comments »

Insider View of AWLA Dog Evaluations

January 29, 2010 by awlahawk

Here’s a post sent to us by an AWLA insider who read the front-page article in AWLA’s Pawpourri newsletter about dog evaluations and felt compelled to present a less whitewashed view of those evaluations.

*****

When a dog is brought into the AWLA shelter, either as an owner surrender or as a stray, a lot happens before it receives a behavior evaluation. It is given a general exam by the animal care staff, and is usually given basic vaccinations (not including rabies) and basic deworming medicines. Then it is put in a kennel “off view.”

The off-view kennels consist of the back half of the cage that shelter visitors see. The dogs may be permitted use of the full run when the shelter is closed. A stray dog is held for 5-10 days before it is evaluated. If the dog is an owner-surrender, it may be evaluated immediately, but is usually given time to adjust to the shelter. The adjustment period may be as short as a few days or as long as a couple of weeks.

During this time before evaluation, the dog is generally not taken outside. This can be torture for a housetrained dog. It will hold everything in for as long as it can, even to the point of making itelf sick. When the dog finally does relieve itself, it will often try to hide it by eliminating on its blanket and covering it up. When it wants to lie down, it then must either lie on the cold hard floor or the soiled blanket.

In the Winter 2010 issue of Pawpourri, on page two it states that dogs are taken for a “brief walk” before their evaluation, and that “a housetrained dog will typically keep their kennel clean and relieve themselves immediately upon going outside.” The short walk consists of walking outside from one end of the shelter to the other. This is not much time to observe the dog’s behavior.

As for relieving themselves, these dogs are not on a schedule. Some have not set foot outdoors for two weeks. They may have just gone to the bathroom when they finally are taken out. They may be distracted by the pure joy of finally being outside after so long. They may be overwhelmed by all the sights and sounds. Certainly, this is a great time to observe the dogs, but the circumstances are so unlike anything these dogs have experienced before, that any information gleaned from this observation must be viewed with a skeptical eye.

The Pawpourri article goes on to say that the dog being evaluated is then taken to the general purpose room. This is usually the case, though sometimes that room is being used and the evaluation is relocated to the staff kitchen/lounge. Both of these rooms smell like food, people, other dogs, and sometimes even cats or other animals.

As anyone who has ever had a dog knows, dogs ‘think’ with their noses. There is a lot of information to be deciphered by sniffing in corners and under tables. There are also huge windows in these rooms, with trees and shrubs just outside. Can anyone say “SQUIRREL!?”

With so many distractions, how can AWLA expect these dogs to focus on a handler they’ve never seen before and to whom they have no connection? Sure, some will. Others, like Barley from In Unsafe Hands, will be more interested in the many new sights and smells around them. Barley’s response during his evaluation does not mean that he was not a social dog.

Max (profiled in the same entry) never even had the opportunity to get out of the kennel. His evaluation was based solely on observing him through the cage door. After more than a week in a cage, with no understanding of why he was there, can you blame him for not coming to the front of the kennel to greet these strangers? Would you joyously greet your prison guards, when you’ve been wrongfully imprisoned?

The article goes on to discuss testing dogs for resource guarding issues and mentions shows on Animal Planet which use an Assess-A-Hand to see how dogs react when the fake hand is repeatedly put in the dog’s food bowl and touches the dog’s face while it is eating.

While it certainly is important to know how a dog responds when food is near, it should be noted that many animal behaviorists don’t believe this type of testing is particularly accurate or useful. The 11-week-old puppy, Alex, was euthanized based on several factors including food-guarding. Is there no one at AWLA capable of training and socializing an 11-week-old puppy? Wht wasn’t Alex offered to any rescue groups that may have been better equipped to deal with his perceived issues?

I believe that Animal Planet was mentioned in the article to give validity to AWLA’s evaluation methods. However, those same shows use dolls to gauge a dog’s reaction to babies and small children? I don’t know any dog that can’t tell the difference between a toy and a human. Thankfully, AWLA does not employ that practice. However, AWLA does use a stuffed cat to test if a dog is cat friendly. I wonder how many of these dogs have been given a stuffed animal as a toy to play with, chew on, and perhaps even destroy. Again, dogs know the difference between a toy and the real thing!

There is so much more I could write in response to the Pawpourri article and perhaps I will at a later date. I do believe that some form of behavior evaluation is useful to get a general idea of a dog’s nature. However, most animals exhibit vastly different personalities outside of the shelter environment. Many of the dogs that AWLA has euthanized recently would have thrived in a foster home and made wonderful pets.

Posted in AWLA Policies, Principles | 5 Comments »

AWLA Defends Breed-Based Killing

January 26, 2010 by awlahawk

Majority Leader Morgan Griffith recently submitted House Bill 429 for consideration by the Virginia House of Delegates. HB 429 proposes adding the following words to section 3.2-6546 of the Virginia Code:

However, no pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed.

This language would prevent animal shelters from killing dogs based on breed stereotypes alone.

AWLA Executive Director Kay Speerstra traveled to Richmond to testify against VA House Bill 429 — a surprising effort given AWLA’s widely-acclaimed announcement in 2009 that it would no longer ban pitbull adoptions. Since only one other witness opposed VA 429, Speerstra’s testimony presumably helped defeat it in the House Agricultural Subcommittee.

So as AWLA continues to kill healthy young dogs based on the cursory “behavior evaluations” it conducts in the stressful environment of the shelter, it won’t have to worry about defending those evaluations. It can always fall back on the argument that the decision was based on breed characteristics.

Arguments against HB 429 ignore important truths:

– Dogs that exhibit aggression are often reacting to stress, discomfort, or perceived threats. When transferred to foster homes and provided with structure and training, the vast majority of these dogs become well-behaved family members.

– Aggressive behavior toward humans is not a breed trait. Individual dogs become aggressive or vicious when they are mistreated by cruel or irresponsible human guardians.

– Many dogs cannot be accurately characterized, or even identified, by breed. As a result, catchall terms like “pitbull” are used to describe stocky dogs with large heads or square jaws or pink noses.

How many dogs in this compilation would AWLA characterize as pitbull mixes?

Here’s a puppy that AWLA describes as a chocolate lab-pitbull mix:

Looks like AWLA casts a pretty wide net when identifying pitbulls.

And here’s
another dog that AWLA would almost certainly have characterized as an aggressive breed had it been turned over to them. Disoriented and scared after arriving at the shelter, how would Sharky have performed on AWLA’s behavior evaluation?

If you live in Arlington, you help underwrite AWLA’s stewardship of stray and surrendered animals. Feel free to ask Arlington County Board Members [via e-mail at countyboard@arlingtonva.us ] why your tax dollars are being used by AWLA to undermine legislation that is broadly supported by Arlington’s animal-rescue organizations and animal-welfare advocates.

Posted in County Contract, Principles | 11 Comments »

Older Posts »