Comments we’ve received from an AWLA volunteer on our last two posts suggest that maybe we’ve been too optimistic about the rate at which AWLA is improving its efforts on behalf of homeless animals. A culture of stonewalling and inertia is hard to change, especially when most of the management team responsible for it remains in place.
How will we know when AWLA shifts its raison d’etre to saving as many homeless animals as it can from whatever its top priority is now (fundraising?)
1. AWLA will actively recruit foster homes for its long-tenured cats and dogs, not just its kittens and puppies.
2. AWLA will use its ample resources to pull more dogs from high-kill shelters, and then involve its dogs in community events on a regular basis.
3. Dogs like Leo won’t be stashed in off-view kennels for weeks on end, where adopters can’t meet them and volunteers are prohibited from walking them.
4. AWLA will implement Oreo’s Law.
5. And AWLA will commit itself to outcomes transparency for its homeless animals.
Here’s what transparency looks like at the Humane Society of Berks County in Reading, PA.
HSBC has fewer resources than AWLA, but it handles more cats and dogs and works much harder on behalf of those animals. And it encourages feedback and suggestions from its volunteers and constituents. If you spend 15 or 20 minutes comparing the AWLA and HSBC websites, you’ll realize that the motivations of the two organizations are fundamentally different.
AWLA could learn a lot from peers like this. Let’s hope its next Executive Director agrees.
This blog actually came up during a sidebar discussion at the AWLA volunteer feedback session, so I’ve been checking it out regularly. I’m a relatively new volunteer at the Arlington shelter (about a year and a half in), so I’m not familiar with all of the history involved in AWLA Hawk’s scruitiny of the people and practices at the facility and with the board/ED/etc. However, I would like to speak up about a few things I’ve seen repeated here and by recent volunteer comments:
1.) Most importantly – my interaction with AWLA ‘staff’ involves mostly the animal techs, adoption coordinators, and assistant kennel managers. To a one, I’ve found them to be some of the hardest-working and most compassionate people I’ve met. I think it’s important to remember what a thankless job this can be at the end of the day – volunteers (myself included!) need to remember that our impression of an animal from a few hours or even a few days a week is not necessarily the whole story. Not that I’m comfortable with the relatively high percentage of euthanasia or quarantine – but just because I can handle a large, rowdy dog, or don’t think anything of getting mouthed by a pit bull during play, doesn’t mean that a less-experienced volunteer or potential adopter/member of the public couldn’t be placed in harm’s way by that same behavior – which as we know, usually results in a bad outcome for the animal. Personally, I’m all for better training for volunteers at the shelter – I know hearts are in the right place, but safety (of both people and animals) needs to come first.
2.) Speaking of handling specific animals – Leo’s coat was shaved due to severe matting, flea/tick infestation, and what techs originally thought was a skin-embedded collar – it’s not a new standard practice for chows. I can’t get into his whole case story (since I don’t know it!), but wanted to put that one detail out for clarification.
3.) RE: animals and foster care. I am 100% FOR AWLA’s increased cooperation with rescue organizations, esp. as a lover of big dogs. However, I’m cognizant of the fact that there are two rational sides to every story. A previous AWLA Hawk post pointed out some dogs that have been at the shelter for a very long time. True, an extended shelter stay is a less-than-ideal situation. But many of the dogs listed are not a good fit for the average foster home – they had specific, expensive health care needs (for example), or needed to be in a single-animal home – rare for foster organizations that, by necessity, often house many animals in one home (which usually has a resident animal to begin with!). Additionally, while at AWLA’s Walk for the Animals, I met several dog *parents* who had adopted animals out of foster care and were deeply disappointed/disturbed by the lack of history disclosed or even known on the animals, the lack of follow-up on the animal after adoption, or the pressure placed on potential adopters to take an animal despite reservations about a health or behavior issue – concerns which are hopefully less of an issue when adopting from a centralized facility like the shelter. I don’t think the either the shelter model or the foster care model can be one-size-fits all, so in my ideal world I’d like to see both valued for what they can provide to homeless animals and their potential adopters.
To sum it all up, while I certainly support AWLA Hawk’s call for increased transparency at the Arlington shelter, better outcomes for all the animals who find themselves there, and overall, systemic improvements in the management of all local animal shelters such that they reflect the resources and commitment of the communities they serve, I also want to put in a good word for the dedicated volunteers and staff who *are* doing the best they can to make a difference at the shelter. I know I’m ‘new to the game’, but I’m optimistic about the future (I’ve yet to be told ‘no’ when asking about new ways to help dogs at AWLA), and I hope that all local animal lovers regardless of affiliation can find ways to work collegially and cooperatively for the good of all homeless animals in our community and beyond.
I wanted to echo the last, very thoughtful comment from “young volunteer”.
I think we need to remember that we are truly all on the same side – and that there is a place for different types of animal welfare groups to meet different needs. Rescue groups have a special role, as does the AWLA. Enough of this infighting between us. We need to find ways to communicate better and work together.
My experience over many years at AWLA is that the staff and volunteers work very hard in often very stressful circumstances, and have the best interest of the animals and community in their care at heart, even when some difficult decisions need to be made.
AWLA’s mission is not just to promote adoptions – although that is a priority. But the public should know that there are also other very valuable services provided by the League – such as community service (helping low-income people afford spay/neuter, or our safe-keeping program), and the vibrant community education program which in particular has several kids camps over the summer (my own nephews and niece greatly enjoyed them and learned much over the past few years)
This may be a controversial topic – but I would like to try to demystify some ideas around euthanasia. No-one wants to see an animal put down. Yet there are some situations that may warrant that – as uncomfortable as it is to admit.
AWLA is an open access shelter – which means it accepts all homeless animals who will be welcomed and given a safe place where they will be warm and fed and taken care lovingly. AWLA no longer euthanizes for reasons of space, nor for reasons of age, and those are commendable accomplishments. The goal is to minimize the number of euthanasias. However, there still are some animals, after going through a health and behavioral evaluation by AWLA staff, that are deemed unsuitable for adoption. As unfortunate as that is, we should keep in mind that AWLA’s mission also involves community welfare and thus has to factor those issues in.
And there is another side of euthanasia, one which owners
of old or ill pets truly value – a free – service the AWLA provides. As far as I know, no vets or rescue groups offer this needed service at no cost.
To make this more personal: The staff at the shelter were wonderful when we had to put our 15 yr old tortie cat down, and there is no where else I would want to go to be in such a caring, holding environment for those last moments with our loved pets.
I adopted my latest dog from the shelter in 2005 – she is everything and more than I could have hoped for. She is 9 years old now, and acts like a year 3 old with lots of grey hair.
I hate to think of the day i will say good-bye to her, but am so grateful to AWLA that they offer a – free – opportunity for us to be able to be with our loved pet in her final moments, if we get the chance to be with her then.
Yes, there are always things we can improve at AWLA, but please, let’s not forget the great things that staff and volunteers are doing there each and every day. Let’s not give up on trying to communicate, remembering we’re all really on the same side.
Thanks for pointing out that AWLA offers owner-requested euthanasia (ORE). While I have no doubt that AWLA provides this service compassionately, it’s performed under contract with Arlington County. So the service is paid for by Arlington taxpayers, not AWLA. Euthanizing a terminally-ill animal and disposing of the remains costs money, so of course no veterinary clinic would offer it for free. For obvious reasons, rescue groups can’t perform euthanasia.
Just to clarify, all of the contributors to this blog have direct experience working for AWLA as either volunteers or paid staff. While many of us have also worked for rescue groups, our assessment of AWLA’s practices is based on direct observation. And it’s observations like those in this post that have formed our impressions of AWLA.
What we have directly observed is the unnecessary euthanization of cats and dogs.
Actually, since the definition of “euthanasia” is “the act of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition,” what we have observed directly is AWLA’s killing of healthy or readily-treatable cats and dogs.
I concur with shelterhawk. Is the “Chief” of animal control still there? I thought she’d be gone by now.
I’m happy to see that AWLA volunteers are reading this blog and are being thoughtful in their responses. I appreciate their commitment to the animals. But, I would like to point out that we (AWLAHawk supporters) have BEGGED, PLEADED, COERCED, etc, the AWLA board and/or management to work with us for YEARS. We have asked for them to meet with us and let us discuss our concerns. We have offered our resources – time, money, knowledge, network, etc to help resolve any problems they may have. They not only have NEVER taken us up on our offer, they have never even had the decency to respond. AWLAHawk was not started on a whim or impulse. It came out of YEARS of frustration – years of watching animals die needlessly. I personally have documentation of animals getting killed AFTER rescue groups have asked to take the dog or puppy.
It was OUR efforts that got AWLA to start working with rescue groups and that was NO easy feat. We had to go through the county and it took YEARS for the shelter to finally acquiesce. Every change that WE have gotten from the shelter is after a long, arduous battle. WE got the shelter to open on Sundays. They fought it for years. WE got the shelter to stop killing based on age. Up to that point, they automatically killed any dog over half his/her life expectancy. WE got them to stop killing for space. WE got them to comply with their contract and to release the documentation showing who is being killed down there. WE are the ones who applied pressure that helped get Kay out. WE are the ones who have brought progress to the shelter. Etc.
WE are currently trying to get AWLA to rescind their position on breed based euthanasia. Kay Speerstra, the former AWLA exec. director, took time away from her $100k/year job in order to drive to Richmond to OPPOSE a ban on Breed specific euthanasia. This ban would end the killing of thousands of dogs and puppies simply because they are pits, shepherds, chows, rotties, etc. The ban still allows shelters to kill based on behaviors or any other criteria other than SOLELY based on Breed. This law would not have impacted AWLA supposedly because they don’t kill based on breed. So why would Kay drive all the way to Richmond to be one of only 2 people to oppose this bill. Rescue groups, ACOs, breeders, trainers, the VFHS and most other animal lovers in the state endorsed the bill. Kay opposed it. Now that Kay is gone, you would have thought that the AWLA board would have come forward to rescind Kay’s position. All they have to do is say they don’t have a position on the bill. But they are on record as opposing the bill. It will come up again in Jan in the Virginia General Assembly. Again, we have BEGGED, PLEADED, COERCED and everything else we can think of to get AWLA to support this humane legislation. They have NOT. Maybe you young or long time volunteers could encourage the board to support this bill.
Please also know that many of the staff and volunteers ARE seriously committed to the animals but have been warned repeatedly by management over the years NOT to rock the boat. Note that many of these volunteers and staff contact us BEGGING for us to help and “to do something”. Trust me, the concerns about AWLA come from inside and out of the shelter. Please open your eyes and see the big picture.
Animal Lover,
As I said, I’m new to all this, and had no idea about the history of the shelter when I signed up to volunteer – obviously, it’s not something many members of the staff/board are particularly forthcoming about! Clearly, the shelter is a better place today that it was historically thanks to the efforts of concerned animal advocates throughout the county and beyond. That much has been made very evident through this blog and conversations with other Arlington animal lovers. I certainly am not posting her to declare that the ‘fight is over’, or to discount the hard-won successes of the past – I just wanted to point out that maybe there’s some room now (and hopefully even more in the future!) for change to be made from ‘within the system’ as well by applying external pressure, where previously such efforts were limited if not outright squelched.
As for your admonition to “open [my] eyes and see the bigger picture” – I’m working on it. But it may not be the same picture that some long-time Shelter Hawks have in mind. I’d like to see this debate opened up to some fresh viewpoints, both experienced and less so. Villification on either side is not going to advance the conversation, and it’s the animals who will lose during the stalemate.
Yes, there have been improvements at the shelter, but animals continue to die at a needlessly high rate. Most of us on this forum worked or volunteered at AWLA and tried to create change from within. Some of us quit in frustration, others were fired for doing what was right instead of doing what was easy. I know I made a difference in the lives of many animals, but there were many more that I was powerless to help. I hope the new director brings a fresh perspective. At this time, AWLA needs to take off the blinders, open their minds to new ideas, and enact sweeping changes. It’s not about fundraising or competing with the top shelters and rescue groups; it’s about helping animals. Only when AWLA puts the animals first, will everything else fall into place.
Dear young volunteer. That it fantastic that you have not heard “no” yet from AWLA when trying to help an animal. That is good news. Maybe you could push it a little further and see if you could get them to meet with concerned citizens and/or get them to change their position on Breed Specific Euthanasia. That would REALLY help the dogs.
Thanks. John
Dear Long Time Volunteer, it sounds like there are some good programs at AWLA. One of my favorites are the rabies and microchip clinic. I do think these are funded by our county tax dollars though and are mandated by the contract with the county. So basically AWLA is simply doing what the county is paying them $1.3 million to do.
The thing that bugs me the most is the euthanasia issue. What gives us the right to take a life? When did AWLA become god? What makes us superior to animals? Would we kill a human if they displayed bad behavior or poor health? Do we give the school system one template for acceptability and any child who does not meet that standard is euthanized? How can you say you want to “demystify” killing a gorgeous, healthy animal that is far superior than you and me physically? They are faster and stronger then us and their natural instincts are so much greater, hence their ability to survive outside in the wild. Could you survive like a feral cat and scrounge for food and shelter every day? What made you buy – in to the idea that it is acceptable to kill an animal that does not meet AWLA standards?
I don’t buy-in to the idea that AWLA HAS no other option than to kill 2-3 dogs/puppies a week. I come in contact with LARGE numbers of homeless dogs and I guarantee that 1/3 of them are NOT UNadoptable. By the way, these numbers are AWLA’s statistics. They kill 1/3 of all the dogs and puppies who come into their care once you subtract out the number of dogs who have been lost and then reclaimed by their owner. If you don’t believe me, please check AWLA’s annual report! It is on their website.
There are many shelters around the country who have open admissions who are not killing their homeless animals. Please don’t believe everything AWLA tells you. Some staff and volunteers are misinformed. So are simply lying or stupid.
In closing, I ask you to go look into the eyes of the dogs who did not pass “the test”. Go into the EU room and hold them down as they fight to live. Watch them die and then come back and “demystify” euthanasia for all of us!!!
The AWLA seems to have made some strides in the right direction, but obviously they have a long way to go. And young volunteer, I applaud your work there (and all the volunteers). What I believe needs to be for most in your mind is the percentage of placed animals from the AWLA in comparison to the other shelters that Hawk has listed. It blows my mind in an area like Arlington that so many animals are euthanized every year, when other shelters who have a LOT more animals come through, and where residents have a lot less income, have so much better outcomes. I don’t understand the hesitance to give dogs to other rescues, especially when they ASK for them. It makes no sense to me at all.
In spite of their claims, AWLA does kill birds, small animals, and occassionally cats for space. Often, there will be something else listed as the reason for euthanasia, though I have occassionally seen ‘space’ listed as the reason. If someone brings in two litters of rabbits, or a dozen hamsters, most of the animals are likely to be put to sleep. I blame the owners for allowing their pets to breed, but they should know the truth about what is going to happen to their animals.
It is true what Jennifer says about the euthanasia. I have personally seen this. June-Sept MANY animals are put down due to limited space. Some don’t last one day. They immediately bring the animals to the EU room while the ink is still wet on the release form. They also lie in the EU book what the reason is.