Help offered to Chesterfield’s homeless animals
-
These dogs are available for adoption at the Chesterfield County Animal Control's Animal Shelter. The facility can handle up to 250 homeless pets at a time. P. KEVIN MORLEY / TIMES-DISPATCH
-
Kittens at the Chesterfield County Animal Shelter keep an eye on visitors. Last year the Chesterfields shelter euthanized 1,351 dogs and cats of the 4,788 its received. P. KEVIN MORLEY / TIMES-DISPATCH
-
A labrador-shepherd mix (left) and an Australian cattle dog mix play at Chesterfield County's animal shelter. P. KEVIN MORLEY / TIMES-DISPATCH
-
This mixed breed dog is available for adoption at the Chesterfield animal shelter. The Richmond SPCA has offered to partner with the county with the end goal being a no-kill shelter where no healthy or treatable animals would be euthanized. P. KEVIN MORLEY / TIMES-DISPATCH
-
The Richmond Animal League, which is located in Chesterfield, has also offered to partner with the county. It would take more dogs and cats from the shelter, handling pre-adoption spaying and neutering, as well as medical care for a reduced cost. P. KEVIN MORLEY / TIMES-DISPATCH
P. KEVIN MORLEY / TIMES-DISPATCH
The Chesterfield County Animal Control’s Animal Shelter can handle up to 250 homeless pets at a time.
Related Info
RICHMOND-AREA SHELTER EUTHANIZATIONS, 2008
Chesterfield: 4,788 dogs and cats received; 1,351 euthanized
Hanover: 2,829 received; 1,036 euthanized
Henrico: 3,713 received; 1,562 euthanized
Richmond shelter: 4,402 received, 1,445 euthanized
Richmond SPCA: 3,007 received, 23 euthanized
SOURCE: Office of State Veterinarian
RESOUCES
• Richmond SPCA
• Richmond Animal League
• Chesterfield County Animal Control
Published: November 24, 2009
Updated: November 24, 2009
Call it dog day.
On the same day last week, two humane organizations and a group of residents offered to help Chesterfield County reduce the number of homeless dogs and cats killed each year and increase the number sterilized and adopted.
The Richmond SPCA is seeking a partnership in which animals at the county's shelter in danger of being euthanized would be transferred to the SPCA for safekeeping and adoption. The Richmond Animal League has offered a low-cost partnership for sterilizing pre-adoption animals and providing medical services.
Chesterfield's shelter, which handles more animals than any other locality in the region, has improved its euthanization rates in recent years. But some residents still are concerned.
"For almost two decades now, citizens have come before the Board of Supervisors and the administration with serious concerns and constructive criticisms about the shelter," said resident Jane Weisenfels. "And for reasons that defy logic and common sense, most of these citizens have been met with condescension and empty promises."
At last Wednesday's supervisors meeting, Weisenfels called for the county to establish a residents committee to work with the shelter.
"We hope to save lives, and we hope to save tax dollars," she said. "If you decide against this proposal, we feel with all due respect that you owe the citizens an explanation as to why not."
Last year, Chesterfield's shelter euthanized 1,351 dogs and cats of the 4,788 received. That was better than neighboring Henrico County, which put down 1,562 of its 3,713.
Hanover County, which recently partnered with the Richmond SPCA, euthanized 1,036 of the 2,829 dogs and cats received; Richmond's shelter put down 1,445 of 4,402; and the SPCA put down 23 of 3,007.
Chesterfield was able to find homes for 1,551 of its dogs and cats; Henrico, 817; Hanover, 374; Richmond's shelter, 1,221; and Richmond SPCA, 2,891.
At last week's supervisors meeting, the Richmond SPCA's CEO, Robin Starr, offered a free partnership with the county, with the end goal being a "no-kill" shelter where no healthy or treatable animals would be euthanized.
The SPCA partnered with Richmond in 2001 and with Hanover last year.
"Since 2005, no healthy homeless animal has died in the city of Richmond," she said. "In Hanover, no healthy homeless animal has died in 2009."
Starr said Chesterfield potentially could have its first year with no healthy animals dying within a year or two of joining forces, but the county first would need to agree to a policy requiring all adopted pets spayed or neutered and other provisions to keep down the population.
The SPCA plans to approach Henrico next to extend the same offer as part of the organization's strategic plan for the Richmond area, she added.
Sharon Cornett, a Chesterfield resident and president of the board of directors for the Richmond Animal League, which is located in Chesterfield, also offered Wednesday to partner with the county.
Her proposal would transfer more dogs and cats from the shelter to the Animal League, and the organization would take care of all pre-adoption spaying and neutering as well as medical care for a reduced cost. The Animal League would provide free transportation, heartworm testing and microchipping.
The Animal League began working informally with the county's shelter six years ago, resulting in the transfer and adoption of more than 650 dogs and cats.
"As helpful as this may be, we recognize the need to do more," Cornett said, adding that her goal, too, was a no-kill shelter in Chesterfield.
"The no-kill philosophy cannot be implemented overnight," she said. "But the first and most obvious building block of a no-kill doctrine is to reduce the number of animal births within our community."
County Administrator James J.L. Stegmaier said all offers are being considered carefully.
"The county has really been pushing to increase adoptions and decrease the number of animals that end up having to be disposed of by other means," he said. "But we want to do better, so we're looking at these agreements."
Stegmaier said the county was in the early stages of discussing the offers, priorities and finding out how it can work together with all interested parties.
"We don't have firm proposals from either group at this time," he said. "We don't want to turn any group against any other group. We think there are opportunities for everybody to work together to achieve a common goal."
Residents urged the supervisors to act quickly, noting that taking advantage of the offers would be a great first step toward major improvements and cost savings.
"If you just reduce the number that have been killed in the last couple of years by 50 percent, it represents about $48,000," noted Bob Herndon.
Added Jane Lannon: "There is so much money out there if we only reach for it with the type of shelter that attracts them to us. We are severely lagging in the treatment of our nonhuman citizens."
Contact Wesley P. Hester at (804) 649-6976 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
The Richmond SPCA and RAL do a great job with the overall helping of animals. Both of these private organizations work very hard at what they do. I doubt there would be disagreement on that issue. However, the term “no-kill” continues to be highly debatable. The controversy and disagreement with these posted opinions proves my point. The problem is that it’s a two-word phrase that can be spun any way you want it. To achieve 100% truthful transparency, an organization shouldn’t even use the words “no-kill” in its statements or philosophy.
On its face, “no-kill” is exactly what it says, no kill. Therefore, nothing should be euthanized in the truest interpretation of a “no-kill” philosophy. The problem becomes when an organization then tacks on a disclaimer. Sure, the organization can say, “We don’t euthanize healthy, treatable animals.” What is normally left out is the part that is a negative reality. How often do you hear or read, “We don’t euthanize healthy, treatable animals, but we kill the ones that are aggressive and/or sick and injured.” And if they don’t or won’t euthanize them, someone else has to do it.
Posted by Tabitha Hanes on November 27, 2009 at 12:10
“Richmond Animal Care and Control is not no-kill and has never said that it is. The very significant success that it has achieved as a result of the partnership with the Richmond SPCA is that no healthy animals are being euthanized there and many of the treatable animals are being saved as well. Because not all of the treatable animals are being saved yet, Richmond AC&C does not call itself no-kill.”
This gets more and more confusing and controversial. I’ll just concede now that Richmond Animal Care and Control is not a proclaimed “no-kill” shelter yet has a direct partnership with the RSPCA. Oh wait, there’s a bit of a catch to all of this, though. If Richmond Animal Care & Control is not a “no-kill” shelter (clearly they’re not because they kill a lot), has this partnership with the Richmond SPCA (a proclaimed no-kill facility) and they use the Asilomar record keeping, why is Chesterfield being assailed and in such need of help despite it having the lowest ratio of euthanasia of the reported government facilities?
The Richmond SPCA is completely accurate in stating that it is a no-kill organization and transparently reports its annual statistics on its Web site: http://www.richmondspca.org/Page.aspx?pid=294
The valid definition of “no-kill” is that no healthy or treatable homeless animals are losing their lives. The fewer than 1% of animals in the care of the Richmond SPCA that were euthanized were entirely unhealthy/untreatable. The only time that any animal in the care of the Richmond SPCA is euthanized is under the same circumstances that a loving owner would do so – the pet is unhealthy and untreatable, has no quality of life and is suffering. All responsible no-kill organizations euthanize animals under those specific circumstances.
Richmond Animal Care and Control is not no-kill and has never said that it is. The very significant success that it has achieved as a result of the partnership with the Richmond SPCA is that no healthy animals are being euthanized there and many of the treatable animals are being saved as well. Because not all of the treatable animals are being saved yet, Richmond AC&C does not call itself no-kill.
Among cities and counties there are very significant differences in the challenges of trying to save homeless animal lives due to the mix of the animals and their health as well as the local resources, policies and programs. No one has suggested that Chesterfield has not done a good job in the past, only that it could be better and more lives could be saved with the benefits offered by a partnership with the Richmond SPCA and any other organizations willing to help.
Since we’re being clear and factually correct, on the home page of RSPCA website (http://www.richmondspca.org/Page.aspx?pid=183) printed almost at the top left of the page is “20,618 pets’ lives saved since becoming no-kill in January 2002.” Most people read from left to right. Guess what they’re going to read first—NO-KILL. Will they search the site for more information? Maybe. Will the idea of “no-kill” and probably nothing else be planted in their minds almost immediately? Absolutely. It’s nothing more than psychological manipulation of the human mind. The RSPCA still euthanized 23 animals. That’s NOT “no-kill.” That’s still killing. Why can’t they say reduced or limited-kill? At least THAT would be truthful and accurate.
Chesterfield CAN make a statement. They’ve clearly earned the right to still say (by ratio of euthanized/intake) they euthanized the least amount of animals.
Doesn’t it seem a little suspicious that Richmond AC (a proclaimed no-kill shelter and partner of the RSPCA) euthanized MORE than Chesterfield? Are we to believe that every single one of those animals were “unhealthy” and/or “untreatable” and couldn’t be saved? I agree with Amy in that it “is just plain wrong.” I can’t be the only one who finds this suspicious.
To: richmondbhnatve- So, Bob…..after all the lobbying you’re doing on their behalf, are you expecting to be appointed to the SPCA’s board of directors?
Let’s be clear and factually correct. Robin Starr has never said Richmond is “no-kill”. What she has said, quite clearly, and what is supported by viewing the Maddie’s Fund Reports online is that no “healthy homeless animal” has been euthanized in Richmond since 2006 and in Hanover for the 2009 calendar year.
That is a statement the Chesterfield Shelter cannot make.
The Board of the Richmond SPCA had a clear choice in extending their offer to partner with Chesterfield County. They could “raise the bar” in the Richmond area from “healthy” to “healthy and treatable” homeless in 2009; or, they could offer to partner with Chesterfield County and save the lives of more healthy homeless animals in the Richmond Metropolitan area by partnering with Chesterfield County.
The SPCA’s voluntarty choice to partner with Chesterfield County will mean a sizeable number, and within a reasonable time, hopefully less than 2 years, no healthy homeless animal that is unfortunate to find its way into the Chesterfield Shelter, will be killed. National statistics indicate as many as 80%, or more, of the companion animals in our shelters are healthy, treatable, manageable and worthy of adoption, not death.
This is truly an HISTORIC moment in time in Chesterfield County. The offer from the Richmond SPCA should be a “no brainer” for Chesterfield County. To receive an offer of this magnitude, with the potential financial benefits and the opportunity to partner with proven success is the easiest decision the management and elected officials of Chesterfield County will make since this Board took office in January 2008 and the County Administrator was hired in the Summer of 2007.
Robin Starr needs to stop making statements that Richmond and other area shelters are “no kill.“ The average resident does not know anything about the standards that are applied to consider an animal “healthy and adoptable,“ and when they hear “Richmond is no kill” they assume pet overpopulation is not an issue here. They assume absolutely no animals are killed. They do not realize that hundreds of animals are still being euthanized because the definition of “healthy, adoptable” does not include completely treatable/curable issues like food aggression, etc.
I’m worried these statements could potentially drive people straight to breeders. “Well, if overpopulation is not an issue in Richmond, why should I adopt from the shelter?“ This will only make the problem worse.
I believe the 1,445 dogs and cats killed at the Richmond shelter would disagree with the statement that Richmond is no kill. Using such criteria to justify the death of almost 1,500 animals at just the Richmond shelter alone in just one year is just plain wrong.
How about a new law for irresponsible pet owners? If you do not spay or neuter your pet, a hefty fine. If you allow your dog to run loose and it is taken to animal control, another fine, and so on…STRICTER laws would help. In china you are only allowed 1 pet per household and it MUST be fixed.
VT911, RAL does go to shelters and take some of the animals that are on the euthanize list.
I don’t blame RAL and I don’t blame the shelters, I blame irresponsible pet owners who do not have their pets neutered or spayed.
Posted by richmondbhnatve on November 24, 2009 at 2:36:
“I have asked the Chesterfield administration for a moratorium on “euthanizing” healthy animals at the Chesterfield shelter while they are fine-tuning the agreements with the RSPCA and RAL.”
****Where exactly will Chesterfield then house all the animals (cats/dogs)? In 2008, they took in 4,788 and have room for up to 250 animals. That equates to bringing in/receiving approximately 13 animals daily for 365 days straight. In approximately 19 days, the Chesterfield shelter would then be filled to capacity; assuming they could start at zero capacity on day one. Are we to tell the citizens and the animal control officers who bring in animals that, in 19 days or less, they cannot take animals to the Chesterfield shelter because it’s full? The RSPCA and RAL would need to be prepared to house this influx of animals that Chesterfield would be unable to receive. Continuing with the math, Richmond SPCA adopted out 3007 animals in 2008. That amounts to approximately 8 animals daily for 365 days. To be fair, the RSPCA could take seven animals daily from Chesterfield and RAL could take six. I’m sure the RAL facility is much smaller than the one at the RSPCA. Do you think RAL could handle the intake of six animals every single day from Chesterfield? Keep in mind that the RSPCA could only accept one additional animal each day to achieve their 8-a-day adoption rate. This will be tight if they’re accepting animals from Richmond Animal Control and Hanover. RAL would probably have to turn away everyone else except for the Chesterfield shelter.
Posted by vt911 on November 24, 2009:
“Well then, it seems that a first step in a relationship building effort with Chesterfield would be an offer to come to the pound/shelter on Mondays and Tuesdays to evaluate those unfortunate animals on the Wednesday list. If any of those animals fall within RSPCA or RAL’s healthy, treatable and manageable criteria, then do a transfer.”
****This idea is simple AND practical. It’s probably one of the best ideas posted on here. It would be an excellent opportunity for the RSPCA and RAL. If Chesterfield is so terrible with euthanizing, why can’t the RSPCA and RAL do this? Are they too busy? Do they have enough space? What’s the hold up?
Thank you for providing the link to the Glossary for Asilomar. I think every commenter should read through it. The glossary provides the broad brush definition to promote a basic understanding. Within each community that reports according to Asilomar, there is a further breakdown of what conditions make a pet Treatable-Rehabilitatable, Treatable-Manageable, or Unhealthy/Untreatable. So, it is not subjective. Those breakdowns are determined by veterinarians and behavioral experts in that community and are based on available resources in the community. Breed or age are NOT factors in any of those definitions.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Asilomar, the fact remains that more lives will be saved if Chesterfield enters into a formal partnership with the Richmond SPCA. During this holiday season, I hope everyone hugs their pets a little tighter and gives thanks for them as well. Please pray for those pets in shelters that they too will have the opportunity to find a home.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement