Houston and Harris county have five “kill shelters”. (I use the term “kill shelter” to describe those facilities that are killing healthy and treatable pets. I am distinguishing that term from "No Kill shelters" who euthanize only those animals who are truly too injured or sick to be saved and are suffering, or those animals who are too dangerous to release to the public).
Two of the kill shelters in Houston are animal control facilities i.e. Houston’s city funded animal control facility (BARC) and the Harris county funded animal control facility. Three of the five kill shelters are non-profit organizations i.e. the Houston SPCA, Houston Humane Society and Citizens for Animal Protection (CAP).
Although I do not believe that any animal shelter or animal control facility should kill any healthy or treatable animal, (because we now know how to stop it) it is particularly abhorrent to me when non-profit “shelters” kill animals. That is why it was particularly disturbing for me when I learned that the three non-profit “shelters” in Houston are doing just that. These three "shelters" are killing tens of thousands of animals every single year.
According to the Mayor’s Task Force report:
1) Citizens for Animal Protection (CAP) killed 6,389 and had a save rate of only 48%;
2) The Houston SPCA killed 20,516 animals and had a save rate of only 39%; and
3) The Houston Humane Society killed 17,552 and had a save rate of only 11%! Note: The Houston Humane Society hasn't limited their killing to Houston pets either. They also kill pets outside of Houston i.e. they have/had “euthanasia contracts” with nearby municipalities such as Baytown, Deer Park, Sugar Land, Missouri City, and Alvin meaning they import these animals and kill them for a fee.
It is interesting to note, in a macabre way, that the director of the Houston Humane Society wrote Houston’s city council members in August of 2009 and proclaimed that No Kill is a "misnomer and is not viable”. She based this statement on her own failed attempt to implement No Kill sheltering 25 years ago. But, when a shelter director is transferring in animals from outside of Houston and killing them for a fee, can that director truthfullly proclaim that she has really tried to get to No Kill? Can she really say that she tried everything that she possibly could to save all lives? It is an absurd thought, but this is what she claims.
It is also interesting to note, in an equally macabre way, that this “shelter” started out as a No Kill shelter in the 1950’s but, at some point, decided that it was easier to kill animals than to try to save them all. Perhaps this shelter’s greed for money from those “euthanasia only” contracts meant more to them than saving lives? In any event, this once No Kill shelter started killing animals.
None of the three non-profit kill shelters have animal control contracts so they are not required by law to take in every animal. They can say no to intakes. Yet, they continue taking in animals and they continue to kill animals every single day.
Additionally, some of the non-profit kill shelters like the Houston SPCA and Houston Humane Society automatically kill certain breeds of dogs, or anything that they think looks like one of these breeds. This is despite the fact that studies show that shelter workers misidentify dog breeds 87.5% of the time). Dogs that may look like a specific breed to a shelter worker are never tested to determine if they really are that particular breed. They are never evaluated to determine if they are truly dangerous. None of these dogs are given a chance at adoption. These non-profit “shelters” just kill them all. (Harris County animal control also does not adopt out Pit Bull type dogs meaning that all dogs that look like Pit Bulls to a shelter worker are killed.)
Considering all of this, a question that has been nagging at me is By what right do these “shelters” kill tens of thousands of animals every year? If an individual killed tens of thousands of cats and dogs, every animal lover would be outraged! Those pet killers would most likely be charged with serious criminal offenses, and rightly so. But, when “shelters” kill tens of thousands of animals, a lot people do not give it a second thought. There is no public outcry and no criminal charges are filed. Instead, people donate millions of dollars to the kill shelters.
But again what gives these “shelters” the right to kill dogs and cats? Do they have a right to kill because they have a 501(c)(3) non-profit designation with the IRS? I’ve completed 501(c)(3) paperwork and not once did I see the question “do you plan to kill animals?” listed anywhere, so that can't be it.
Do the people working in these "shelters" have the right to kill because they have used the words “animal shelter” to describe their organization? Or maybe it’s because they used words like “Animal Protection”, “Humane” or “Prevention of Cruelty” in their names? Let’s turn this thought around and think about it for a moment. What if I, the average citizen, decided to take in animals and I called my facility a “shelter”. For instance, I could call my facility Bett’s Animal Shelter or Bett’s Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; or Bett’s Humane Society or how about Bett, Citizen for Animal Protection. Better yet, let’s combine them all and call my super fantastic shelter “Bett’s Humane, Animal Protecting, Prevention of Cruelty Shelter”.
My shelter takes in a few hundred animals and everything is rocking along wonderfully until one day, I decide that my shelter has too many black dogs or too many orange tabby cats, so I need to get rid of some of them. Or maybe I decide that there are just too many animals and I decide to start killing some of the animals to clear up some cage space. And then I decide that the 14 year old Pomeranian, that came to my shelter lost, is just too old to live and should be killed. Or, perhaps I decide that a kind hearted citizen is caring for too many homeless cats and I demand that he bring them to my shelter where I know that they will be killed (after all, I'm out of cage space). And so what if I have to lie to him and tell him that he is allowed to keep only 3 cats and 1 dog (Houston's pet limit laws actually allow for 3 dogs and there is no pet limit regarding cats).
Bett’s Humane, Animal Protecting, Prevention of Cruelty Shelter continues to take in more animals every day, and I keep killing animals every day. Sure, I adopt out a few of the animals, and maybe a few owners manage to find their lost pets at my shelter, but pretty soon I’ve killed tens of thousands of animals in a year. Wouldn’t you be outraged to hear this? Wouldn’t you be outraged to learn that Bett’s Humane, Animal Protecting, Prevention of Cruelty Shelter is not so much a shelter after all, but is actually killing perfectly healthy and treatable animals? Wouldn’t you demand to know what right I had to kill these animals? Wouldn’t you demand that Bett’s Humane, Animal Protecting, Prevention of Cruelty Shelter stop killing animals or be shut down? Of course you would and you would be right.
This is exactly what is happening at the Houston SPCA, Houston Humane Society and CAP every single day so again my question is: By what right do they kill animals?
Perhaps you are thinking, this is the way it has been done for decades. So what? Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time, does not mean that it is right and it certainly does not mean that we should not change when we know that it is wrong or when we discover a solution.
Perhaps the reason more people are not as outraged as I am is because they just do not know that these “shelters” are killing so many animals. I believe that a large number of people do not know that these “shelters” are killing animals at all. After talking to hundreds of people, I've discovered that many people believe that these non-profits are all no kill shelters. The reason that they believe this is because the “kill shelters” have ways of creatively “spinning” information to make the public believe that they are saving all the “adoptable” animals entering their doors. But, make no mistake, these “shelters” are killing healthy and treatable animals by the thousands every year. (According the Mayor’s Task Force report, these three “shelters” combined killed 44,457 animals in one year).
The general public would not likely learn the truth from these “shelters” because the non-profit organizations are not required by law to produce their intake and exit numbers to the public. The city and county funded kill shelters are required to produce this information but not the non-profits---and they don't.
No, these kill shelters hide the number of animals that they kill from the public. I know this because I have recently requested that the Houston SPCA, Houston Humane Society and CAP give me a copy of their intake and exit reports. In fact, I have asked all of them twice to willingly give the public this information. I asked once on September 20, 2010 and again November 23, 2010. To date, none of them have responded at all. If these “shelters” are truly proud of what they are doing and if they have nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they gladly produce their records to the public? Every citizen should be seriously concerned about the lack of transparency and dishonesty at these kill shelters.
These “shelters” continue to kill tens of thousands of animals in secrecy and the unsuspecting, animal loving public continues to donate to them believing that they are helping to save lives. The fact is that the public’s donations may only be buying more “blue juice” (i.e. the drugs used to kill animals) or to pad some shelter director's six figure paycheck.
But, now you know what is really going on behind closed doors in these kill shelters. You know that they are killing tens of thousands of animals every year in Houston so it is up to all of us to educate every single Houstonian about what is going on in our community. It is up to all of us to demand honesty from these kill shelters whether they are non-profit organizations or not. It is up to all of us to demand that these “shelters” stop killing and if they refuse, then we should demand a change in leadership.
It is time to end the so-called right to kill shelter pets.
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************
- If you wish to receive No Kill Houston's e-newsletter, click on the link on the right side of our website.
- To receive an email notice each time I post a new article on Examiner.com, click the “Subscribe” button at the top of this page.
- Become a fan of No Kill Houston and No Kill Texas on Facebook.
- Follow No Kill Houston on Twitter.
- If you would like to share experiences you have had with any of the five kill shelters in Houston, please email me.
Comments
I wonder what you think about the SPCA bringing in chihuahuas from out of state and saying that there are no chihuahuas here so there is a demand, when chi rescue is full and shelters have them, too.
A shelter that is already killing 61% of the animals entering their doors should not take in more animals. I'm sure that they took those Chihuahuas because they are more easily adopted out than a bigger dog. Therefore the added adoption fees will pad their coffers. And I am quite sure that animals at the HSPCA were killed to make room for the dogs that were shipped in. I do not believe shipping animals from one high kill shelter to another high kill shelter is a solution.
Each shelter needs to stop killing before importing more animals.
Thanks Bett for taking the time to research these issues and bring them before the public in a factual manner.
Another great article Bett. This is the question we no kill advocates ask ourselves all the time. "By what right?" Indeed.
Yes, Bett says it all, both in the title and in the text.
One could summarize with a sentence from Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre: "Conventionality is not morality."
I like that quote.
You bring up many valid points. The SPCA is very good at making people think they are no-kill. Thankfully, San Antonio Humane Society is no longer associated with the SPCA and is a no-kill shelter.
Regarding the chi comment above, I do not know but can only assume it is because the transport program is run like the one in San Antonio. Our city gives fully vetted dogs to other shelters, some of which are also open-door kill shelters, at no cost to them and they adopt them out for $200-300 each so they can kill the animals that come in locally that would have to be treated for medical problems. Great way to make money, not a great way to save animals.
I had signed up to volunteer at the Houston SPCA last year, but was seriously disappointed when they mentioned (in a very casual, nonchalant manner) how they euthanize every pit bull that walks through the door without even TEMPERMENT TESTING the dog first. I haven't been back since.
I don't blame you Susan. They should not be allowed to call themselves a "Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals". What could possibly be more cruel that being killed for no other reason that a shelter worker thinks the dog looks like a particular breed. It is shameful.
First, I honor your tireless work in Houston, Bett. You have gone above and beyond over the years to get out the word. My thanks for that.
Houston is missing a creative leader to bring this cause and all its divided factions together under one effort. This leadership will not come from the government nor from within the shelter industry.
Cages? Really? Killing instead of rehab? Shelters, how dull and 1870s.
American individualists must be convinced to give up their obsessive need to work alone. BARC, CAP, SPCA, Humane Society, 100 little rescue groups - see the flaw?
Bett, you put the term "shelter" in quotes to imply that they are not sheltering. Well, the same can be said about "no kill." Ryan Clinton even coined the phrase "90% Club." When all else fails, aim lower - right? People with power are giving you the finger. You're working against nature, not with it.
The solution is a positive approach with innovative ideas. We do not need shelter REFORM. We need shelter REPLACEMENT. Sheltering is a rotten apple. The No-Kill Equation is just polishing this rotten apple.
Watch this little slide show = http://youtu.be/OPajZB9cPWQ
There is a better way...
Gary, you are right. What is going on in Houston is far too common across the US. The real kicker is that a lot of people have no idea. I talked to a co-worker last week who told me that she was going to donate to the HSPCA. I told her to please read this article first, then decide if these shelters represent her values as an animal lover.
It is up to all of us to make people aware of what is really going in our communities.
I do not work in TX but my family is there. I worked in shelters in Maryland. While I agree that euthanasia is often a cover up for humane slaughter of unwanted animals I do want to say that shelters who euthanize healthy animals are faced with 200 cages that are full and a person dropping of 20 sneezing cats. What would you do?
You would call your rescue list, request donations, notify any foster homes with isolation rooms and allow the 20 cats to remain in carriers for an hour while you do so. You would find placements for 3 because you are taking one of them yourself. Now you must examine them and set them up with water and litter. Oh, but you don't have any empty cages...What would you do? Let's say by miracle you solve this dilemma in a day. At closing time, a man comes by with four puppies he found by the side of the road. They have ring worm....what would you do?
What I would do could not be summed up in this small space, except to say that I look to what other Open Admission, No Kill shelters are doing to move animals through the system. Here is a list of some of them: http://s312584456.initial-website.com/no-kill-shelters-us-canada/ Please read up on everything that they are doing to save all healthy and treatable pets. All of their ideas are based on the No Kill Equation: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/nokillequation.html. All of the directors of the No Kill shelters think outside of the box and come up with solutions to save lives.
Thanks for the links. I am familiar with them and hope you know the current controversy over transparent reporting. When animal intake and disposition is counted under the Asilomar Accords, many open admission no-kills have the same humane slaughter rate as those who don't call themselves no kill. And it is because the scenarios I gave above would be counted as euthanasia in the traditional facility and necessary death for sick animals in the no-kill. I understand that Nathan Winograd would propose treating the cats with URI and the puppies with fungus, but they are contagious so without the facilities to isolate one can end up with 200 "sick animals" who can then be justifiably killed. When you have worked in both types of shelters you'll better understand the issue. Although you are on the right track when you say that what is conventional is not always right.
Sorry, but I will never agree that a cat with URI or a puppy with fungus can be "justifiably" killed. There is no justification for killing healthy or treatable animals. "Euthanasia" is acceptable when an animal is too sick or injured to be saved and they are suffering. Of course we don't want unsavable animals to suffer. But, killing healthy or treatable animals is not acceptable. There are ways to avoid an outbreak of 200 sick animals.
I also know that the Asilomar Accords are an easy way for a not so honest shelter to skew their numbers to make themselves look better. But shifting numbers into different columns or mislabeling animals as too sick to be saved, is not acceptable. That is why that we look at raw numbers to come up with save and kill rates. True and honest No Kill shelters have shown us that they are able to save 90% of ALL animals entering their doors. This is why we consider a shelter truly No Kill when they are saving at least 90% of all animals.
I agree with everything you have said. What I want to point out is that unless you turn animals away you will have cats with pneumonia who cannot recover in the shelter. If you cannot find a place to send them within a few hours....what would you do?
I have to disagree with you. While you have valid points, there are animals being euthanized that have treatable diseases, there is also the temperment of the animal that must be taken into account, as well as how far along the disease is. It would be equally horrible for the shelter to adopt out horribly aggresive dogs or a cat that will have to take pills for the rest of its life, even if the cat hates taking pills. You must take into account the wellbeing of the animal *after* it is adopted out. What if it is completely dependent on a medication that it can't stand taking? What if it has an anxiety disorder and will turn agressive if a child runs up to it?
That's my two bits. I don't wish to get into an argument; I was just simply pointing out factors that the shelters have to look at.