I'd like to offer some clarification: a 90% save rate is not a "gold standard." It should be our EXPECTATION that animal welfare organizations* don't kill healthy and treatable animals. We should expect that those put in situations to protect the lives of animals implement proven and effective lifesaving programs and that they have the resources and community support to effectively do so. 90% is a benchmark for that expectation - understanding that a small percentage of animals (usually less than 10%) that enter shelters are too sick, injured, or aggressive to be responsibly rehomed. Yes, there are absolutely other things that animal welfare organizations can and should be doing (which was the primary point of the webinar). But first and foremost, they should be not prematurely ending their lives. *In this case, I'm using a very broad definition of "animal welfare organizations" to include animal shelters, humane societies, SPCAs, rescues, animal control organizations, animal services and animal protection organizations.
While some may consider having a 90% or higher save rate to be a "gold standard" for measuring the success or failure of an animal shelter or rescue, save rate focuses only on a singular point in a complex societal issue. Later today, Dr. Ellen Jefferson, DVM, President and CEO of Austin Pets Alive! will join Cole Wakefield, MS, Executive Director of Good Shepherd Humane Society, to discuss how many animal sheltering organizations around the country are operating beyond humane capacity (while only receiving a fraction of the resources they need), and what must change in order to continue to see increases in positive outcomes for homeless pets.
Sam Basso
7mo
As a general rule, all non-medical behavioral issues, other than canine PTSD, can be resolved. Unfortunately, unfortunately, shelters often times induce PTSD and by their clumsy, obsolete handling and management of the dogs in their care. Furthermore, many times animals are labeled as behavioral problems as an excuse to deal with the over population in the shelter. Evaluations are often knowingly dishonest.
What are we basing these percentages on? The majority of the animal I see now in practice have manageable but not treatable conditions and the increase in behavioral issues since I started practice 2.5 decades ago is marked and concerning.
Sam Basso
7mo
The problem with the percentage numbers is that municipal shelters and others are manipulating their intake numbers in order to achieve a metric rather than looking at whether they are humanely managing their operations. So the rate of 90% has become meaningless.
Denise Bergquist
7mo
Guys we need to create community based resource complexes in each city. Where we hire new vets to work and fully vet shelter pets,take the rescues out of shelters and into resource complexes to run adoption centers .people can't handle the guilt and depressing vibe looking for an animal at a shelter. It's sucks to say that but it's true. People want instant gratification. Waiting for an animal to be fixed or to schedule a meet and greet for one animal is to time consuming for the masses. We need to pivot and shift the process without them realizing it. We can have self sustaining centers and take the load off the shelters and city budgets. It's a plan I'm working to bring to life to reinvent our shelter system .The shelters can't do it alone and we rescues are drowning while the public reproduces and sells privately to each other. Dumping the unwanted onto the streets. We need to ban the breeding off dogs and cats to get control of this crisis. It would be easy to find puppy mills with the technology we have today. Let's take action on this I have a complex project I've been trying to bring to the current leaders in shelter care and rescue. Noone is hearing me
Emily Wood
7mo
Yes, 90% may have been a great guess at one point in time, but if we are supporting our communities to keep healthy and treatable animals in their homes rather than institutionalizing them, shelters are naturally going to be seeing higher and higher percentages of intake with severe and/or irredeemable needs.
Jonathan P.
7mo
100%! As you know, most euthanized are older cats and dogs and or ones that require daily long term medications that are harder to adopt. That why we created the free meds for adopted pets program at Petscript. This program has given every animal a chance to find a forever home because it removes the fear of medication cost. We have helped over 500 cats and dogs with chronic conditions find their forever home, but that barley moves the needle. Any rescue or shelter seeing this can message me direct to receive free meds for the shelter and adopted animals!
Executive Director at Good Shepherd Humane Society/Consultant at Rural Humane
7moI hear your point on the "gold standard" label. We would have been more accurate to say "singular standard" or "metric held above all others", I just think we need to be honest about the weakness of relying so much on a single metric. It makes for great awareness building, and has driven this movement to save millions of lives, but it also misses a huge chunk of the story (the people part) and can be manipulated. I started at a shelter with a 90%+ save rate that it proudly proclaimed, but it was an absolute hell hole. However, I watch places use the "push to 90" to inspire change and dramatically increase life-saving. What we are dealing with is just too complex to be wrapped up in one number. Some people think we should throw save rates and no-kill out the window. I absolutely do not. Shelters have a responsibility to humanely house those in their care and to do everything they can to get those animals into homes while preserving public health and safety. You are correct that that should be the baseline expectation but I don't think we can sustainably achieve that baseline nationally without increasing our focus and learning how to measure (and promote) our impact on people.