Animal Advisory commissioners analyze potential ‘Euthanizing for Space’ threats in Austin City Shelter
Main discussions from the meeting
Recently, the Animal Advisory Commission met in Austin to examine the efficiency of the city’s new strategy for rehoming of difficult-to-place dogs. Introduced in the past March, the ‘urgent placement list’ is aimed at helping the high-risk shelter residents find their permanent homes. However, the commissioners raised questions about the criteria for listing animals along with the lack of substantial information about the dogs on the list.
Devising solutions for overcrowding
The Commission and public were gravely concerned about the possibility of euthanizing dogs owing to limited space in the shelter. The Chief Animal Services Officer, Don Bland emphasized that there had been no instances of euthanasia due to space-related issues for several years. However, the wording used in advertising the urgent placement list projected a potential threat of euthanasia if the shelter becomes overly crowded in the future.
Concerns over labeling
Lotta Smagula, one of the commissioners, took issue with the language outlining the list online, suggesting that it implied euthanizing animals due to a lack of space. The online statement reads, “We are sharing this to find homes for these dogs as soon as possible, so we don’t have to euthanize them because of how full we are”. According to Commissioner Paige Nilson, nearly 76% of dogs (19 out of 25) on the list have a history of biting, including instances where a bite was fatal to another dog.
The ‘Euthanize for Space’ debate
Nilson argued that the ongoing overcrowding issue was an unintended consequence of the no-kill policies that have been put in place. She contended that labeling such situations as ‘Euthanizing for Space’ is misleading as the problem stems from the failure to euthanize in the first place. The current phraseology falsely equates the present situation with the dark days of mass euthanasia back in the ’90s, Nilson claimed.
Refining the Criteria
A central point of the meeting was a proposed matrix designed to determine which dogs are most likely to be euthanized. It was reported that the ‘most challenging’ dogs, or the ones posing a potential safety threat, would be chosen for euthanasia based on this matrix. Bland admitted that the matrix was almost ready and now being tested. However, the commissioners felt left in the dark about the matrix and the criteria it employed.
Bite Scale Adoption
Many concerns were raised about the lack of clarity and consistency of the data provided for each dog on the urgent list. For example, the general term “bite history” was perceived as being too vague. Smagula proposed to replace this with more in-depth information using the Dunbar Bite Scale once officially adopted. The Scale rates biting severity from Level 1 (no teeth skin-contact but aggressive behavior) to Level 6 (fatal bite). Bland accepted the need for such disclosure to be adopted.
Addressing Operational Challenges
Chair Ryan Clinton expressed concerns about the ongoing operations at the shelter and poor customer service deterring potential adopters and foster carers. He called for enhancing the image of the shelter to the public, favoring ‘positive marketing’ campaigns instead of using the current ‘urgent list’ and threats of euthanasia, which lead to negative advertising implying “the animals are bad at the animal shelter”.
In conclusion, the meeting served as a platform to highlight the grave issues faced by shelters and the animals they house. There were touchpoints of improvement and the need for greater transparency, efficient systems, and improved customer service to ensure the well-being of the animals.
