Now the Fluvanna SPCA and their county government may also be following suit. I wish there was a quick and easy explanation about what this all means, but unfortunately that is not the case. Often these relationships are complicated. Contractual relationships work best when all the parties work together towards the same goal for the benefit of the community and the animals.
Nonetheless there is often one fundamental issue still at the heart of these relationships -- $Money$.
What is a local government's obligation respecting the lost or abandoned animals in its communities? Do they have a moral obligation to allocate some resources (i.e. money) to attempt to save some of these animals instead of expeditiously killing every animal after a stray hold period?
Let's look at other communities, where the local governments run the pounds. Do they kill every animal or do they provide some resources (again, money) to attempt to save the animals.
- The Madison County shelter adopted out 20% of the animals and transferred another 15% to other animal welfare organization resulting in a save rate of 59%.
- The Louisa shelter adopted out 19% and transferred another 19% resulting in a save rate of 50%.
- The Culpeper shelter adopted out 55% and transferred another 15% resulting in a save rate of 87%.
- The Orange County shelter adopted out 39% and transferred another 9% resulting in a save rate of 85%.
Clearly the Madison, Louisa, Culpeper and Orange communities do not think killing all the animals immediately after a short stray hold period is acceptable.
But another community bordering Fluvanna thinks differently -- the Buckingham County government operates its pound and adopted only 1% of the animals, transferred 5%, resulting in a save rate of only 8% (meaning 92% of the animals brought into the Buckingham shelter were euthanized).
As things change in Augusta County and Fluvanna County, the citizens of these communities must let their local governments know what they believe should happen to the animals. Is it acceptable to kill all the animals entering the government "shelter." Or do County Government shelters have an obligation to allocate some resources to put the animals up for adoption and attempt to save them.
The Fluvanna SPCA has been operating the Fluvanna pound, and under the direction of Tricia Johnson, Fluvanna County has been saving an incredible 92% of the animals. Will the citizens of Fluvanna accept a county government operated pound killing all of the animals directly after the legal hold period? Or will the citizens of Fluvanna speak up to help the animals?
Finally, we must ask ourselves a question, if all the animals are killed, is this really a "shelter" at all?"
2 comments:
I believe Richmond has an effective model for spca / shelter partnership. While recognizing that the community cannot fully support a no-kill shelter, the privately funded Richmond SPCA supports a no-kill shelter along with a strong pet retention program to help reduce the need for owner surrenders. The municipal/publicly funded Animal Care and Control center is an excellent example of a well run open admission shelter. While they cannot and do not promise to be no-kill, they do serve the city's animal management needs, they work to re-home animals as they can and they also cooperate with the Richmond SPCA to promote the adoption and transfer of adoptable animals. I would hope that such a cooperative partnership might also be found useful and beneficial in the case of Fluvanna's SPCA and forthcoming county pound. There are lots of ways to make things work. The key is having the will to do so. I'm sure Fluvanna SPCA will find a way to continue to provide the best opportunities possible for Fluvanna's animals. Fluvanna is indeed fortunate to have such a strong organization.
Post a Comment