Shelter manipulates standards to euthanize pets

There’s an old saying regarding figures and those who report them.

While the saying is old, it is very applicable to the operation of the Chesterfield County Animal Shelter today. Various county administration personnel have stated publicly, “We have not euthanized a healthy dog or cat since Jan. 1, 2010.” Some well-known county officials have gone to the extreme and added to this statement “and before 2010.”

Yet the very figures reported by the Chesterfield shelter on [its] website speaks to the contrary. In the first six months of 2010, 15 percent of the dogs taken into the shelter have been deemed “healthy” by those operating the shelter. This is in stark contrast to the same information reported by the Richmond SPCA and Richmond Animal Care and Control for the entire calendar year 2009. These organizations reported 66 percent of 3,000 dogs taken into their facilities in calendar year 2009 as “healthy” and euthanized no healthy dog or cat.

How can the Chesterfield shelter have such a sizeable variance with organizations using the same evaluation criteria [it was] provided and trained on by the Richmond SPCA in December 2009? How is it that only 204 of 1,387 dogs entering the Chesterfield shelter in 2010 are considered healthy by shelter personnel? In the last three months, April-June 2010, 80 percent of the dogs that have been euthanized, 139 of 173, at the Chesterfield shelter were classified in the two “treatable” categories.

With all due respect, the Chesterfield shelter will not achieve a “no-kill” status by classifying 85 percent of the dogs that enter the shelter as less than healthy. [It] will merely be reinforcing the practices that led to the “citizen outrage” in 2009 and the reluctant use of a classification system for animals entering the shelter.

The Chesterfield shelter has made “some progress.” Yet, [it has] only completed the first few baby steps of the process. [It is] a long way from reaching the summit of Mt. Everest.
Bob Herndon
Chesterfield

Ann Reid, public information coordinator for the Chesterfield County Police Department, responds: “The Chesterfield County Police Department's Animal Control Unit would like to share how data, statistics and results are reported in regard to its shelter operations. The shelter does:

• Complete and submit the annual statistical report on time so those results are available to the public as soon as possible at the Office of the State Veterinarian's website

• Provide a link on its web page to the Asilomar Accords website so the public can read and learn about the Asilomar Accords

• Post the pet evaluation matrix on its website so the public can see the criteria that are used to evaluate animals coming into the shelter

• Post shelter statistics on its website monthly using the Maddie Fund reporting form rather than just annually

• Provide information about where the data and/or statistics reported by the shelter can be found

• When making comparisons, use same shelter types, i.e. government shelters that have the same legal mandates under Virginia law

• Report the data for all the animals under its care

The shelter does not, nor should anyone:

• Selectively use only one category of animals

• Selectively pick very limited specific time periods

• Combine data from governmental and nongovernmental agencies when making comparisons

• Make comparisons between governmental and nongovernmental agencies

• Present data and statistics without reference cites

“As of June 30, 2010, the shelter had received a total of 2,033 dogs and cats. Animal control staff and volunteers adopted, transferred or returned to owners a total of 1,315 dogs and cats, which equals a live release rate of 65 percent. They had to euthanize a total of 420 dogs and cats, which equals a euthanasia rate of 21 percent. A total of 29 dogs and cats died in the shelter, which equals a rate of 1 percent. (Please note that any animal that has come under the control of Animal Control and dies must be counted as “lost or died in shelter” regardless of where that death occurs, such as en route with an injured animal to a veterinarian or at a veterinarian's facility.)

“The public should be aware that an animal initially classified as healthy when taken in at a facility may later be reclassified to one of the three other classifications (treatable – able to be rehabilitated, treatable – manageable or unhealthy and untreatable) during its stay at a facility. The Asilomar Accords state, ‘Since there’s always a chance that an animal might become sick, injured, etc. while at the shelter, we can’t tell whether an animal meets the definition of “healthy” until he or she leaves the shelter. This highlights an important aspect of the Asilomar Accords definitions and Animal Statistics Tables: Animals are categorized on exit from the shelter.’ Therefore, how an animal is classified when taken into a facility is not an indicator as to its outcome, nor representative of the overall success of a facility.

“In summary, and as previously reported, as of June 30, 2010, the Chesterfield County Animal Shelter’s live release rate was 65 percent, and no healthy animals were euthanized. As always, we continue to look for ways to improve our live release rate while decreasing the euthanasia rate, with the ultimate goal of saving more animals.”