Trap Neuter Release - Compassionate - NO KILL Solution for Feral Cats

Fight to Survive

With the killing of cats in Gwinnett at an all time high – it should be obvious that current programs and policies of “catch and kill” are not working.

The 2010 third quarter numbers for our shelter show 908 cats “dropped off” at the shelter with road patrols bringing in an additional 174 “strays” or a total of 1,082 intakes.

None of the cats picked up were returned in the field and only two reclaimed by their owners during a three-month period. Of the 1,082 cats needing life saving efforts at our “shelter” 915 or 85% were killed. The cost to catch and kill 915 cats in a three-month period is between $50,000 to $80,000.

“Trap-neuter release, commonly referred to as TNR, is the only method proven to be both humane and effective at controlling feral cat population growth.

With a “Trap/Neuter/Release program the cost to spay/neuter these same 915 now dead cats would have been less then $20,000 including vaccination costs.

TNR traps all the feral cats in a colony – they are altered and then returned to their territory, where caretakers provide them with regular food and shelter. This non-lethal sterilization method reduces the number of feral cats in an environment both immediately and over the long run.

TNR was introduced in the US during the 1980’s. The practice of TNR grew rapidly in the 90’s when Alley Cat Allies began providing information and assistance to people caring for feral cats that recognized that their numbers must be controlled and reduced sterilization.

In communities where TNR is widely embraced, feral cat numbers have dropped. TNR works because it breaks the cycle of reproduction. Since TNR programs are operated largely or entirely through the efforts of dedicated and committed volunteers the cost savings to taxpayers is an added benefit.

The Huge Cost Savings through TNR

Aside from the minor ethical issue of killing healthy yet wild cats there is a much larger issue that even taxpayers can support. That’s the potential advantage on a large scale is cost savings with our animal control budget both short term and in the years to come.

For one – a Trap Neuter Release Program doesn’t involve funding new animal control trucks at a cost of over $207,000 to be used to round up cats for slaughter. Instead, freed of the responsibility of chasing down loose cats, these same “road” officers could instead focus on enforcing county leash, tethering, neglect and cruelty laws and working with the public on life saving programs at the shelter instead.

Traditionally, the cost involved with feral cats includes the time it takes for an officer to trap the cat, the expense of feeding and sheltering during the usual mandatory waiting period before the animal can be killed and the cost of killing and disposing of the body.

In contrast, the only cost involved with TNR is the neutering and vaccination of each cat. The rest of the work – trapping, feeding, and so on – is done by volunteers.

In a study in Orange County, Florida, over the course of two and a half years of a new TNR program, cost savings were found to be 47 percent of an alternative “catch and kill” program.

TNR has the advantage of being humane because it respects the cats' right to live and provides them with as high a quality of life as possible under the circumstances.

It is also effective at lowering population levels, both within individual colonies and across entire communities. “Catch and Kill” is not only more costly; but it doesn’t work. TNR is clearly the future when it comes to care and control of feral cats.

Is there any wonder our new shelter has experienced an increase of over FIFTY PERCENT in the number of cats being killed in the last three years alone?

There are volunteers and rescue groups who care about cats – enabling these citizens to do the right thing for feral cats is critical in reducing not only the growth in killing but in animal control costs as well.

Yet, shelter management under the watchful eye of the Gwinnett Police Department continues to cling to this model that fails EVERY YEAR.

National Animal Control Association Supports Trap Neuter Release

In practice, many municipalities which have tried TNR have found it effective in reducing cat populations within their borders. For this reason, the National Animal Control Association recently changed its position on feral cat control to support TNR.

In an interview explaining the change, the president of the National Animal Control Association explained that municipalities have found management more successful in controlling cat populations than attempts at eradication, that it is much cheaper and elicits the assistance of the private sector, that no agency in the country can afford to just keep practicing trap and euthanize, and that the old method of trapping and euthanizing is like trying to "bail the ocean with a thimble" due to limitated animal control resources.

The High Cost of Trap, Hold and Kill

In general the cost of sterilization and returning a feral cat is less than half the cost of trapping, holding, killing and disposing of a feral cat. TNR protects public health and advances the goal of reducing the numbers of feral cats in the environment. The public will support humane, non-lethal TNR as the long-term solution to feral cat population.

The traditional approach has been "trap-and-kill," whereby feral cats are trapped, usually by animal control or your neighbor, and then invariably killed. The reasons why it almost always fails in the long term are clear enough.

First, it's not easy to catch all the cats in a feral colony. If there are a large number of cats, it can take several days and a lot of persistence. Animal control and/or your neighbor rarely have the time or resources to make this kind of sustained effort.

Instead, what normally happens is that animal control officers set some traps, catch some of the cats, and make a temporary reduction in the colony's numbers.

All’s well until nature kicks in – or new cats show up. The feral colony grows in size up to the number of cats their food source can support. Once the colony is reduced, the remaining cats over breed until the ceiling imposed by the food source is reached again, and the temporary drop in population is quickly erased.

Even assuming all the cats in a colony are caught and removed, that still won't lower the population in the long run. This is due to the "vacuum effect," first observed by Roger Tabor in his studies of London street cats (The Wild Life of the Domestic Cat).

In the real world one feral colony are surrounded by other feral cat groups in adjoining areas. If a colony is removed but its food source remains, cats in neighboring territories will move in and start the cycle of reproduction again.

This last point also indicates another reason why it is almost impossible to eradicate feral cats from an area: their caretakers. Feral cat caretakers are a devoted breed who will often do whatever is in their power to feed and protect their feline wards, including violating feeding bans.

The trap-and-kill approach turns these caretakers into enemies. While “Trap Hold and Kill” sheltering models are costly to implement TNR, on the other hand, mobilizes an enormous volunteer force for population control.

An effective TNR program also reduces cost and killing by not bringing feral cats into the shelter in the first place. Plenty of domestic cats are now dying in our new shelter for “lack of space”. Why bring in feral cats off the streets when they can be maintained where they are, in a manner more befitting their unique natures?

At the other end of failed alternatives to TNR is the “rescue” model. Feral cats are NOT adoptable as pets. Many well-meaning people, convinced they are "saving" a feral cat by bringing him indoors, end up condemning the poor creature to a life of hiding under the bed and being in constant fear. Better a fuller, even if riskier, life in freedom.

Breaking the Cycle of Failure

Every female feral cat trapped and altered represents fewer kittens during and after “kitten season”. Should the county invest from $20 to $50 on a spay surgery as a preventative measure or should taxpayers be burdened with the cost of handling an entire litter soon thereafter?

Should the county support a TNR program that can be funded by local citizens, volunteers and non-profits when the only trade off is putting an end to a killing mentality or should we taxpayers continue to finance the slaughter of thousands of cats each year instead? Who benefits from this “pest” eradication service?

The cost of trapping – holding – killing and disposing on an entire litter is several times higher then the initial investment in spay/neuter.

It has estimated that the cost to handle a stray cat for the five required days in the shelter, plus the cost of killing and disposal, is about $70 per cat. There are still only three alternatives to handling the population of stray cats: 1) alter/release/management; 2) exterminate/kill; 3) ignore.

Comparing cost options:

Test/Vaccinate/Alter = less then $50 in a low-cost program  vs.

Stay at shelter = $70 - $100

Funding for a program of this type can take many forms:

1. Looking at the figures from 2009 alone, one can readily see that for a cost of 4800 cats (killed) X $70 per cat (to trap-hold-kill)) cost the taxpayers close to $340,000. The costs of altering (even if this cost was absorbed by the county) would be less then half. Successfully implementing a TNR program would not only provide immediate cost savings but would also reduce the number of cats handled in the future further reducing the cost of “controlling cat populations”.

2. The program pays for itself with reduced animal control costs. Reduced shelter costs frees up resources and manpower for staffing life saving adoption and retention programs instead.

3. Further cost saving can be realized by developing partnership with local veterinary services and by soliciting donations through local non profit rescues and grant programs. The decreased shelter costs would more than fund any future and ongoing trap/alter/release efforts.

If Gwinnett County’s animal welfare policy included a partnership with the rescue community by providing services instead of simply killing off as many cats as they can pick up our citizens would do the rest.

Removing the obstacles that enable volunteers to provide medical treatment, food and support services for feral cats will provide the best possible outcome for all involved. Instead of enabling solutions, current policy only provides the obstacles to that success. Should we be surprised with nothing but failed results?

Naysayers who scream for “eradication”

There may be those who prefer to continue the eradication method. The concerns put forth are usually centered around noise (cats fighting over territory or mating), smell (of spray), vector infestation, disease transmission or possible injury. The assumption of a quick and clean solution makes this avenue of population control especially attractive. Yet eradication programs are ineffective.

While attractive from a theoretical and short-term perspective, eradication has proven to be an elusive goal. Some will continue to advocate the trap and kill eradication approach. However, if eradication programs really worked, we wouldn't be faced with so many stray cats and their offspring ending up being killed at our shelter during “kitten season”.

Cats are territorial. They don't allow other cats into their territory to steal their food. Altered cats will stand their ground and guard their food source, will not have kittens, and will die in a few years. Remove the cat(s) from the habitat without changing the habitat and another cat will move in.

Gainesville Florida Study evaluates effects of feral cat sterilization program

Various long term studies have shown that TNR is effective in stopping the breeding of cats in the wild and reducing the population over time. In addition to these studies, a 2004 controlled study by veterinarians in Connecticut found that TNR consistently reduced the populations of feral cat colonies, by a mean of 36% over two years and with the extinction of one third of the colonies within the same period, while the non-TNR'd colonies increased by a mean of 47%.

Many TNR programs that have resulted in decreased populations have also included intensive efforts to adopt a large proportion of the population, which is generally part of TNR.

Although a recent study on a Florida spay/neuter program for feral cats wasn’t able to identify the program’s precise effects, the results published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (Vol. 5, No. 4, 2002) suggest that a feral cat trap-neuter-return program can be an important facet of a community strategy to fight pet overpopulation.

Written by Kathy L. Hughes and Margaret R. Slater of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A & M University and Linda Haller of the Hawaiian Humane Society, the study focuses on the feral cat sterilization program that Haller oversaw when she managed Orange County Animal Services in Orlando.

Begun in 1995, the trap-and-return program was a cooperative effort between the county and a local volunteer group. Though the county had tried in the past to address feral cat issues, those efforts had focused mainly on trapping and euthanasia—and had failed to reduce the numbers.

Under the new program, the volunteer group trapped the cats and brought them to the county to be spayed or neutered, eartipped, and vaccinated against rhinotracheitis, calicivirus, panleukopenia, and rabies. (Some were later re-trapped for a subsequent vaccination.) The surgery was free, and caretakers paid $5 for each rabies vaccination.

“High-risk males” or cats that appeared ill were tested for feline leukemia virus and feline immunodeficiency virus infections, and, if positive, were euthanized. Kittens were not returned to the colonies but were socialized and, if possible, put up for adoption. Those who appeared to be at least seven weeks old were neutered or spayed.

From fiscal years 1990 to 2001, the period during which data was collected, the county sterilized 37,182 cats, including 7,903 ferals. Analysis of the program’s results was complicated by concurrent changes to regulations and other animal control programs (the study did not identify these), but statistics were still significant.

The number of cat impoundments remained stable during the study period, despite an increase of 32 percent in the human population. Although intake rates did not decrease as expected, the authors note, “This may reflect in part a change in the county code of September 1995, in which a renewed emphasis was placed on enforcement.”

The adoption rate during that period reached 12 percent, twice as high as it had been during the six years before the trapping program began. Euthanasia of impounded cats decreased by 18 percent from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2001. (Feral cats who had already been spayed or neutered did not factor into impoundment statistics.)

The frequency of cat-related complaints also fell—by 25 percent between the mid-90s and 2001. The county’s policy of requiring relocation of colonies deemed a “nuisance” may have contributed to this decline (though the need for relocation was rare); public awareness also may have increased during the years because of educational outreach on the part of volunteers and rescue groups.

Reducing the financial cost of addressing feral cat issues was a goal of the program from the beginning, with county officials surmising that a neuter-release program would be less expensive and less labor-intensive than impoundment.

They appeared to be right: Spaying and neutering the feral cats totaled $442,568, according to the study, substantially less than the estimated $1.1 million it would have cost to impound and euthanize the cats.

Other positive trends were recorded during the study period. The authors observed that the relationship between animal services staff and citizens concerned about feral cats improved, and that “citizens who previously felt overwhelmed by the dilemma of feral cats they saw in their neighborhood now feel empowered and able to make a difference in these cats’ lives.”

While the authors acknowledge that “separating out the effects of a single program may be impossible,” they stress that no negative consequences were recorded for the sterilization program. They also laud the creation of the program itself.

“The establishment of the feral cat program was done without a change in the county code,” they wrote, “through the persistence and teamwork of concerned citizens and county officials.”

It's important to recognize that if a cat is truly feral, then the most compassionate choice may be to allow him to live outdoors. Trying to domesticate such a feral cat is little different from trying to make a squirrel or a raccoon a household companion - you might succeed somewhat, but never fully and only with a great deal of time and patience. Moreover, you would not be permitting the animal to live in the manner that suits him best.

Innovative Solutions versus the Rhetoric of a Failed Killing Philosophy

The number of feral cats in the U.S. is estimated to be in the tens of millions. Sadly, many communities still opt to control populations via outdated methods, including lethal elimination or relocation. Not only are some of these methods horribly cruel, they are also highly ineffective. It’s time to include the issues of feral cats in the fight to end animal cruelty.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett support the immediate implementation of a Trap Neuter Release Program that will put an end to the slaughter of hundreds of cats each month.

We support an immediate issuance of free spay/neuter vouchers for all residents to take in stray and “loosely owned” community cats for free altering.

Implementing this one program alone will dramatically reduce the number of pets being killed at our shelter and lead to the cost savings necessary to further implement other life saving programs as well.

To accomplish the cultural change needed to transition from an animal “control” mindset to a responsive animal “services” unit it is imperative that our elected commissioners and the law department show the political courage to move swiftly in approving the “Animal Advisory Reform Resolution” that has broad community support and was approved without dissent by our current animal advisory council.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett encourage the Board of Commissioners to appoint a new voice to fill the “Feline Interest” position on the newly revised advisory council with a voice experienced in establishing a successful TNR program in our community. This voice would be responsible for building the critical partnership bridge with the Feline Rescue community to assure success.

The following information provides background on TNR, online and print resources, and what you can do to get involved.

TNR is the only proven solution to solve this problem. Caring for the existing colony:

· Ends the breeding cycle

· Alleviates suffering due to: fights, starvation, being hit by cars, illness...

· Helps prevent the spread of disease; the two of concern to humans being fleas and ringworm

· Results in less noise and troublesome behavior

· Cuts down on wildlife predation

To learn more
Alley Cat Allies
http://www.alleycat.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=505

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/feral_cats/tips/feral_cat_organizations.html

http://www.spayusa.org/

http://strayaid.org/

Feral Cat Coalition
http://www.feralcat.com/lffc.html

Gwinnett County Seeks too Tighten the Noose on Pit Bulls

A Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 19, 2010 at the Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center. 884 Winder Hwy, Lawrenceville. The meeting starts at 7:00 PM. 

Items included on the agenda include the year old discussion of a shelter "urgent list", a disaster plan and a new item added - a discussion on revising the dangerous dog ordinances to include pit bull licensing registrations, including tags, microchips, insurance ect.

It also includes a requirement that all pit bulls be on a leash at all times unless in an approved enclosure - in other words, your dogs could not be off leash even if supervised on your property.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett opposes any BSL types of restrictions that would only lessen the number of homes for good pit bulls needing rescue and would only increase the number of good pit bulls being surrendered and killed at our already "too high" kill shelter.

We oppose this type of approach for two reasons - as a pet owner, there is no evidence that breed-specific laws make communities safer for people or companion animals.  Those who own and care for pets responsibly are typically not part of the problem and yet are punished nonetheless.  Those who own any type of dog irresponsibly typically won't comply with the laws already on the books so enforcement is counter-productive.

As taxpayers these types of ordinances which attempt to mandate pet care are costly and difficult to enforce.  As we should learned from the "2007 Dog Barking Folly" - pet owners faced with losing their pets, facing huge fines or compliance costs might find it less tedious to dispute any infractions through the courts.  Not only is this a very expensive way to litigate these cases but it is disengenous of the county to further burden taxpayers with these additional expenses as well.
We need to put an end to this senseless approach at tossing a net over small problems that put unnecessary restrictions on those who responsibly own their dogs - including pit bulls.

What isn't on the agenda is equally troublesome. There are no discussions planned on how the shelter might implement many of the No Kill programs that have the support of pet owners throughout the county. There will be no discussion on the process needed to implement no kill here in Gwinnett. Just more of the same - blame and punish approaches that have failed our community in the past.

Pet owners, taxpayers and voters are encouraged to attend.   Just say NO to growing "bigger" governement.

Build it...... they will come...."

Our animal welfare “authorities” are failing its citizens with wasteful spending during this period of economic uncertainty. This squandering of resources is a top down leadership crisis that is at the heart of the many problems that must be overcome.

The High Cost of Killing

At the September BOC meeting 2010-0757 Award BL068-10 was approved by a consent order (meaning no public discussion was allowed) to purchase FOUR new animal control trucks at a cost of $207,788.

The latest in failed leadership comes with the decision to purchase four new animal control trucks at a cost of $207,788.

This decision ignores the tight budgetary constraints that severely limits hours the shelter is open to the public, ignores lack of office staffing issues which further limits shelter operations in favor of providing four brand new trucks that clearly can not be justified during these tough times.

For a shelter that already fails each and every pet that dies under their care and control by not providing off site adoption events, fails miserably in promoting pets available for adoption, fails dismally with it’s volunteer program and sees increased efficiency only in the number of animals being killed, this expenditure will only lead to more killing – not less – as our animal control officers attempt to justify this need by rounding up more dogs and cats for slaughter.

If we are truly in a budgetary crisis wouldn't a more logical approach be reducing our fleet of 16 animal control vehicles, lower our costs associated with insuring and maintaining that fleet and shift our manpower over to shelter related duties instead? Shouldn’t shelter duties focus on life saving placement options for shelter dogs and cats instead of the age old fall back of simply killing them?

Rather then maintaining reduced shelter hours and thus doom even more pets to a certain death wouldn't it be more prudent to allocate manpower and resources for additional evening and weekend hours thus making the shelter more assessable to the community? This could be done without a need for more officers or additional overtime if we simply pulled a few trucks off the road.

Wouldn't it be a more cost effective use of manpower if the focus is shifted to staffing off site adoptions on weekends, adoption events at our shelter, and to focus on reaching out to the rescue community to increase the number of pets that can be transferred to rescue – as opposed to excessive road patrols?

Shouldn’t we at least consider moving officers off the street to work at the shelter on programs that will increase adoptions and save more healthy adoptable pets rather then this revolving door that only kills them?

Grassroots Reform of our Animal Welfare Programs

"Beyond the instruments of death where sunrise hears the screams.

Every man is torn apart with nightmares and with dreams

all while silence drowns the screams..........."

That the commissioners approved this tremendous waste of critical resources only shows how disconnected our leadership is with the real animal welfare issues in our community. This disconnect is a result of a dysfunctional animal advisory council which remains still in serious need of reform.

The notion of animal control focusing on lifesaving, and taking on what has traditionally been an animal welfare platform of lifesaving and social enrichment for our family pets is now firmly taking root as a “No Kill Movement”.

What we are witnessing is the transformation from traditional “animal control & enforcement” to “animal care, services and control”. Throughout our community rescue groups, animal lovers, pet owners, good Samaritans and animal advocates are demanding change. Rejecting the tired, tried and challenged failed notion that the best we can do is offer a “humane” death for thousands of innocent animals and that the shelter bears no culpability for the numbers of animals being killed, these individuals are challenging the status quo.

What would $207,788 buy in a No Kill Community?

While there is a cost associated with killing innocent animals, saving one’s life is a priceless commodity that separates a truly compassionate community from one that isn’t. The citizens of Gwinnett share a compassion for our pets – shouldn’t our leadership reflect those values as well?

Instead of making investments in life saving programs that will in time drive down the cost of animal control we continue to waste money on the “toys of the killing brigade” while the death toll grows higher.

Sadly, over 90% of these deaths are unnecessary.

What would $207,788 “purchase” in critical services?

With $207,788 we could have spay/neutered over 10, 000 cats and found them rescue groups or feral cat colonies where they would still be alive rather then paying the cost of collecting and killing them – that would be EVERY cat that’s been killed since opening the new shelter in October of 2007.

With $207,788 we could have spay/neutered 2000 dogs at $50 each AND 4000 cats that will be killed in the next twelve months under our current failed animal control program and still have money left to hire TWO full time customer service clerks to help with adoptions and working with the rescue community.

Instead, we get four new trucks at a cost of $52,000 each that will be virtually worthless once their driven off the lot. With sixteen trucks currently being used by the thirty plus animal control officers one should seriously question why this was such an urgent need that it trumps ALL other budget requests that clearly would have returned critical services to our community?

Sending out animal control officers to pick up more stray cats when we already kill over ninety percent of the cats that enter our shelter not only adds to the costs of running our kill shelter but wastes valuable fuel and vehicle expenses as well.

With an abysmal record of killing cats and dogs that enter our new county kill shelter is it really wise to patrol our county's streets for more animals to kill?

Shouldn’t our “Animal Advisory Council” be having this discussion on how our resources are being spent? The fact that this issue wasn’t addressed by the GAAC only demonstrates the urgency in reforming that advisory group in order that more meaningful alternatives are addressed.

Are We Simply Running a “For Profit” High Kill Shelter?

We the Pet Owners has been outspoken over the county’s failing to provide the resources needed to promote pet adoptions and responsible pet animal services to our community.

The issue of providing reasonable community assess to our new shelter has been a contentious issue since the shelter opened in 2007. While funding was allocated to build this shelter the county has failed miserably with properly funding programs and services vital to promoting responsible pet ownership in our community.

If all we are going to do is fund the killing of healthy animals in our new shelter then WHY were we mislead in building it?

From the AJC article “Counties Killing Dogs-Cats by the Thousands” (May 2010)

http://www.ajc.com/news/counties-killing-dogs-cats-473204.html

Gwinnett’s Animal Advisory Chair (GAAC) Gail Laberge states "The Gwinnett shelter has also explored expanding hours into evenings to allow working families more time to visit and shop for a pet. Statistics show a noticeable increase in adoptions when the shelter remains open late, but budget cuts won’t allow for overtime, so the shelter is open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Tuesday-Saturday."

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett first raised the issue of increasing shelter hours and access for working families at the June 2009 GAAC (link) meeting where the issue was discussed.

At that meeting the GAAC approved (by a vote of 7-0) a resolution to send a letter to the Gwinnett Police Chief Charles Walters asking that the shelter open on Sundays from 12 to 4 PM and on Tuesday and Thursday nights and that the shelter be closed another day to make up for being open on Sunday.

While there was never an official response from Chief Walters on this critical services issue an excuse of lack of funding was circulated instead.

At the July 21 2009 GAAC (link) meeting a resolution was approved requesting additional office staffing to replace two positions lost in budget cuts. This 50 percent reduction in staffing was being used to eliminate critical services including maintaining timely and accurate information on the dogs and cats being held at the shelter.

Often times data base information wasn’t being entered in a timely fashion (link) resulting in many pets never being properly promoted for adoption leading to even more unnecessary killing at our shelter. While office personnel are vital to overall shelter operations this issue has still not been addressed by shelter management.

While it might be understandable that the county can’t fund every position needed to run an efficient shelter operation it does not explain why our shelter continues to rebuke offers of increasing volunteer participation by requiring those volunteers to agree to a strict criminal background check to volunteer at our shelter.

It shouldn’t take an FBI clearance to be able to walk a dog or bottle feed some kittens. The fact that our shelter management views local pet owners who want to help as “potential criminals” only paints a clear picture why management change is the only practical method of reducing the long term cost of running our failed animal services unit in the future.

The use of volunteers and how to educate the public on the need for volunteers to promote adoptions (on Facebook and other social networks), socialize dogs and cats to help make them more social and ultimately more adoptable has only been met with rules and excuses rather then innovative approaches that serve the pet owners in our community instead.

Volunteers and a need to STOP the SENSELESS KILLING are crucial steps needed for fundraising as well. Instead of our county being a leader – an innovator in providing services that promote responsible pet ownership - we cling to the failed policies of killing the animals we are supposed to protect.

The issue of inadequate staffing was again raised at the January 19, 2010 GAAC meeting when letters expressing concern for the staffing of the animal shelter have been sent to the Board of Commissioners.

There has been no official response to these letters either. If we can’t get our elected officials to respond to urgent and critical needs from an advisory group designed to keep them informed then who should address these issues – the voters who own pets?

So how does the typical malfunctioning governmental unit respond to under-performing departments that have come under repeated public scrutiny and criticism? At a special GAAC meeting on March 16 2010 the issue of RAISING FEES (not services) was addressed.

The lean budget prompted the advisory council in mid-March to recommend increasing fees. The council, which recommends policy changes to the county commission, voted to double the charge for daily boarding to $10 and for quarantine to $200. But members balked at a suggestion to more than double the owner surrender fee from $20 to $50, fearing owners would abandon their animals on the streets. The fee was increased to $25.

This is government at its folly best. When management comes under attack for failing to provide services that were promised when citizens approved building our new shelter – promises which included better access for citizens and ultimately increasing the number of pets who are adopted from the shelter thus driving down the number of animals being killed – our animal control management team blames the citizens for not providing the resources needed to do the job.

What wasn’t addressed was what the Gwinnett Police Department would do with the money these new fees would generate. Would these fee increases finally free up money to open the shelter evenings and on Sundays? Would we finally be able to hire a clerk responsible for putting posting pictures and bio information on pets waiting to be killed? Or would we simply squander these resources too?

The answer to how this money would be spent should outrage ALL citizens who are simply fed up with the waste and abusive spending of critical tax dollars that even our “conservative” politicians continue to vote YES on.

Taxpayers understand that we can’t fund every want and whim that local advocates are screaming for but it’s the lack of a cohesive plan that sticks out. Instead of recommending critical animal services issues be addressed our management team instead went shopping for new “boys will be boys and need their new toys” by requesting four new animal control trucks instead.

This obvious disconnect with pet owners in our community only demonstrates a much more critical need for reforming our animal advisory council so that the real issues needing addressed can be tackled. It also points out the blatant need to address a much more serious issue of bringing in professional shelter management that can tackle our disoriented and dishonest approach to our animal welfare issue that current management continues to ignore.

We need these reform measures for two reasons – one is to turn the tide towards stopping the senseless killing funded by our tax dollars and to reduce the cost of running our shelter in the coming years.

We will NOT lower our costs when our commissioners lack the desire to say NO to requests that do nothing but squander the limited resources that taxpayers DO provide.

While our governmental process is capable of responding to request to waste resources with timely voting on budget issues the issue of voting on reforming our failed process is stuck between the special interest concerns of protecting the county attorney’s office and the interest of the Gwinnett Police Department instead.

The “Animal Advisory Reform Resolution” was approved over three month ago and yet it has it still being held up by those groups who are not interested in relinquishing their own special interests that are part of the many problems we have at our shelter and NOT part of any solution.

Partnerships only work when there is a shared respect for the role each participant plays in helping to resolve the problems at the shelter.

Our county leadership must understand that only by investing in and working passionately towards raising awareness on the critical need for volunteers will we succeed lowering our shelter kill rates while reducing expenditures as well. Killing innocent animals are NOT without costs that are financially and morally reprehensible.

For more information on the alternative programs that are not being used at our shelter follow my blog at

http://by20hounds.blogspot.com/

Join in our community “No Kill” discussion – visit No Kill Gwinnett on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#!/pages/No-Kill-Gwinnett/126165217428735