Gwinnett's Animal Task Force to review animal policies

From Gwinnett Animal Control’s web site:

A new Animal Task Force will soon start reviewing current animal-related ordinances and services, developing best practices, studying the role of the Animal Advisory Committee, and making recommendations to Gwinnett commissioners. The group will hold its first meeting on Tuesday, December 27 at 7:00pm at the Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center, 884 Winder Highway in Lawrenceville. Click here to see the agenda. Meetings will be open to the public with some designed to get input and comments.

Gwinnett has reduced the euthanasia rate at the shelter over the past few years, but the number of incoming animals has been rising in the economic downturn. The Board of Commissioners charged the 17-member task force with developing both short and long-term strategies to increase adoptions, improve animal welfare and protect human safety. The review and recommendation process will take about four months.

Task force members, appointed by commissioners, include members of cat, dog and large animal rescue groups and representatives of agricultural and animal-related businesses.

The group will develop strategies to increase adoptions, improve animal welfare and protect human safety. Its review will take about four months.
At the December 13^th BOC meeting three more appointments were announced. Chairman Charlotte Nash appointed Donald Bush to represent the chairman. Lynette Howard appointed Suzanne Pruitt to represent district 2 and Pattie Zsanti was appointed as Animal Related Business Representative. The Large Animal Rescue representative was tabled until the January 3^rd 2012 BOC meeting.

To read Gwinnett Animal Shelter’s 2011 report click here.

To read a task force overview along with a list of other appointees click here

Breaking with Tradition to Revitalize Animal Services

Yours is a struggle on how you can build a classic animal services unit while controlling cost and developing long-term strategic planning that shrinks the government’s role in that vision.

The essential, straightforward process of “Breakthrough Thinking” involves a meaningful organization of purposes you seek to achieve and how to reach that point.

Breakthrough thinking offers an exceptionally productive approach to problem solving and problem prevention. Its basic premise is that anyone can break out of self-defeating, traditional modes of reasoning and break through to find revitalizing, consistent positive solutions to the problems that confront you.

Solutions put forth must adhere to community’s ideals yet remain revenue neutral In today’s economic environment solutions must work towards lowering the number of adoptable pets killed without raising the cost of animal control. These solutions identify wasteful spending and re-direct that funding into program investments that will reduce animal control costs long term.

Revitalizing Animal Services - A look into the future

Gwinnett Shelter Report

We can think of all the good things left undone yet there is good reason to believe the community can succeed in both goals of lowering shelter deaths and reducing the costs of animal services as well.

The policy of stray cats

One area of huge cost savings is in the area of picking up stray cats (ferals). Not only was/is this policy unnecessary (there isn’t a law that requires cats to be restrained) but the combination of manpower costs associated with rounding up stray cats along with the fact over 90% are killed once they reach our shelter exemplifies wasteful spending.

There can be no economical justification for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each year on a failed “catch and kill” policy for feral cats that simply does nothing towards lowering future feral cat population numbers.

In 2009, there were 2,836 stray cats picked up or over 230 cats each month,
In 2010 that number dropped to 1,318 stray cats picked up or 110 cats each month,
In the first nine months of 2011 only 324 stray cats have been picked up or a rate of 35 cats each month (our goal should be zero).


Reversing direction to kill less – spend less

In 2009 the shelter handled a total of over 5,100 cats of which 4,588 were killed.
In 2010 that number dropped to a total of 3,800 (1,300 less) were handled with 3.232 killed.
Projections for 2011 show the shelter handling around 2,900 cats with approximately 2,400 or 80% killed.

The policy change of no longer picking up stray cats has resulted in a two-year reduction of 2,200 cats entering the shelter and a reduced number of 2,100 killed.

The combined cost savings from running a shelter that no longer performs a “catch and kill” methodology saves both lives and taxpayer money. If we want to continue to see cost savings along with more lives saved we must develop policies that support trap/neuter/release on feral cats and proactively invest in low cost spay/neuter programs for the rest.

These policy changes working in tandem with renewed partnerships with local cat rescue coalitions will ultimately reverse the trend of killing far too many cats simply because the shelter lacks a cohesive plan that saves lives.

Recommendations

Clearly, dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to control feral cat populations by rounding up and killing them by the thousands has never been a workable solution. In fact, it is government waste at it’s worst.

Conventional thinking long has been that about 70% of the cats killed in shelters are feral, but studies suggest that could be true only if the overwhelming majority of unweaned kittens who are killed were believed to be from feral mothers. Neonatal kittens actually appear to account for more than half of the cats killed in shelters.

We strongly encourage the task force committee study the alternate Trap/Neuter/Return programs. We must embrace a trap/neuter/release policy because it saves LIVES and MONEY.

An Animal People survey found that only 20% of limited admission shelters and 55% of open admission (public) shelters acknowledged accepting feral cats, except in emergency cases. Yet, 56% of the cats occupying shelter space were kittens and only 14% of those from feral moms.

An astounding 45 of open admission public shelters mention promoting neuter return as an alternative to accepting feral cats, usually working in partnership with feral nonprofit trap/neuter/return organizations.

The goal should be to eliminate stray cats entering the shelter by outsourcing all feral cats complaints to a new “feral cat rescue coalition”. At best a partnership that helps fund spay/neuter of feral cats and maintains nuisance free feral colonies is a far more humane and cost effective solution.

Policies that “outsource” feral cat issues also eliminate the need to house the un adoptable feral cats in our shelter allowing the shelter to focus on finding adoption and rescue options for those domesticated cats that are adoptable.

Policies on stray dogs

In 2009, animal control picked up 3,823 stray dogs or 320 a month of which 885 dogs or 75 a month (less then 25%) were reclaimed by their owners..
In 2010 that number dropped to 3,455 stray dogs (about 10%) or 290 a month were picked up of which 936 or 80 per month were reclaimed.
Third quarter (2011) results have 2,683 strays dogs or around 300 dogs per month entering the shelter of which 845 or 90 a month were reclaimed. These numbers project out to 3,600 for 2011 with 1,080 reclaims.

One of the most overlooked areas for cost saving and reduced killing in animal control shelters is lost animal reclaims. Sadly, besides having pet owners fill out a lost pet report, very little effort other effort is made to reunite lost pets with their owners.

It costs the county taxpayers money for each dog picked up as a stray. It costs even more money when that dog enters the shelter. Each dog returned in the field represents immediate cost savings to the taxpayers.

The goal of animal control should always be to protect the community but it should also be to do so in the most efficient cost effective way possible.

It is simply too costly and ineffective to not proactively seek solutions that return pets to their owners rather then impounding them into our shelter system. Not only is this a tremendous waste of resources but it leads to far too many pets being needlessly killed as well.

There is technology available that would allow an animal control officer to take a picture of dogs picked up in the field that could be uploaded on the county animal control website. The solution might be as simple as rewriting the SOP’s written to address stray’s picked up in the field.

Pioneering work in this regard already has been done in North Carolina, where Wake County and the surrounding counties of Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Granville, Harnett, Johnston, Orange, and Person joined together to form TriangleLostPets.com.  Individuals with lost and found pets input comprehensive information about them into this user-friendly system (i.e., name, breed, type, age, gender, location lost/found, colors, description, and date lost/found) along with the individual’s contact information and a photograph of the animal.

Pet owners should be able use their smart phone to look for lost pets including if that pet has been picked up by animal control. Not only is this a service pet owners should expect from our county, ultimately it is a service pet that owner’s should demand because it saves the taxpayers money.

The issue of enforcing ordinances that requires pet owners to maintain control of their pets does not justify spending a tremendous amount of resources forcing pet owners to look for pets that clearly could be returned in the field.

Recommendations

The community must develop programs that encourage responsible pet owners to put both tags and/or microchips on their pets. Providing a ride home instead of a trip to the shelter helps return pets to their responsible pet owners. More importantly, it lowers shelter intake numbers, reduces the cost burden on taxpayers and allows the shelter staff to focus it’s resources on finding homes for the strays and owner surrenders that don’t have responsible owners.

Owner Surrenders – Turning problems into cost saving solutions

In 2009 pet owner’s surrendered 2,106 dogs at animal control. This represents 175 dogs each month needing shelter and new homes.
In 2010 that number dropped to 1,586 or 130 dogs a month. As in the case of stray dogs canine owner surrender’s dropped in 2010 as well. This drop represented a reduction of owner surrenders of 25%.
In 2011, the number of owner surrender’s stabilized with 1,168 owner surrenders or 130 dogs per month were surrendered at animal control. This projects out to about 1,500 for the year.

Recommendations

A progressive animal services unit should be able to offer pet retention alternatives to help aid owners surrendering their pets at the shelter. A trained volunteer staff with strong people and customer service skills is needed to answer calls and counsel pet owners surrendering pets at the shelter on resources and rescue partner options that might be available instead.

Partnering with rescue in finding life saving options

Over the last three years the combined result in canine intake numbers (strays and owner surrenders) dropped from 5,929 in 2010 to 5,041 in 2010. This represents a 15% reduction in dogs needing shelter services.

In 2011, the shelter is trending towards a total of slightly over 5,000 strays and owner surrenders entering the shelter. This becomes the baseline number of dogs that need new homes or rescue.

In 2009 there were 1,071 dogs and cats transferred to rescue partners.
In 2010 the number of dogs and cats transferred to rescue dropped to 1,016.
In 2011 the number of dogs and cats transferred to rescue partners is projected to be around 1,080.

These numbers represent a 40% drop in the number of pets sent to rescue from the 1,770 transferred to rescue in 2007 from the old shelter.

The number of pets sent to rescue continues to drop – adding to the shelter costs and killing.

Recommendations

The humane community must solidify a “rescue partners” coalition to immediately accept ownership transfer of surrendered dogs and cats though a shelter/rescue partners program.

The benefit to animal services is these pets no longer enter the shelter but instead are moved quickly into foster care where they can be placed back into the community.

Transferring dogs and cats to rescue is not only critical in the effort to improve the rate of dogs and cats saved but in cost savings as well. We must form the rescue partnerships needed to double the amount of dogs and cats saved by our rescue partners.

This rescue coalition in partnership with animal services must increase the exposure of our shelter pets to citizens and the rescue community through use of the social media networks including the use of Facebook and Twitter that highlight all of our adoptable pets.

Outsourcing Adoptions and Animal Services

The number of citizens visiting the shelter fell off in 2010 by 4,500 visits. That number is projected to climb slightly in 2011.

Citizens Visiting Shelter (2009) - 32,308
Citizens Visiting Shelter (2010) - 27,791
Citizens Visiting Shelter (2011) - 28.500 (projected)

The number of pets adopted from the shelter dropped as well. Adoptions fell by 25% from 2,093 in 2009 to 1,583 in 2010. This is disappointing as well.

In 2009, 3,164 dogs/cats or 260 a month were either adopted or transferred to rescue partners in the community.
In 2010 that number dropped to 2,599 dogs/cats or 210 a month were adopted or transferred to rescue.
In 2011, as of the end of September a total of 2,160 dogs/cats or 240 a month have been adopted or transferred to rescue. This number is up from 2010 but still trending down from the number adopted/rescued in 2009.

(Note – while the data is lumped together for dogs and cats data on these numbers should be specific for number of dogs and the number of dogs adopted and specific for the number of dogs transferred to rescue and the number of cats transferred to rescue.)

Recommendations

Outsourcing the adoption processes will not only improve the save rate but reduce shelter costs as well.

Shelter Euthanasia Policy

You can’t adopt your way out of shelter killing

Dogs killed 2009 3,020 or 250 per month,
Dogs killed 2010 2,475 or 200 per month,
Dogs killed 2011 1,422 or 160 per month (thru 9/30/2011)

Current policy at animal control is to immediately kill owner surrenders that do not include documented vaccination records when surrendered. It is unacceptable under any humane context to kill a pet simply because the surrendering owner did not or could not provide proof if such vaccinations.

The current management excuse for this abusive abhorrent policy is that unvaccinated pets pose a “disease” issue for the shelter. Fact is stray pets picked up in the field do not come with vaccination records either.

All owner surrenders need to be transferred to licensed rescue partners groups for fostering and placement OR the shelter must vaccinate these pets while providing the same vigilance in seeking new homes as the strays are afforded.

Through an outsourcing partnership with the rescue community pet owners could work closely in finding these pets new homes without costing taxpayers in the process. In practice, rescue groups are better prepared to conduct home inspections, hold off site adoptions, evaluate application options and match up pets to new owners then public shelters.

Solving the dilemma of the pit bull crisis

Dogs in shelters today have about a 60% to 70% chance of being adopted or transferred to rescue – unless they happen to be pit bulls, or close mixes.

A 2011 Animal People survey an increase of 120,000 in the number of pit bulls killed raising the number killed to 930,000 nationally. That represents the highest number in three years and represents 60% of the total number of dogs killed.in U.S. shelters. Pit bulls represent 3.3% of the U.S. dog population but account for 30% of the dogs surrendered or impounded by animal control.

Despite an extraordinary national rate of more then 16% of pit bulls being adopted or transferred to rescue over 75% of the remaining shelter pit bulls arriving at shelters are killed, either do to dangerous behavior or simply because the shelter is receiving pit bulls in an ever-escalating numbers.

The trust and honesty of the no kill movement itself is at risk when animal advocates deny the reality of the pit bull crisis.

The offense for which the humane community is most culpable is thinking all pit bulls in shelter are adoptable.

Pit bulls rarely arrive at the shelter as unwanted litters. Typically they come to shelters at twelve months or older; having already had at least three homes: their birth homes, the home they were sold to, and one or more pass along homes that took the dogs after problems developed in the first home into which they were purchased.

About two thirds or more of the pit bulls entering the shelter are surrendered by their primary caretakers, many of whom are not voluntary caretakers. These caretakers simply end up with an unwanted pit bull after a family member or friend abandoned the dog or left it behind after moving. Many are picked up as strays as their previous owners/caretakers dump them in our neighborhoods.

Humane Societies and breed rescue promote what wonderful family pets pit bulls make but shelter dogs of any breed have a reputation perpetrated by a virtually unregulated breeding industry as “damaged” goods.

With the ever-increasing numbers of pit bull incidents in the press the public has grown weary of adopting a pit bull of unknown history, but the public tends to believe that pit bulls can be good pets if “raised right” from puppy hood.

Shelters typically do not have pit bull puppies. Pit bull puppies are in hot demand in backyard breeder markets; it isn’t until these puppies outgrow that cute puppy stage that they end up as confused dogs in our shelters.

Of critical importance is to realize that few pit bull births are accidental. Instead, almost every pit bull who contributes to this surplus of shelter pit bulls is the product of deliberate breeding, sometimes by dog fighters, but most often just someone engaging in speculative backyard breeding, capitalizing on a perceived value for pit bulls created at least in part by the physical mystique of the breed.

Pit bulls who are surrendered tend to be the more fortunate ones. Since 2000 over 5,000 pit bulls have been seized in dog fighting raids, a mere fraction of the numbers killed either in dog fights and as we learned in the Michael Vick case “culled” for losing fights or who show little promise of becoming success. Pit bull thefts by dog fighters looking for “bait dogs” are believed to be one of the major reasons why 20% of the dogs reported stolen since 2005, many from responsible pit bull owners, have been pit bulls. There is nothing good that comes out of an unlicensed unregulated backyard breeder business selling pit bulls.

The end result is that even though the number of dogs killed in shelters continues to drop nationally the number of pit bulls killed continues to rise. Meanwhile, with all the factors related to pit bulls, the vigorous pit bull promotions of pit bull rescue groups appears to have hit it’s limits on just how many of one type of breed can be successfully adopted out.

Even if every pit bull had the positive qualities, and no problematic behavior, there are only so many families who want and can safely handle a big potentially powerful dog.

Fact is with all the negative new stories about problematic pit bulls even those families inclined to purchase a pit bull are lead to believe that the best source for “pet quality” pit bull puppies is from an unlicensed backyard breeder.

So, persuaded by ads from our humane shelters promoting pits as wonderful family pets, those seeking a pit bull puppy end up supporting backyard breeders who are not only not licensed but also do not pay any types of fees or taxes either. The community must close down the loopholes that allow unlicensed breeders to fill this market void.

Despite a record number of local humane licensed pit bull rescue groups throughout the greater Atlanta metro area there is no chance that the humane community can oversea and execute responsible placement or adopt it’s way out of killing pit bulls in what has historically been high volume until the numbers of pit bulls who are surrendered to shelters or are impounded, throughout the greater Atlanta and surrounding areas drop by at least 80%.

Licensing Breeders – a community and consumer safety issue

It is simply indefensible for the community to allow people to breed dogs that can be used as weapons. The risk of raising and selling aggressive dogs that could endanger other citizens in the community is also indefensible.

Since pit bulls can be more dangerous to humans and other animals, and more difficult to handle then most dogs and more importantly since they attract “owners” who may want to exploit them – breeding pit bulls must be tightly regulated at a county level.

Gwinnett should lead the way on responsible oversight in the area of pet overpopulation by requiring all breeders be licensed, that licensing requirements include a criminal background check, that breeder’s maintain a city business license and have yearly inspections from animal control. These requirements should be across the board for breeding and selling of companion animals and not breed specific.

Without laws and programs that severely reduce the number of pit bulls entering the shelter; especially those bred by an irresponsible backyard breeder market, adopting out enough pit bulls to dramatically reduce the number being killed only risk placing pits with behavioral issues or lowering the standards of pet owners who can and would care for their pits as pets.

Public policy of breeder licensing should NOT be set by breeders and fanciers, and certainly not by dog fighters who pose as breeders and even pretend to be rescuers. When so-called pit bull lovers and rescuers use language like “it is the right of every American to buy or breed whatever kind of dog they want” then they are obviously not animal advocates. Breeding, buying, and/or selling pit bulls are all inconsistent with ending pit bull exploitation. .

An effective response to pit bull overpopulation is to target irresponsible unlicensed pit bull breeders and this must be done mandated legislatively by our county government, since the high profitability of the pit bull market has proved that pit bull breeders are resistant or opposed to any and all forms of gentle persuasion.

Only if these standards are achieved is there hope of achieving a no-kill sheltering model for all dogs regardless of breed. Unfortunately, behavioral issues cannot be ignored – whether the focus is the behavioral traits of pit bulls or the attitudes and behavior of the people who tend to keep pit bulls.

The community can no longer ignore or condone irresponsible breeding or ownership of pit bulls. Thus forming a coalition of responsible pit bull rescue partners to overlook placement and adoption criteria for all pit bulls is crucial in protecting not only the community but the breed as well.

Breed Specific Legislation is not the answer

Opponents of breed specific legislation (BSL) often argue that disproportional high rates of fatal and disfiguring pit bull attacks on humans and other animals are the fault of the pet owners of those particular pit bulls, and not representative of typical pit bulls.

This shortsighted thinking overlooks that pit bulls, like other breed s produced for a specific purposes, have been often times bred with a mindset and inclination to tear other animals to pieces. This has in turn made pit bulls attractive to the sort of people who have made them the dogs most likely to be violent abused and/or neglected: sadists, people with drugs and alcohol addiction, those involved in criminal activity, and people seeking to toughen their image to compensate for their own perceived negative self image issues.

The central behavioral issue involving pit bulls is not a matter of natural genetics per se but rather a product of inherently problematic dogs being acquired by inherently problematic people, who keep, train and often times neglect and abandon in a manner which multiplies the community’s risk factors.

It is the actions of the dog that makes a dog vicious, not the breed line. BSL does not work and will not work because the target of the laws – those irresponsible pit bull owners are often times the criminals, the drug dealers, the gangbanger’s, and those inclined to fight their dogs – these type of dog exploiters definitely would not be registering their dogs with any police agency that might stumble on their criminal activity or previous outstanding warrants.

Criminals will continue to own pit bulls irresponsibly and responsible pit bull owners who were role models in the community but feared registering would be outlaws as well. The cost of enforcing breed specific legislation and sorting out the new criminal element would be enormous.

Breed Specific Legislation, is not the answer, it does not solve the human issues involved and actually does more harm than good in accomplishing the cultural shift needed to encourage responsible ownership of pit bulls.

Investing in spay/neuter solutions

A unique opportunity for the county presents itself to selectively invest in programs that will continually lower our intake numbers moving us closer to ending all the needless killing of dogs and cats in our shelter.

The natural follow up to the crisis of “pit bull” pet over population would be the passage of a responsible pit bull owner resolution encouraging all pit bull pet owners to spay/neuter their pet.

Reducing the pit bull populations to a level kept safely in stable homes would require a responsible sterilization rate of 90%. Making those spay/neuter services available through low cost clinics or even free to income qualified pet owners has been successful in increasing the numbers of pit bulls who can not reproduce further adding to our already overpopulation issues on pit bulls throughout the Atlanta area.

Setting aside behavioral issues that should be minimized through responsible breeder licensing requirements, just looking at the numbers, a 90% sterilization rate is necessary if no kill sheltering for pit bulls is to become a theoretical possibility.

Spay/Neuter Policy Recommendations

Responsible citizens can all agree that pet owners need to be responsible to the community by spay/neutering their pets as a quality of life issue. Our community is a village of responsible pet owners; studies suggest that 90% of responsible pet owners are altered to prevent them from adding to to the community’s pet overpopulation issues.

Focus on spay/neuter funding should be on the two largest contributors to shelter intake numbers – pit bulls and cats. The community should adopt a policy of providing low cost or free spay/neuter for pit bull owners seeking to alter their pets.

Promoting investments in low cost spay neuter and release of feral cats in partnership with the feral cat rescue community will work towards investing in long-term reductions and control of feral cat populations as well.

Partnering with non-profits spay/neuter organizations that provide and promote affordable low cost spay/neuter services for all responsible pet owners is a quality of life solution. Promoting and educating our citizens on the critical importance of spay/neuter as a solution to reducing our shelter intake numbers is the mechanism for long-term success.

However, focused attention on the irresponsible ten percent of pet owners who fail to alter their pets is also critical to a community’s long-term success as well.

In order to target irresponsible pet owners who not only fail to alter their pets but also fail to comply with the county’s animal ordinances as well is to “mandate” that all pets that enter the publicly funded animal shelter must be altered prior to being reclaimed by their owners.

This type of selective enforcement of a “mandatory spay/neuter” law would exempt all responsible pet owners who maintain control of their pets and comply with all the ordinances as they pertain to being responsible. It also avoids the

Excessive costs of trying to enforce a spay/neuter mandate through door-to-door enforcement that in itself raises constitutional and moral arguments to the issue.

The issue is simple – those pet owners who can’t or won’t maintain control of their pets add to our community’s animal welfare problems. They need not be rewarded or ignored for those contributions to our shelter issues.

Task Force transformation in ideology takes root

We have compelling reasons for following in the footsteps of other progressive communities that have successfully implemented progressive sheltering parameters. We have seen the depths of frustration that our current shelter model delivers. Yet, there are reasons to be optimistic about the immensely productive changes that lie ahead.

To reach that goal communities much determine what problems exist and focus resources on solving those issues.

With the recent announcement of Gwinnett’s “Animal Task Force”, the mechanism has been created for dramatically reducing the number of adoptable pets being killed in our shelter while developing a long term strategic plan to reduce governments role in that process.

The Gwinnett Animal Task Force builds the foundation for developing a compassionate but effective animal welfare policy that will serve the entire communities needs. It removes all obstacles that prevent responsible citizens from having oversight and participating in this process.

More importantly, it gives a huge voice to all of our community’s animals whose entire future rests in the balance. Simply talking about change, the future and emerging dreams does not ensure results. Everyone agrees that change is constant, that today’s choices create tomorrow’s future, and that we have many options in developing solutions to fulfill that dream.

There could not be a better time for this county to reach out to it’s citizens for help in attaining our shared goals. Our county commissioners bold decision to tackle these issues with our newly formed “Animal Task Force” is a stepping-stone to that success. It is certainly is a better approach then to continue squandering the community’s trust instead.

Privatization, funding and investing in our future

One thing is certain, if we continue using the same failed practices we can predict a future of more failed results. What we can’t predict, however, is the escalating cost of these failures.

Government is not the solution for all of society’s problems. Running a successful animal services unit requires both; governmental oversight and control in providing animal services that protect the community and an animal services unit that promotes animal welfare policies including services offered pet owners that promotes responsible pet ownership and helps to rehome the community’s homeless pets.

Long Term Reform of our Animal Advisory Council

Much has changed in the field of humane animal services. We know how to end the killing of all healthy adoptable dogs and cats. We know how to implement cost effective, community supported feral cat programs, low cost spay/neuter services and proactive adoption and pet retention programs.

After an exhaustive study of the county’s animal advisory council it became apparent how this dysfunctional advisory system was broken. Detailed documents extracted through detailed documents of Animal Advisory Meetings show an alarming with issues that plaque our shelter.

It became apparent that the community not only needed to reform it’s animal welfare policies but more importantly how it develops animal welfare policies that best serve the citizens and pet owners in the community.

The current system of having a closed off dysfunctional animal advisory council which for years either acted in secrecy or closely guarded it's activity does NOT reflect the will of citizen pet owners in Gwinnett. The current animal advisory council is heavily weighted and controlled by local animal control and should be immediately disbanded and replaced by a group of advisors that reflects ALL pet owning constituents; including those who breed responsibly, rescue respoonsibly or are responsible pet owners in the community.

A newly appointed animal advisory council must be balenced and reflect the views and values of Gwinnett's pet owners.  The board should represent all neighborhoods of the county, the general public and the stakeholders in Gwinnett's animal services programs.

The “Animal Advisory Council Reform Resolution” tackles that difficult process of how expert advise enters into our policy process in developing a long-term animal welfare program that not only meets the expectations of the community but more importantly looks at programs that will reduce the cots of animal control and services while reducing or putting an end to the killing of healthy dogs and cats that the shelter is supposed to protect.

The credit to this resolution goes to AAC members Carla Brown and Dr Tim Montgomery who worked diligently in finding common ground. This resolution should be up for consideration through the task force as a solution towards providing long-term quality advice to our county’s leadership.

The “Animal Advisory Reform Resolution” builds a foundation for developing a compassionate but effective animal welfare policy that will serve the entire community. It removes the obstacles that prevent responsible citizens from having oversight and participating in this process.

Successfully implementing life saving procedures will make us feel good about ourselves – both as a community of compassionate pet owners and as people who respect all life as sacred.

Collectively as a community, we have talented and compassionate citizens that when provided the bricks, tools and mortar necessary to build the bridge to a compassionate, responsive animal services unit we can all be proud of. Once provided with facts and meaningful solutions our political leadership and courage will lead the way.

The Pet Owners of Gwinnett is committed to walking down the path towards the light as we seek to find our way out of the darkness by building a responsible community of pet owners and empowering our citizens to do the right thing for not only their pets but the neighborhood and community as well.

Gwinnett Task Force Overview

In an effort to better understand the changes needed to reduce the number of pets killed at our shelter and strengthen animal services, Gwinnett has instituted a process to identify and implement short and long-term strategies that will include programs which promote good behavior from pet owners; evaluation of the structure and policies of the Gwinnett Animal Welfare and Enforcement Unit; promote collaboration between local agencies, non-profit organizations and citizens; and strengthening of current enforcement tools and practices.

The objectives of the Animal Task Force include:

Developing an Existing Conditions Report that will review all services Gwinnett County currently provides or promotes that address the care of animals. This should include a review of Gwinnett County versus comparable peer agencies in the areas of operations, administrative activities, animal care, adoption rates, and the investigation rates of animal neglect or cruelty.

Developing a Best Practices Report consisting of recommendations based on, in part the Existing Conditions Report. Recommendations will discuss organizational structure and service offerings that promote life saving programs including adoptions, fees, spay/neuter services, pet-retention, and responsible pet ownership.

Developing recommendations on how to provide care to animals in the future that are currently, or which may become, the responsibility of the Gwinnett County Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center. Recommendations may explore opportunities for efficiencies, which include, but are not limited to, partnerships, programs, recommended policies or methods as identified in the Best Practices Report.

Creating a public relations campaign to encourage animal rescue, adoption, spay/neuter programs, and responsible pet ownership.

Recommending changes in current code and policies used to promote preservation of life, quality of life, and the humane treatment of animals. During this process, issues determined to be long-term or outside the scope of this task Force will be identified for further study.

Recommend changes in the current organizational structure and/or mission of the Gwinnett County Animal Advisory Council.

Developing recommendations concerning the management of the Animal Welfare Enforcement Center, potential partnerships with private organizations or entities.

It is anticipated that during this four-month period that Task Force members will assist Gwinnett County in implementing recommending modifications to the Code of Ordinances and policies concerning animals, recommending organizational structure and activities for the Gwinnett County Animal Welfare and Enforcement Unit, recommended changes to current operating procedures, recommended organizational structure and activities of the Gwinnett County Animal Advisory Council, and/or initiating relationships determined to have an immediate impact on animal issues in Gwinnett County.

Public Meetings

All meetings will be open to the public. Schedule to be announced.

Task Force Structure

The Task Force will be made up of 3 members who represent rescue groups (1 each for dog, cat and large animal rescue), 1 member who is a veterinarian, 1 ag rep, 1 animal related business rep and 1 rep for the Gwinnett Municipal Association. The remaining ten members shall be private citizens with each commissioner having two appointments. Task Force members shall not be individuals serving on the Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council.

A group of advisors will serve as support to the Animal Service Task Force. Advisors may be staff, individuals, committees, or institutions that bring important knowledge or expertise and will assist the Task Force in the successful development and/or implementation of this study’s findings. Members of the current Animal Advisory Council may serve, at their pleasure and in the discretion of the Task Force.

The Policy Subcommittee will make recommendations on how Gwinnett County should modify current code and polices used to preserve and enhance the quality of life of animals.

The Structure Committee will be tasked with identifying and making recommendations on the future structure of the Gwinnett County Animal Welfare and Enforcement Unit.

The Program Subcommittee will address how to modify current County policy and practices to better promote good health and well-being for animals that have been received by the Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center; facilitate adoptions; encourage visitors to the Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center; encourage and increase volunteers at the Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center; and review and make recommendations for modifications to the fees charged for animal services provided by Gwinnett County

The Partnership Subcommittee will identify and create strategies which promote key intra/inter-governmental relationships to facilitate effectiveness and efficiency and determine how to best connect with key agencies and organizations in order to promote the health and well-being of companion animals.

Final Report

The Final Report will be used as a map to implement short and long-term strategies which maximize the organizational effectiveness of the Gwinnett County Animal Welfare and Enforcement Unit and the Animal Advisory Council; promote the quality of life for animals; propose approaches to reduce the rate of euthanized healthy or treatable animals; and promote responsible pet ownership. The following items will be included in this document;

1. Executive Summary
2. Review of Existing Practices
3. Best Practices Review
4. Animal Welfare and Enforcement Unit Structure Recommendations
5. Animal Advisory Council Structure Recommendations
6. Marketing Strategy
7. Prioritized Short-Term Work Plan
8. Prioritized Long-Term Work Plan
9. Compiled Monthly Status Report

Implementation requirements; time frame; and estimated costs will be provided for each issue identified.

Unofficial Task Force Members

2011 0698 Chair Nash                Wayne Wallis
2011 0699 Chair Nash                Tabled 11/15
2011-0700 District 1 Lasseter     Elizabeth Burgner
2011 0701 District 1 Lasseter      Jane Stewart
2011 0702 District 2 Howard      Tabled 11/15
2011 0703 District 2 Howard      Solveign Evans
2011 0704 District 3 Beaudreau   Joel Taylor (Chairman)
2011 0705 District 3 Beaudreau   Jon Richards
2011-0708 District 4 Heard         James Freeman
2011 0899 District 4 Heard          Dr Cathy Fish
2011 0709 Large Animal              Tabled 11/15
2011 0710 Cat Rescue                 Tati Romeo
2011 0711 Dog Rescue                Wanda Johnson
2011 0712 Veterinarian Rep         Tabled 11/15
2011 0739 Agriculture Rep           Angie Peavy (not confirmed)
2011 0741 Animal Related Business Tabled 11/15
2011 0742 Gwinnett Municipal Tabled 11/15

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett encourages the citizens of Gwinnett to support and get behind our Animal Task Forceth in it’s bold effort at bringing about real change to revitalize the way we view our animal services unit and the role pets play in helping make Gwinnett a beacon for responsible pet ownership.

Are our shelter leaders confused on shelter policies?

In an article printed in the Gwinnett Daily Post "Outlook brighter for shelter animals" writer Josh Green included this quote from shelter management trying to explain the shift that ended Gwinnett's policy of rounding up and killing thousands of feral cats each year since Lt Respess took over as shelter manager in late 2007. 

The article states "Adoptions are up 16 percent, and 28 percent more owners have come back to reclaim pets. The inflow of animals is down by 167 dogs and 1,000 cats. (The cat data is skewed because animal control has ceased picking up feral cats, which county ordinances restrict from being adopted)."

This article appears to be part of a public relations campaign seeking to justify our dysfunctional animal advisory council's and shelter management's role on improving shelter policies and "live save" rates at Gwinnett's Animal Shelter.  The above statement was issued on the role Shelter Manager Respess had in stopping the policy of picking up strays cats.

There is NO ordinance which restricts or prohibits "feral cats" from being adopted, that is a "shelter policy" procedure not an ordinance. In fact, there also isn't an ordinance that prohibits cats from "roaming" off leash or for owners to maintain control of cats on their property - yet since Lt. Respess took over in the fall of 2007 over 6,500 feral cats have been rounded up and killed.

Despite having this issue raised at numerous animal advisory meetings and despite personally delivering a message on more then one occasion to our BOC this policy continued up until August of last year when Respess finally stopped picking up "most" of the strays as ferals.

Fact is, Respess has still picked up and killed over 300 cats as strays THIS year despite their not being an ordinance which still prohibits cats as being strays in our community.

Lt Respess seems confused on the basic difference in our community passing responsible ordinances pertaining to pet ownership and shelter policies she enforces that come from the Gwinnett Police Department which is tasked with running the shelter. Part of that confusion comes from her lack of any previous experience in running a high volume open admission public shelter - a position she is clearly not qualified to hold.

These policies include the shelter policy that immediately kills all owner surrenders that enter the shelter without vaccination records - there is NO ORDINANCE which requires her to kill these dogs - she is instead simply enforcing a failed policy decision that comes from the Gwinnett Police Department - a policy I have been a longtime opponent of.

There is also no county ordinance which PROHIBITS the use of social networking to improve the chances for many of the dogs and cats facing death from being promoted in the community either yet, Lt Respess repeatedly uses "policy decisions" coming from GSP management as an excuse for killing even more dogs and cats that quite possibly could be saved if an effort was made to promote them.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett continue to suggest that for real change in the cultural shift in how we view the role of animal controls transformation into a role of providing animal services to our pet owners in addition to enforcing our animal control ordinances will require new management that understands the differences and concepts needed to be successful.

Georgia Shelters that network shelter pets on Facebook

Counties in (GA) currently posting their animals on facebook:


Hall County AC (Gainesville, GA)
Barrow County AC (Winder,GA)
Bulloch County Animal Shelter (Statesboro, GA)
LibertyCounty AC (Hinesville, GA)
Douglas County AC (Douglasville, GA)
Barnesville AC (Barnsville, GA)
Cherokee County AC (Canton, GA)
Floyd County AC (Rome, GA)
Hall County Animal Shelter Animals & Volunteers (Gainesville, GA)
Henry County AC (McDonough, GA)
Heard County AC (Franklin, GA)
Hazlehurst Animal Shelter (Hazlehurst, GA)
Paulding County Animal Shelter Pets (Dallas, GA)
Jeff DavisCountyAnimal Shelter (Hazlehurst, GA)
Athens-Clarke County AC (Athens, GA)
Cobb County AC (Marietta, GA)
Carroll County Animal Shelter (Carrollton, GA)
Catoosa County Animal Shelter (Ringgold, GA)
Gilmer County AC (Ellijay, GA)
Chattooga County AC (Summerville, GA)
Habersham County AC (Clarkesville, GA)
Butts County AC (Jackson, GA)
Barnesville Pound Pups (Barnesville, GA)
Spalding County AC (Griffin, GA)
Meriwether Animal Shelter (Greenville, GA)
Murray CountyAC (Chatsworth, GA)
Clayton County Police Dept. AC Unit (Jonesboro, GA)
Dekalb County Animal Services (Decatur, GA)
Savannah-Chatham County AC (Savannah, GA)
Ware County/Okefenokee Humane Society (Waycross, GA)

County NOT posting their animals on Facebook - GWINNETT.

Laberge and Respess have used the excuse that Gwinnett County does not allow departments to use Facebook even if that use would save the taxpayers the expense of keeping pets longer than needed, killing them or preventing pet owners from finding their lost pets on Facebook. However, Gwinnett's Sheriff Department has two face book pages - one for the Detention center and the other for the Jail Dog program.

The REAL reason we don't at least try to post our soon to be killed URGENT pets on Facebook is two things - the Gwinnett Police Department's inept management of the shelter (see privatize) and the lazy, inept shelter management that refuses to provide reliable information to the PUBLIC volunteers who have offered to network this life saving information.
 
County's that care enough about not killing their shelter pets - see above list
 
County that doesn't care - Gwinnett
 
Please call or email your commissioner and ask why don't WE care about networking our URGENT pets?

Gwinnett's Dysfunctional Animal Advisory Council's Meeting Minutes

For those who wonder what wonderful work on dysfunctional animal advisory council offers our county commissioners - here's the minutes to October's Animal Advisory Councils meeting.


Keep in mind with all the issues we have with Gwinnett's current shelter policies this same advisory council chaired by AKC legislative liason Gail Laberge cancelled July's meeting for a lack of anything meaningful to discuss. With a shelter still killing 80% of it's cats one would think adopting out afew more at the local Petco is hardly going to make any difference for the hundreds of cats who will be killed because both the animal advisory council and shelter director Lt Respess have stone walled repeated request for the shelter to support a local volunteer Facebook page that could have helped promote these cats and the dogs being killed at the shelter if only Respess and Laberge greeted meaningful suggestions with anything but excuses and the word NO.

With all the hundreds of cats being slaughtered every week the current advisory cound has no one from feline rescue on the advisory council since the previous advisory resiigned last December. As we have repeatedly discussed for three years now the current advisory council is not only dysfunctional but in fact negligent in tending the basic issues the board has been tasked with in favor of promoting the special interests of gail Laberge in her role as AKC legislative representative.

Pet owners deserve a real voice for pets moving Gwinnett forward in solving our pet overpopulation issues including those voices who understand one of the critical issues that MUST be addressed in breeder licensing which would differiente between responsible breeders who are allies in our war on pet overpopulation with irresponsible breeders who are clearly part of the problem.

http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/police/pdf/GAAC_Minutes_10182011.pdf

Animal Task Forced to take up shelter's cultural shift

"I think there is a culture shift in the way the shelter is perceived, and it is a good thing," said Gail LaBerge, chairperson for Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council, which studies animal-related issues.

Yes, Gail there is a cultural shift the way the shelter is perceived and that cultural shift began when our group  "We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett" proactively worked first on repealing her Animal Advisory Council's draconian dog barking ordinance that was being misused to intimidate even responsible pet owners out of their pets. 

Our cultural shift continued when We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett lobbied for and pressured Gwinnett's Animal Shelter is stopping it's abusive long standing policy of rounding up and killing feral cats despite the fact there was never a law passed that prohibited stray cats and with full knowledge that these cats would be wholesale slaughter at our shelter.

It was under Lt. Respess's leadership that over 4,800 stray cats were killed in 2009 alone - and over 11,000 cats have been killed since Respess took over as shelter director. Yet, Laberge's control of the animal advisory council for years ignored advocates pleas that Gwinnett incorporate a life saving Trap/Neuter/Release program in partnership with the feral cat rescue community.

To be clear, Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council chair Laberge is not supportive of Gwinnett's newly established Animal Task Force that will study many of the animal welfare issues that the dysfunctional animal advisory council has ignored for years, including shelter policy operations and the future makeup of an animal advisory council that includes pet owner voices instead of a Laberge lead advisory council that was only interested in protecting the special interest of life long appointee's to that council.

We believe that Laberge shares responsibility for long ignoring the cultural problems created by poor leadership in Gwinnett's shelter operations and in the dysfunctional advise from our failed animal advisory council as well.  We must continue to push for cultural change that prohibits animal control from immediately killing owner surrenders merely because they lack documentation vaccination records. 

We must continue to demand that the shelter proactively promote adoptions and transfers to licensed rescue partners through the use of a shelter Facebook page that is currently prohibited by shelter management.

We must change the culture of how we help pet owners with pet retention programs, including programs that help struggling pet owners with assess to low cost spay/neuter and low cost vaccination programs. 

We must reach out to the pit bull community and seek real solutions that end our communities pet overpopulation issues that lead to far too many pit bulls being irresponsibly bred and killed by seeking breeder licensing laws that require all breeders to be licensed, pass a criminal background check, maintain a business license and to submit to yearly inspections by animal control.

We must provide low cost or even free spay/neuter for responsible pit bull owners to cut down on the number of pit bulls that end up at our shelter.  We must focus our enforcement protocols on those irresponsible pet owners who allow unaltered animals to roam by mandating spay/neuter for all pets picked up by animal control before allowing irresponsible owner's to reclaim these pets.

These are all the policy decisions that have been ignored under Laberge's regime as chair for our failed animal advisory council which speaks volumes for the need for serious change in how we go about offering responsible advise to our county commissioners.

We need YOUR voiced demanding that this cultural shift spirited by the responsible pet owners in Gwinnett continues as we move forward towards building a more humane community for our family pets.

You can follow the progress of Gwinnett's Animal Task Force on our blog - We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett which remains the only real voice for change for our community's homeless pets.

Gwinnett's Animal Task Force Overview

With the announcement of Gwinnett's "Animal Task Force" a number of citizens have raised questions on what the purpose and objectives the task force would address.  Here is a brief overview.

Gwinnett County has instituted a process to identify and implement short and long term strategies that will improve quality of life and reduce the number of euthanized healthy or treatable pets.

Strategies will include programs which promote good behavior from pet owners ; evaluation the structure and policies of the Gwinnett County Animal Welfare and Enforcement Unit ; promote collaboration between local agencies, non-profit organizations and citizens ; and strengthening of current enforcement tools and practices.

The Gwinnett Animal Task Force is created as part of an effort designed to develop and implement ideas and strategies which reduce the number of animals euthanized and promote responsible pet owner practices.  Objectives of the Task Force include:

Developing an Existing Conditions Report which will review all services Gwinnett County currently provides or promotes that address the care of animals.  This should include a review of Gwinnett County versus comparable peer agencies in the area of operations, administrative activities, animal care, adoption rates, and the investigation rates of animal neglect or cruelty;

Developing a Best Practices Report consisting of recommendations based, in part, on the Existing Conditions Report.  Recommendations will discuss organizational structure and service offerings that promote lifesaving programs including adoptions, fees, spay/neuter services, pet retention, and responsible pet ownership;

Developing recommendations on how to provide care to animals in the future that are currently, or which may become, the responsibility of the Gwinnett County Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center.  Recommendations may explore opportunities for efficiencies, which include, but are not limited to, partnerships, programs, recommended policies or other methods as identified in the Best Practices Report;

Creating a public relations campaign to encourage animal rescue, adoption, spay/neuter programs, and responsible pet ownership;

Recommending changes in current code and policies used to promote preservation of life, quality of life, and the humane treatment of animals.  During this process, issues determined to be long-term or outside the scope of this Task Force will be identified for further study; and

Recommending changes in the current organizational structure and/or mission of the Gwinnett County Animal Advisory Council.

Developing recommendations concerning the management of the Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center; including potential partnerships with private organizations or entities.

It is anticipated that during the approximate four-month period that Task Force members will assist Gwinnett County in implementing recommended modifications to the Gwinnett County Code of Ordinances and policies concerning animals, recommended organizational structure and activities for the Gwinnett County Animal Welfare and Enforcement Unit, recommended organizational structure and activities of the Gwinnett County Animal Advisory Council, and/or initiating relationships determined to have an immediate impact on animal issues in Gwinnett County

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett commend our county commissioners for establishing through the Task Force the expertise leadership needed to be the vehicle for changing our culture on animal welfare issues for years to come.

Gwinnett's Animal Services Task Force

Gwinnett's Animal Task Force inched closer to becoming a quorum with the appointment of Jon Richards to represent District 3.  Thus far eight local citizens have been appointed to fill a panel.  Thus far the following positions have been filled:

Chairman Nash named Dr Wayne Wallis (2011-0698) as one of her Chairman's appointment - her appointment (2011-0699) has been tabled until the October 18th BOC meeting.

Commissioner Lasseter named Elizabeth Burger (2011-0700) to represent District 1 - her appointment (2011-0701) has been tabled until October 25th.

Commissioner Howard named Solveign Evans (2011-0701) to represent District 2 - her appointment (2011-0702) has been tabled until October 25th.

Commissioner Beaudreau has named Joel Taylor (2011-0704) and Jon Richards (2011-0705) to represent District 3. Joel Taylor will also serve as the Chairman for the Animal Services Task Force.

Commissioner Heard has named Wanda Johnson (2011-0707) and James Freeman (2011-0708) to represent District 4. Note; at the 9/20 BOC meeting Wanda Johnson was also appointed to represent Dog Rescue (2011-0711).

Also appointed, Angie Peevy (2011-0739) as Agricultural Representative.

In addition to commission appointments for Chairman Nash and Commissioners Howard and Lasseter the following appointments remain unfilled. These positions have been tabled until the October 18th BOC meeting. NOTE: Additionally there is a duplication in appointing Wanda Johnson to both represent both Commissioner Heard’s District and as Dog Rescue Representative.

Large Animal Representative (2011-0709)
Cat Rescue Representative ( (2011-0710)
Veterinarian Representative (2011-0712)
Animal Related Business Representative (2011-0741)
Gwinnett Municipal Association (2011-0742)

It is critically important that the position representing the cat rescue community is filled with an advocate experienced in TNR.  Likewise, the task force presents the dog rescue community with an opportunity to build the required partnerships in the rescue community that help transfer more pets to rescue.
We would encourage anyone interesting in volunteering to represent any of the still open positions to contact their commissioner. 

Commissioner Beaudreau "Create Animal Welfare Task Force"

Commissioner Beaudreau has issued a statement on the animal welfare issues facing his county in his January "A Note from Mike" newsletter.  The newsletter inself addresses a number of important issues in our district - here is the section that relates to animal welfare issues.

Mike writes: "I spent some time during the holidays thinking about my 2011 goals, and I would like to share them with you:

"The county should create an Animal Welfare Task Force that would make recommendations to improve the way our animal shelter operates and to make any needed modifications to the animal control ordinance.  This would include looking at how animal control is handled in peer counties, the composition and reporting responsibility of the Animal Advisory Board and the possibility of involving more volunteers at the shelter."

The task force itself will follow the path taken by "Engage Gwinnett" with the focus on animal welfare issues.  We appreciate Mike efforts in bringing these important discussions forward.  We support any transparent discussion that brings about positive change at our shelter, is inclusive and gives pet owners a voice in this process.

We look forward to continuing our discussion with the county commissioners, it is through this collaboration that all of our voices will be heard.

2010 - Animal Advisory Reform Resolution

Today, I will go in front of the BOC once again to ask for an Up or Down vote on this proposal. All of the talking points are in this recently written article that discusses the changes built into the Animal Advisory Reform Resolution.


Here's a link to a complete analysis and talking points for Animal Advisory Reform Resolution proposed.

We need letters supporting this resolution to be sent to the board of commissioners and Glenn Stephens, the county administrator. To put it simply, this resolution gives YOU - the pet owners in our community - a VOICE in making recommendations and giving advise on animal issues to our commissioners.

Allowing or blocking this resolution from an Up or Down vote will be viewed as an attempt to block citizen involvement in our animal welfare issues.

In the event that the BOC "chooses" to take this action "We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett" is prepared to challenge the legality of any advisory commission that EXCLUDES voter input.

This issue isn't one that is up to negotiation - we want and demand that our voices are part of the political process. I would encourage our commissioners to understand the will of pet owners in our community and to expedite this important issue to a public hearing on the commissioner's calendar.

We are prepared to organize a citizens advisory council which will circumvent any not recognized advisory council by submitting our issues, questions and proposals directly TOO the elected officials WE voted for to protect our interests This might not be the most effective way of governing but we'll leave that choice to the commissioners themselves. Like I said, this isn't open for negotiation.

Citizens are encouraged to email, call their commissioner supporting our resolution. Contact info as follows:

District 1 Commissioner: Shirley Lasseter
(R); 2012
770.822.7001
Shirley.Lasseter@gwinnettcounty.com

District 2 Commissioner: Lynette Howard
(R); 2014
770.822.7002
Lynette.Howard@gwinnettcounty.com

District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau
(R); 2012
770.822.7003
Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com

District 4 Commissioner: John Heard
(R); 2014
770.822.7004
John.Heard@gwinnettcounty.com

Glenn Stephens - County Administrator
Glenn.Stephens@gwinnettcounty.com

Follow:
No Kill Gwinnett on Twitter
http://twitter.com/#!/by20hounds

No Kill Gwinnett on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/No-Kill-Gwinnett/126165217428735?v=info

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#!/pages/We-the-Pet-Owners-of-Gwinnett/146231598744336

Blogs

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett
http://by20hounds.blogspot.com/

Trailed by20Hounds
http://by20ounds.blogspot.com/

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett - Shelter Report 2010

A sand so white and sea so blue

Can’t match our tear stained eyes

How many moons and many June’s

Before we let them leave alive

The following spreadsheets are a compilation of six years of shelter statistics – including three years from the old shelter (2005-2007) and three years with our new shelter. The data represents only the live animals that entered the shelter. Since the shelter officially opened in the last quarter of 2007 some of the numbers for 2007 were skewed upwards



                            **********OLD SHELTER********* **NEW SHELTER***
                             **2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**

Felines Handled
Felines Strays            1707       1771        1981         2487         2836       1318
Felines Surrendered   2642       2257        2051         2343         2298       2486
Felines Total Incoming  4349    4028        4032         4830         5134       3804
Felines Killed                3084    3079        3169         4025         4588      3232
Felines Picked Up Owner  57      28            43             18           108              32

Total Canine/Feline In    9,868    9,107     9,174       10,437     11,063       8,845
Total Out Alive              4609      4136     4660          4049        4157        3567
Total Out Dead              5229      5399    5842          6991        7608        5707

After three years of a steady increase in “stray cats” the number of stray cats picked up in 2010 went from 2,836 in 2009 to 1,318 in 2010. While the number of cats surrendered at the shelter increased slightly from 2,298 in 2009 to 2,486 in 2010 the overall effect was a cat intake number of 5,134 in 2009 dropping to 3,804 in 2010 or a net decrease of 1,330.

That number mirrors the drop in cats killed from 4,588 in 2009 to 3,232 in 2010 or 1,356 that were saved by simply leaving them alone.

That in itself might be a feel good statement, but for taxpayers the “potential savings is in the range of between $120,000 and $150,000 (*** see note) in animal control costs.

Potential, because in order to capture those savings a management team familiar with the concept of changing with the communities needs is needed. Now, if that gets your attention read on, we CAN save more.

One might suggest not picking up strays cats placed the community or cats at risk thus justifying the huge yearly expenditures for the “catch and kill” enforcement model, yet, there isn’t any statistical data to support that.

***cost figures based on manpower, equipment needed for catch/impound, cost of intake handling, cost of care and manpower during housing, costs of killing and cost of disposing of waste.****

One would think that the “excess” cats would find their way to the highways as “road kill” yet, in 2010 the number of dead cats picked up off the road dropped as well from 263 in 2009 to 153 in 2010.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett applaud this policy change and encourage the county to adopt a “Trap/Neuter/Release” program in partnership with the “Feral Cat Rescue Community” completely outsourcing forever the issue of feral cats in our county.

The goal should be zero for the number of stray cats picked up by animal control in 2011. Attaining that goal alone would result in another 1,300 cats not entering the shelter allowing the shelter to focus on providing shelter and top notch adoption/rescue opportunity thus relieving the county of the cost and negative stigma of simply killing these cats as well.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett strongly encourages a task force committee study the alternate Trap/Neuter/Return programs. Madison County (GA) embraces a trap/neuter/release policy because it SAVES MONEY.

This “task force committee” approach is hallmark too success in business. There could not be a better time for this county to reach out to it’s citizens for help in attaining our shared goals. It certainly is a better approach then to continue squandering this trust instead.

Note: There wasn’t any increase in 2010 in the number of cats that were adopted or that went to rescue. That would have been another cost savings as well.

FACT - Despite killing 98 cats in December 2010 there were only SEVEN cats available for adoption when I visited the shelter on January 6th 2011.

I am also disappointed that ANY cats were killed in December of 2010 since little effort was made trying to promote adopting/rescuing these cats out AND there was plenty of empty cage space. It should be appalling to all citizens that our leadership in animal control places so little value with these cat’s lives.

No cat should be killed as long as there is ONE space available to keep it’s alive – that’s not providing shelter – that’s slaughtering an innocent cat.

Shelter numbers for dogs

                                                 Gwinnett Shelter Stats 2005 thru 2010
                           **********OLD SHELTER********* **NEW SHELTER***
                          **2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**

Canines Handled
Canines Strays       3026         3068         3095         3539         3823          3455
Canines Surrendered  2493     2011         2047         2068         2106          1586
Canines Total Incoming  5519  5079        5142         5607         5929           5041
Canines Killed         2145         2320        2673         2966         3020          2475
Canines Picked Up Owner 891   860          865          924           885            936

The number of dogs picked up as strays picked up from 3,823 in 2009 to 3,455 or a drop of over 10%. Likewise, owner surrender’s dropped from 2,106 in 2009 to 1,586 in 2010 or close to 25%. The combined result was a drop in canine intake numbers from 5,929 in 2010 to 5,041 in 2010.

Dogs killed 2009     3,020
Dogs killed 2010     2,475

Dead dogs picked up from the road 2009     320
Dead dogs picked up from the road 2010     249

We like to think that these numbers are the result is from the responsible pet owners feeling less intimidated into surrendering their responsibility under the threatening guidelines of the old animal “nuisance” ordinance that the county had the courage to correct.

We recommend offering low cost retention services like microchipping where pet owners would be guaranteed at least one “free ride home” for any pets picked up that whose owner can easily be identified.


We encourage the county to investigate expanding cost saving programs offering low cost spay/neuter services, low cost vaccination programs and pet retention consulting under a revamped and retooled animal services unit.

Partnering with the Rescue Community – A Dismal Failure

                           *********OLD SHELTER***** **NEW SHELTER***
                         **2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**

Animals Adopted   2326       1756         1982         1906         2093          1583
Animals Rescued    1335       1492        1770          1201         1071          1016

Citizens Visiting Shelter (2009)     32,308
Citizens Visiting Shelter (2010)     27,791

The number of citizens visiting the shelter fell off in 2010 by 4,500 visits. The number of pets sent to rescue continues to drop – adding to the cost of running the shelter.

The number of pets adopted from our new shelter dropped as well. Adoptions fell by 25% from 2,093 in 2009 to 1,583 in 2010. This is disappointing as well.

Clearly, we have not fully utilized or promoted our new shelter for the reasons it was built. The shelter was NOT built as a more efficient detention, disposal operation – it was built to service the needs of pet owners in our community.

Innovative shelter managers realize that moving a pet to rescue or finding a family to adopt ends the county’s responsibility and expense in handling that pet. .

It simply COST money to kill a pet and COST NOTHING to save it..

We call on the county to replace the current “Rescue/Adoptions Coordinator” with a qualified civilian applicant with the experience and motivation needed to build this partnership.

We encourage the county to expand on promoting shelter pets through the many social networks that other progressive shelters are using. Posting pets on Facebook saves lives and provides the rescue community with accurate information on URGENT pets. It also results in more pets being adopted and more going to rescue. That saves money.

Shelters competing for market share with other kill shelters in the region – Gwinnett chooses to NOT compete. This policy cost the taxpayers money.

When you look at the number of dogs and cats that still are being killed, you realize that if only we were “doing our best” we would reach goals on adoption/rescue that were our best efforts in the past. Those best numbers combined with fall into the 4,000 to 4,500 dogs and cats saved.

Simply by doing our best we would save from 1,500 to 2,000 pets are currently being killed by NOT doing our best.

When you add that number to the number of 1,300 stray cats that shouldn’t be being picked up in the first place and we now reduce the killing by 3,000 or more in 2011.

That is our goal. That is our target for saving lives.

Enforcement issues and warning Signs for 2011

There are warning signs from 2010 shelter report that are concerning as well.

For one, the number of complaints responded too in 2009 totaled 25,049. In 2010 animal control responded too 25,259 complaints.

Citations issued dropped off as follows:

Restraint 10-29 (2009)    685 - note – there were no warnings issued at all
Restraint 10-29 (2010)    440

License No Tag 10-43 (2009)     345
License No Tag 10-43 (2010)     171

Public Nuisance Animal 10-33 (2009)     500
Public Nuisance Animal 10-33 (2010)     290

Fact is, even citations issued for “nuisance animals” dropped as well in 2010.

Those numbers are tempered with new categories created with the revised barking/tethering ordinance passed in 2009

Barking (which used to be part of the nuisance section) 10-51B (2010)    54
Duty to be a responsible owner (2010)    140

So, while those numbers remain constant – under the new law NONE of these pet owners add to the number of pets entering our shelters but instead are resolving there pet issues through mediation or fines – just as it should be.

Vicious Animal 10-37 (2009)   39
Vicious Animal 10-37 (2010)     5

Biting Animal 10-38 (2009)   44
Biting Animal 10-38 (2010)     5

Animal Control has a huge responsibility in keeping our community safe from vicious or dangerous dogs. Despite all the media hype about ‘pit bulls” in our county being a “clear and present danger” the numbers don’t bear that out either.

Even the number of bite cases dropped from 44 in 2009 to again FIVE in 2010.

Doesn’t sound like a problem HUGE enough to pass new laws that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to enforced, especially if we’re trying to move that number from FIVE to ZERO?

A Transformation in ideology takes root

Animal Control killed 3,455 dogs and 3,232 cats in 2010. Our goal for 2011 is too reduce that number by 3,000 moving us that much closer to becoming Georgia’s first No Kill Community.

Solving our longstanding and expensive animal control issues was the foundation for which “Animal Advisory Reform Resolution” was built on. We acknowledge and support the work of Dr Tim Montgomery and Superior Court Judge Carla Brown for their role in writing this proposed resolution. We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett appreciate being given the opportunity to participate in that process.

This resolution has the overwhelming support of citizens in our community as well.

Collectively as a community, we have provided the bricks, tools and mortar necessary to build the bridge, but need the political leadership and courage to lead the way.

We respectfully request once again an UP or DOWN vote on this issue that has been held hostage for TOO LONG.

A unique opportunity for the county presents itself to selectively invest in programs that will continually lower our intake numbers moving us closer to ending all the needless killing of dogs and cats in our shelter.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett have provided and will continue to provide a blueprint for that success. All of our proposals will be short term budget neutral with long term cost savings of lowering intake built in.

We seek the leadership in our government, our shelter and our animal welfare community that SHARES that vision. Can we count on YOU?

We encourage our elected officials to give strong consideration to a long term strategy for it’s animal welfare issues. The focus remains to control costs and provide the citizens with the quality of animal services they and their family pets deserve.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett are committed to building a responsible community of pet owners by empowering our citizens to do the right thing for not only their pets but the neighborhood and community as well.

This is about working together as a community in solving our animal problems, that’s how a democracy works.

Follow:

No Kill Gwinnett on Twitter
http://twitter.com/#!/by20hounds
No Kill Gwinnett on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/No-Kill-Gwinnett/126165217428735?v=info
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#!/pages/We-the-Pet-Owners-of-Gwinnett/146231598744336