Ill, young pets could get chance at adoption
Published Thursday, April 24, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!
A member of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly wants to let the public animal shelter put unhealthy or underage pets up for adoption, a practice currently banned.
The change would hand the shelter manager the power to decide whether a seriously injured or ill kitten or puppy, or one younger than eight weeks old, should be spared from immediate euthanasia if a foster family is lined up to care for the animal.
Blue-and-green signs at the shelter, which sits off Peger Road in South Fairbanks, explain the high likelihood that shelter workers will destroy an underage pet if it’s left at the overnight drop-off pen. Some pet advocates have recently asked the borough to review the policy.
Assemblyman Bill Stringer, who proposed the change, said removing the rule that young or ill pets be euthanized will give the shelter some flexibility.
“(It would) give the animal control officer the freedom to make independent decisions regarding the fate of dogs and cats brought into the animal shelter and not have some categories destroyed automatically by law,” Stringer wrote in an e-mail to the Daily News-Miner this week.
The public shelter must, under borough ordinance, accept strays or pets dropped off by their owners for either adoption or euthanasia. That rule would remain unchanged under Stringer’s proposed ordinance.
Shelter manager Matt Ruger said a young puppy or kitten needs more attention than one even a few months old. So while the change, if approved, would give shelter workers another option, he indicated foster families with time, resources and responsibility would need to volunteer if practical changes can be expected.
Young pets need 24-hour care, Ruger said, and the shelter has neither the staff nor the space for day-round care. Shelter workers also say young pets, particularly ones too young to receive vaccinations, are both more susceptible to disease and more likely to carry a contagion.
“When we have had outbreaks in the shelter, it’s generally been from puppies because their immune systems aren’t fully developed,” Ruger said. “We would need dedicated volunteers, and we would need foster (families) to put up their hands and say, ‘Yes, I’m ready to help with this situation.’ ... If the community support is there, I think it could be a very positive change.”
Jeanne Olson, a North Pole veterinarian, said Stringer’s proposal is a practical, prompt response to complaints from some people concerned with euthanasia at the shelter. She said it makes little sense for an ordinance to dictate that workers automatically steer a dog with a serious case of tapeworms, for example, toward the euthanasia list.
“It addresses it so that it’s not requiring to put them on a euthanasia list because of their age or their condition,” she said.
The ordinance is slated to be reviewed tonight by the Borough Assembly and would then be forwarded to the borough’s Animal Control Commission for consideration.
Olson said the ordinance falls short of addressing a broader issue raised by some pet advocates who feel the shelter’s euthanasia list is too rigid. The borough instituted a “do not remove” policy one year ago — animals that wind up on the final euthanasia list can’t be adopted.
Borough officials said the policy followed a recommendation from a consultant with the American Humane Association who suggested an ever-changing euthanasia list takes an emotionally stressful toll — dubbed “compassion fatigue” — on workers at the shelter.
Ruger added that pets “rescued” from the euthanasia list by concerned animal advocates have a much higher chance than other adopted cats or dogs of simply winding up back at the shelter when people realize the animals aren’t a good fit for their homes. Olson, a former shelter manager, challenges that statement.
The shelter’s policy is to hold a stray or unwanted animal from three to five days before putting it up for adoption. If nothing happens, shelter workers assess the animal’s health and temperament before calling rescue organizations and foster groups. If that’s unsuccessful, the animal is put on a euthanasia list.
Ruger said more than 82 percent of the dogs and cats brought to the shelter last year, excluding the ones brought specifically by owners to be destroyed, were either adopted or reunited with their families.
“We do everything we can not to put down healthy, adoptable animals,” he said.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I, for one, am concerned that folks who might pick up an animal with special needs will be unprepared for the costs of dealing with that animal's problems. That animal might end up in an even worse situation as a result.
That being said, if just one animal gets a better life out of the program, I'd say it's worth it -- especially when the alternative is euthanasia.
"Special Needs" animals at the shelter could very well have communicable diseases (some air-born) which could be spread
to other animals. Pets roam freely with some owners.
I am for shelters, but people be careful with you decisions to let
ill dogs go up for adoption. I don't know about Alaska, but I bet there Vet. bills are the same as the lower 48 or more.
Good luck,
I was raised on a farm. I love animals, period. I am also a very practical person. The Borough is already operating under stressed finances and at the turn of physical year, there will be massive cuts to the already stressed budget. The cost for what is being proposed will by it's very nature increase. The policies currently in place may seem harsh to animal activists, but they are also humane in that the viable animals are spared unnecessary stress.
If the system works, leave it alone.
I believe the proposed ordinance change is intended to provide the shelter manager the flexibility to place animals that today must be automatically and mindlessly killed just because they weren't born early enough to comply with the law.
There is no reason in the world for 7 month old puppies to be immediately euthanized. In fact, some researchers have shown that from a behavioral perspective, the ideal time to remove puppies from the dam is between 6 and 8 weeks of age (Freedman, D.G, King, J.A., and Elliot, O. (1961). Critical Period in the Social Development of Dogs. Science, 133, 1016 - 1017).
This recommendation was supported by work performed Derek Freeman (Guide Dogs for the Blind) who found that the optimal time to remove puppies from the bitch and be placed in private homes for initial socialization was six weeks. (reference http://www.apbc.org.uk/article5.htm)
While early placement of puppies prior to initial vaccination carries a degree of risk, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior's very recently released statement on puppy socialization states in part "Behavioral issues, not infectious diseases, are the number one cause of death for dogs under three years of age. While puppies' immune systems are still developing during these early months, the combination of maternal immunity, primary vaccination, and appropriate care makes the risk of infection relatively small compared to the chance of death from a behavior problem." (reference http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/i...)
The shelter manager seems to be a reasonably intelligent, educated and trained person who is quite capable of judging whether or not a prospective foster or adoptive caretaker is capable of caring for an animal that will otherwise be killed. I can think of no logical reason why the law should not allow him the flexibility he needs to save a few more animals from the needle and furnace.
Just a picky point - the notice said that puppies younger than 8 weeks (not 7 months) may be considered for euthanasia - I am an animal lover too, but let's be realistic about the time and cost necessary to foster an animal that may be too young or too sick to provide proper companionship to a family as a pet.
Sorry, my brain and fingers aren't working together this morning. I meant to write 7 WEEK old puppies, rather than 7 month.
Swanny
In my experience, you get the absolute best bonding with a puppy if they are 8 weeks old or LESS. I've never been able to establish as strong of a bond with older dogs as I have with a little bitty puppy that I fed from a bottle!
To JustAnotherOpinion, there is no cost to the borough, or the taxpaper, it is the foster homes that take these underage or sick kittens and puppies and are the ones who provide the care, time and energy to save the animals. I am sure they find the cost in time and money worth every penny if it means these animals don't have to die just because they are too young.
My husband and I have been fostering puppies under 8 weeks old for the shelter for a couple of years now. Let me reassure you that the tax payers don't pay for this. We bring them to public places and invite many people over to help them become socialized. They are well fed, get a lot of individual attention, have a large pen to run around in during the day, and 3 acres of land in the country to play in when we get off work. We also introduce them to other dogs (all ages), as well as cats and other animals. The puppies that we have fostered are some of the most healthy, well adjusted, socialized puppies you’ll ever see, for we take great pride in what we do. It’s a lot of work, but is very rewarding.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.