# No-Kill Equation



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

Until recently, I had no idea that an open-door, no-kill shelter existed. I was under the false impression that there are just too many dogs and cats out there and not enough homes. After volunteering at my city shelter, and seeing how well it does with volunteer programs, fostering, and off-site adoptions, I started wondering why all shelters do not implement these types of programs. 

I called my county shelter, and asked if they had a foster program. The girl who answered the phone DID NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. Shes said "why? do have an animal that needs to be fostered?"

I said "no, I am currently fostering for the city shelter, and I am offering my services to you. I want to help." she put me on hold, and came back to tell me that I had to be some type of non-profit in order to foster. (I'm assuming that means I need to be a rescue) 

So here I am, offering to take an animal from them, that will otherwise be put to death, and they say no. They would rather kill a cat, than let a concerned animal lover take over their care. 

This raised a lot of questions for me, and those questions led me to this book:

Amazon.com: Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America (9780979074301): Nathan J. Winograd: Books 

I highly recommend this book to anyone and everyone. 

It talks about the history of animal shelters and animal welfare organizations in the U.S., and how they have continued to fail in the fight against "pet overpopulation" - it places the blame on the shelters themselves, instead of blaming the public. It proves that the "no kill equation" can work in big urban cities, and small rural towns alike- with the implementation of programs including, fostering, volunteering, off-site adoptions, T-N-R, low-cost spay/neuter, extended shelter hours, etc. Basically taking a pro-active approach to adoptions instead of blaming the public for being irresponsible, giving into defeat, and killing millions of homeless, adoptable pets each year. It also talks about the bureaucracy involved and how many of the big animal welfare organizations are not embracing this equation, even though it has been proven to be extremely successful.

The number one cause of death in companion animals in the united states is shelter killing!

I don't know why this fact surprised me, but this has been one of those things that is just accepted because its the way it has always been, and its time to change.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

I think it's very important to understand that while "no kill" sounds good, these shelters are not "no-turn-away." For every cat they take in and foster out, there are many thousand they cannot take. Where do THOSE cats go? The kill shelters. There are NOT enough homes for them all, period. The book you cite is highly controversial--don't believe everything you read.

When I take in a rescue, I work hard to get the cat/dog into a no kill shelter for obvious reasons. But when I adopt from a shelter, or when I recommend that someone else do so, I always try to go w/ the kill shelters first. The great majority of the animals who enter kill shelters will not get out. This is not b/c the people there don't care. It's b/c they are usually under-funded, under-staffed, and under-supported. 

There are good reasons why the municipal shelter can't foster animals with you--they can't risk law suits. Most muni shelters work w/ several outside rescue groups/no-kills shelters, so find out which ones work w/ your shelter and offer your services to them. The muni shelter then turns over the chosen animals to the no-kill and the no-kill then fosters them out. Around here, even the EXTREMELY underfunded rural shelter in my county has a great rescue group that works with them. They foster out animals, post their photos on FB, etc.


----------



## jadis (Jul 9, 2011)

I have had several dealings with my local county shelter over the last few years trying to adopt a dog and a cat on different occasions. I have always found the employees to be the weakest link, from not knowing what they're talking about to actually discouraging me from adopting a particular animal. They also seem to be weighed down by rules and red tape, like when I went there to adopt a dog who was about to be put down, I was told he wasn't available because they didn't have the funds to "proccess" him, which I gathered meant vet and neuter, so I offered them money in advance and they couldn't take it. Apparantly they have a whole slew of dogs that they can't proccess that they make available to rescues only. The dog in question is asleep on my bed right now. A rescue pulled him last minute and I adopted him from them a week later, paying much less than I would have if I had paid the shelter for his vetting. Good for me, but imo this also puts a burden on rescues.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

hoofmaiden said:


> I think it's very important to understand that while "no kill" sounds good, these shelters are not "no-turn-away." For every cat they take in and foster out, there are many thousand they cannot take. Where do THOSE cats go? The kill shelters. There are NOT enough homes for them all, period. The book you cite is highly controversial--don't believe everything you read.
> 
> When I take in a rescue, I work hard to get the cat/dog into a no kill shelter for obvious reasons. But when I adopt from a shelter, or when I recommend that someone else do so, I always try to go w/ the kill shelters first. The great majority of the animals who enter kill shelters will not get out. This is not b/c the people there don't care. It's b/c they are usually under-funded, under-staffed, and under-supported.
> 
> There are good reasons why the municipal shelter can't foster animals with you--they can't risk law suits. Most muni shelters work w/ several outside rescue groups/no-kills shelters, so find out which ones work w/ your shelter and offer your services to them. The muni shelter then turns over the chosen animals to the no-kill and the no-kill then fosters them out. Around here, even the EXTREMELY underfunded rural shelter in my county has a great rescue group that works with them. They foster out animals, post their photos on FB, etc.


Have you read the book? I don't believe everything I read. I know that most "no-kill" shelters are not open door. The author states that he succesfully ran an SPCA in San Fransisco, that saved every healthy dog and cat that ended up at animal control. Are you saying that this didn't happen?

One of the things that needs to change is the legal red tape that keeps them from fostering and allowing volunteers. My city shelter has reformed by Instead of just being "animal control" they split into two seperate entities. One is animal control, and one is a non-profit rescue. THis way anyone can volunteer and foster directly from them. This way they take in private donations, and that money goes directly to rescuing the animals. 10 years ago, this shelter most likely used the excuse that it is "under-funded, under-staffed, and under-supported" .....now they have new leadership and, while they are not no-kill, they are employing many of the strategies outlined in the "no-kill equation", and have been extremely sucessful. Btw this is Baltimore city I am talking about-a low-income, high crime city.

The story is here if you want to read it.

History | 


My county shelter does not have a facebook page. They don't always answer their phones during business hours. They kill ear-tipped cats. Someone who runs a very successful local cat rescue refers to this shelter as "**** on earth". And this is Baltimore county shelter, which is located in a high-income neighborhood. A neighborhood where I grew up, and a shelter that I drove by everyday on the way to school. It is cold, and not inviting to say the least. We adopted cats from there, but I can see why people would rather buy a cat or dog elsewhere rather than enter this building. The first time I went there I was in tears. I have heard other people say it is just "too hard" to go there. This is the type of place that I am talking about that needs to change. And if the laws are keeping them from change, we as a community need to work to change those laws.


----------



## 3furbabies (Dec 7, 2011)

I use to work at a no-kill shelter and they are not as good as people think. As previously mentioned, even though they are no kill they still refuse lots of animals. Those animals are then brought to the high volume shelter and are most of the time put down. 

The shelter I worked at was under staffed, under paid and most were unqualified. I have no formal training yet I knew more than the vet techs. They didn't seem to care at all. I had to point out several animals that were sick and they always said ya ya ya and didn't look at that animal for weeks. Most of the staff don't care so the animals are neglected. I actually got in trouble for giving cats love and affection. I left after 4 months, I couldn't stand it anymore. There are feral cats there that are hiding in the backs of their cage for years with no one paying attention to them. They don't put them on foster cause they are too wild bit won't put them down so they sit there and take up space making them refuse adoptable animals. Cats arnt pulled by rescues at that shelter they only take from high volume shelters. Breed specific dog rescues take from there occasionally but not often. 

They take donations there but through most out and only feed science diet dry. They only feed the wet version if they don't eat for 2 days and all the good quality wet is left sitting until it expires or donated to other rescues(not all the time). When I fed I would feed good stuff but got in trouble for not using science diet since they said that was the best food on the market(hahahaha).


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

hoofmaiden said:


> I think it's very important to understand that while "no kill" sounds good, these shelters are not "no-turn-away." For every cat they take in and foster out, there are many thousand they cannot take. Where do THOSE cats go? The kill shelters. There are NOT enough homes for them all, period.


This isn't exactly true. Maybe your area is high-kill, but not all places.

I live in a city with over a million people, and the shelter has _never_ been filled to capacity (since a large renovation in 1988.) No animal has been put down to "make space" in at least that long. The program is so successful and internationally recognized that we're starting to have a problem with people importing pets internationally - from Afghanistan and California, among other places - to save them, and risking new introduction of deseases. And it's all paid for by pet owners, pet fines, and licensing fees.

I haven't read the book in question, but there's no point having a defeatest attitude about it. I've seen first-hand that it's possible, and there aren't just "not enough homes for them all, period." I've seen first-hand the benefits that a little education and smart shelter management can go.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

I realize that there are different struggles that each shelter faces, I am merely putting this information out there to make people aware of what works to save lives. I am not saying that "no-kill" shelters are the miracle cure. I am saying that this "no-kill equation" works. And that everyone should fight the good fight.


----------



## Carmel (Nov 23, 2010)

Jacq said:


> I haven't read the book in question, but there's no point having a defeatest attitude about it.


Took the words out of my mouth. 

I don't live in an area with stray dogs, that type of thing is only seen on reservations in this province... and maybe it's for other reasons like "not enough homes" and "not enough space" in some areas, or maybe shelters around here do not have high euthanasia rates along with programs pulling animals from high-kill shelters in the USA and Asia as well (and the shelter in my city is no-kill along with housing the largest cat sanctuary in North America) because the city has outlawed the selling of dogs in pet stores, that the city has made it mandatory to spay and neuter animals, and no cat or dog leaves the shelter unaltered, that there are low cost spay and neuter programs for those that can't afford this (as well as large donation drives to support this), and most recently a vet is willing to do work for _free_ once a week at the cat sanctuary... slowly, all these things add up. 

I understand that in rural areas this is much harder to implement, but I still wouldn't write it all off as a pipe dream. It all starts somewhere. Maybe rural areas wouldn't be able to adopt the exact same methods, but seeing as no shelter _wants_ to euthanize animals - people aren't heartless - they should be able to get past some of the red tape and attempt adopting some of these proven methods instead of staying it's hopeless from the get-go.



3furbabies said:


> I use to work at a no-kill shelter and they are not as good as people think. As previously mentioned, even though they are no kill they still refuse lots of animals. Those animals are then brought to the high volume shelter and are most of the time put down.
> 
> ...
> 
> They take donations there but through most out and only feed science diet dry. They only feed the wet version if they don't eat for 2 days and all the good quality wet is left sitting until it expires or donated to other rescues(not all the time). When I fed I would feed good stuff but got in trouble for not using science diet since they said that was the best food on the market(hahahaha).


Any shelter, no-kill or high-kill can be poorly run and have uneducated staff.

Some no-kill shelters turn away after a certain limit of animals, others don't. Perhaps the ones that do are in areas that haven't caught up to their no-kill way of thinking, there's no doubt no-kill is a harder goal to work towards and will take more work to establish.

Also, criticizing food is really a minor thing. The cats are alive, and frankly, plenty of cats live to an old age that sort of food. Not every cat is going to be eating EVO and other grain free products, shelter or no. If shelters didn't adopt out to people on lower income and those that will be feeding lower quality food a heck of a lot more cats would be euthanized every year. I'd choose the lower quality food and a home than euthanasia any day.


----------



## 3furbabies (Dec 7, 2011)

Carmel said:


> Any shelter, no-kill or high-kill can be poorly run and have uneducated staff.
> 
> Some no-kill shelters turn away after a certain limit of animals, others don't. Perhaps the ones that do are in areas that haven't caught up to their no-kill way of thinking, there's no doubt no-kill is a harder goal to work towards and will take more work to establish.
> 
> Also, criticizing food is really a minor thing. The cats are alive, and frankly, plenty of cats live to an old age that sort of food. Not every cat is going to be eating EVO and other grain free products, shelter or no. If shelters didn't adopt out to people on lower income and those that will be feeding lower quality food a heck of a lot more cats would be euthanized every year. I'd choose the lower quality food and a home than euthanasia any day.


This is true. I was just describing the one I was at an saying that they don't act in the animals best interest. There are lots of rescue groups that want to pull animals from there but they refuse. There is only one dog behaviourist and she is part time so the dogs who need it don't benefit at all and spend years in the small cages obviously not improving.

About the food, yes I know the food thing is minor... I made the wrong point. I was trying to say that there is readily good quality food donated everyday but instead of using it on the cats there they let it sit and expire then throw it out vs feeding it to the cats. Tons of cats there have urinary issues and it's no wonder. They also brainwash staff/adopters in keeping them on science diet for life. Most of the adopters are uneducated so that is what they feed. Everyone I worked with there fed their own animals that.... It's not like it's cheap in price either.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

Science Diet donates food to shelters and rescues. Either that or they have a contract where they provide shelters with food for a low-cost. Im not really sure, but every rescue and shelter I have ever been involved with, feeds Science Diet. Honsestly, I believe that this is just another way for Hill's to make money by getting new customers. If they were truly concerned with animal welfare, they would work on making a better product. Luckily, my city shelter actually tells adopters that its not a good food and there are better options out there. They suggest wellness and blue buffallo brand, even though they give out a free bag of Science diet with every adopted animal. The problem with donated foods, is that it is inconsistent. They can't just feed the animals whatever is donated, because then they would have animals getting sick from the changes. Unless they ask for specific brands- but that doesnt sound like the case since they are letting it expire....

It sounds like you were involved with a very poorly run organization. You shouldnt generalize that all no-kill shelters are fun the same way. That is obviously not true.


----------



## Arianwen (Jun 3, 2012)

Five of my cats and my dog all came from shelters where they only euthanise for medical reasons. My local authority has also gone over to the same policy for dogs picked up by the dog warden (unless there are seriously dangerous - a hard thing to judge). I have visited the cat shelter as a supporter as well as a potential adopter and I have never failed to be impressed by the individual care and attention given to the cats and by the advice regarding suitability given to would-be adopters. Of course they get full, but please don't assume that equates with them being badly run. IN this instance, at least it would be far from the truth.


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

shan841 said:


> One of the things that needs to change is the legal red tape that keeps them from fostering and allowing volunteers. My city shelter has reformed by Instead of just being "animal control" they split into two seperate entities. One is animal control, and one is a non-profit rescue. THis way anyone can volunteer and foster directly from them. This way they take in private donations, and that money goes directly to rescuing the animals. 10 years ago, this shelter most likely used the excuse that it is "under-funded, under-staffed, and under-supported" .....now they have new leadership and, while they are not no-kill, they are employing many of the strategies outlined in the "no-kill equation", and have been extremely sucessful. Btw this is Baltimore city I am talking about-a low-income, high crime city.
> 
> The story is here if you want to read it.
> 
> History |


This was an interesting read. Thanks for sharing! It all comes down to money in the end. Baltimore was successful creating that division between the municipality and an NPO. Calgary's animal services have always been run in tandem with Bylaw enforcement (things like parking passes, noise complaints, that sort of thing.) Instead of relying on donations, the city enforces annual licensing fees for animals. Incentives are in place; I know Io's registration is $10/year because she's spayed, it's much much higher for intact animals or animals that have been previously labelled a "nuisance." Dog fees are $50/year, and with over 100,000 dogs registered, you're looking at a _lot_ of money to put back into the program.

That Baltimore and Calgary can both be so successful using totally different approaches, I think is proof that there are sustainable models and that high-kill, overcrowded shelters isn't an insurmountable, inevitable problem. Like diet and vaccinations, I think we _are_ seeing a shift in how animal companions are perceived, and all it takes is a bit more education (and business savvy) before every place could boast numbers like Calgary and Baltimore.


----------



## Dave_ph (Jul 7, 2009)

There are a lot of long replies in this thread so I only read the first few none of which told me what The World's Best Cat Vet told me. "There is no such thing as a no-kill shelter". They'll ship cats off to a kill shelter.


----------



## Arianwen (Jun 3, 2012)

I disagree with your vet - world's best or not. There are shelters that only kill for medical reasons. The cat shelter I ahve mentioned take cats from other organisations that don't ahve a no-kill policy - including the RSPCA - but don't send any to other shelters.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

Dave_ph said:


> There are a lot of long replies in this thread so I only read the first few none of which told me what The World's Best Cat Vet told me. "There is no such thing as a no-kill shelter". They'll ship cats off to a kill shelter.


I am aware of the fact that many no-kill shelters turn animals away and they end up at kill shelters. I thought I made that clear-the book that I mention in this thread was written by a man who successfully ran two no-kill shelters, and neither of them turned away any animals. I feel like some people arent really reading my thread(obviously, you just said you didnt) or i'm not communicating effectively. I am discussing specifically the "no-kill equation" presented in his book. He proved that you can run no-kill shelters that do not turn any animals away. 

Maybe your vet is the best in the world, but does that mean that he/she is up to date on most recent movements regarding animal rescue? And blindly following another's point of view is a dangerous move in any regard. No matter who that person is.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

Jacq said:


> This was an interesting read. Thanks for sharing! It all comes down to money in the end. Baltimore was successful creating that division between the municipality and an NPO. Calgary's animal services have always been run in tandem with Bylaw enforcement (things like parking passes, noise complaints, that sort of thing.) Instead of relying on donations, the city enforces annual licensing fees for animals. Incentives are in place; I know Io's registration is $10/year because she's spayed, it's much much higher for intact animals or animals that have been previously labelled a "nuisance." Dog fees are $50/year, and with over 100,000 dogs registered, you're looking at a _lot_ of money to put back into the program.
> 
> That Baltimore and Calgary can both be so successful using totally different approaches, I think is proof that there are sustainable models and that high-kill, overcrowded shelters isn't an insurmountable, inevitable problem. Like diet and vaccinations, I think we _are_ seeing a shift in how animal companions are perceived, and all it takes is a bit more education (and business savvy) before every place could boast numbers like Calgary and Baltimore.


 
Yes, money is a big part of it- Although we have pretty much the same thing in place regarding licenses. $10 for a dog or cat, more if it is not spayed/neutered. In the book it actually discusses how animal licenses can be a bad thing- mostly relating to feral cats. Since feral cats can't wear a tag and don't really "belong" to anyone, they are killed. Even though it has been proven that TNR programs are more effective at lowering feral cat populations than just rounding them up and killing them. This is one area that Baltimore needs to improve. In the city, it is illegal to have an unlicensed, unleashed animal, which is a death sentence for feral cats. I agree that traditional ways of thinking are changing regarding homeless pets, and it seems like common sense almost- why have we continued to do the same thing, when it has never worked in the past? 


Do you know what Calgary's policy is regarding ferals?


----------



## Dave_ph (Jul 7, 2009)

shan841 said:


> I am aware of the fact that many no-kill shelters turn animals away and they end up at kill shelters. I thought I made that clear-the book that I mention in this thread was written by a man who successfully ran two no-kill shelters, and neither of them turned away any animals. I feel like some people arent really reading my thread(obviously, you just said you didnt) or i'm not communicating effectively. I am discussing specifically the "no-kill equation" presented in his book. He proved that you can run no-kill shelters that do not turn any animals away.
> 
> Maybe your vet is the best in the world, but does that mean that he/she is up to date on most recent movements regarding animal rescue? And blindly following another's point of view is a dangerous move in any regard. No matter who that person is.


I read your first post. Just not all the replies.

Yep TWBCV is up on everything cats. She's a Board Certified Cat Nut. Her opinion is at least as good as the authors 

If you read closely I think you'll find the no-kill shelters also have policies that they'll pass on a cat that becomes ill or reacts badly to being confined


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

Dave_ph said:


> I read your first post. Just not all the replies.
> 
> Yep TWBCV is up on everything cats. She's a Board Certified Cat Nut. Her opinion is at least as good as the authors
> 
> If you read closely I think you'll find the no-kill shelters also have policies that they'll pass on a cat that becomes ill or reacts badly to being confined


I'm not talking about those no-kill shelters. I am talking specifically about the no-kill equation outlined in the book and how it can save lives and transform the traditional practices of many shelters accross the country.


----------



## Arianwen (Jun 3, 2012)

Dave_ph said:


> If you read closely I think you'll find the no-kill shelters also have policies that they'll pass on a cat that becomes ill or reacts badly to being confined


Not the one I have been talking about - they will euthanise when health demands it but NEVER pass a cat along to any other organisation.

Not all of their cats are available for general adoption - some, for example, are only available as barn cats. 

Some that I know that were "unadoptable" because various reasons are living with them years afterwards - quite a few of them inside their house. My Oz was the only one of the litter he came from who wasn't left damaged by the seere cat flu they had when first picked up. His siblings (one brain damaged but very happy and the other with heart problems) are both with them.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

hoofmaiden said:


> I simply don't believe that what works in crunchy San Fran, with it's highly educated and highly paid population, can have even a HOPE of working in rural TN or even larger cities in the south or much of the midwest. Those who think that it can need to spend a week or so around here.


I have never been to Tenessee, and I admit I have no idea what the situation is like where you live. It does sound as though the current policy is not working, wouldn't you agree? If there are stray dogs everywhere, the current animal control policies are failing horribly. THis equation offers new solutions, wouldn't it be worth it to try?


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

I bet in 1780 most people that said you'd never abolish slavery around TN and the rural communities in the south, too. Don't give up just because you feel cynical. Ditto gay marriage. 

Seriously, though, people are more educated now (even in tennesee!) than they've ever been. Giving up or saying something's inevitable or an immutable product of X, Y, or Z is useless. Change needs advocates, not apathy (or outright disdain delivered under the guise of authority).



shan841 said:


> Do you know what Calgary's policy is regarding ferals?


I'm not 100% sure of the full policy, nor where to find it, but I _do_ know that there are city-sanctioned feral colonies, that are taken care of by the Meow foundation. (You can read about their TNR program at that link). I think that any individual caregiver can manage a feral colony, but if they Microchip the cats they need to register under Meow's TNR umbrella as feral. Ferals that are picked up are returned if this is the case, but from what I understand (talking to Meow folks), if they're not registered under Meow then the caregiver can be held responsible for the "at large" fines.

Of all the programs, the ferals are often the ones that see the least benefit and money from any kind of program, but it def. looks like progress is being made here in that regard, too.


----------



## Dave_ph (Jul 7, 2009)

shan841 said:


> I'm not talking about those no-kill shelters. I am talking specifically about the no-kill equation outlined in the book and how it can save lives and transform the traditional practices of many shelters accross the country.


I'll never buy the book. What's the short story on what they do? Other than s/n?


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

Dave_ph said:


> I'll never buy the book. What's the short story on what they do? Other than s/n?



TNR Program
High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter
Rescue Groups
Foster Care
Comprehensive Adoption Programs
Pet Retention
Medical and Behavior Prevention & Rehabilitation
Public Relations/Community Involvement
Volunteers
Proactive Redemptions
A Compassionate Director


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

hoofmaiden said:


> TN is not, actually, full of rubes. :roll: It is, for the most part, much more like the rest of the country than CA is.


You're the one that said TN was less educated and paid than "crunchy" San Fran.


hoofmaiden said:


> I simply don't believe that what works in crunchy San Fran, with it's highly educated and highly paid population, can have even a HOPE of working in rural TN


Calgary has _zero_ s/n laws, only recommendations (and incentives, intact animals have higher fees and fines). They also have a "breedless enforcement" stance - no animal is blacklisted for its breed, and you know what? The amount of attacks is decreasing. And, as I said, the entire program is self-sustaining.

Now, I don't have an insight into American psyche, but people in the USA still have to pay property taxes and such, right? Or HOA fees (weird.) Requiring licensing doesn't have to be expensive, and it seems supportive of the American mindset in that only pet owners have to pay (there's not "I don't have kids, why do I have to pay taxes for education herpaderp" ballyhoo). One officer delivering citations can start to create revenue with in a year. Feed that revenue back into the program and watch it grow. Seems simple to me. Smaller populations don't need to generate the kind of revenue huge cities do, the same way vets cost less in places with smaller populations. It's simple economics.

I agree that you need different rules for truly rural populations. But, on the same note, I can't imagine the scale of the problem is the same. In rural Sask, if too many wild dogs are roaming, there's no officer to call. People don't trap them and bring them to the shelter, they shoot them. End of story. That seems like a better incentive to prevent roaming than fines any day.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

hoofmaiden said:


> I simply don't believe that what works in crunchy San Fran, with it's highly educated and highly paid population, can have even a HOPE of working in rural TN or even larger cities in the south or much of the midwest. Those who think that it can need to spend a week or so around here.





hoofmaiden said:


> TN is not, actually, full of rubes. :roll: It is, for the most part, much more like the rest of the country than CA is.


Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

A few of the things outlined in the book is spay/neutering every animal prior to adopting it out, and providing low-cost spay/neuter. That seems more easily implemented than changing the law, and, when implemented with other strategies will still have a huge impact on the number of unwanted animals.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

Wow, Jacq, I was curious as to how things work in Canada, and it seems like you are light years ahead of us. Maryland has unfortunatly just inacted legislation that says "pit bulls" are inherently dangerous. It has recently caused a huge uproar and has spread fear amongst the public. Landlords are now being held accountable if their tennants own a pit bull and it bites someone. Therefore, renters all over the state are recieving letters that say get rid of your dog, or face eviction if the dog even looks like what the landlord percieves to be a "pit bull", even though their lease says they can have a dog and there was no previous breed limitation. It's absolutley nuts. We could learn a thing or two from Calgary.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

And Jacq- the calgary do's and don'ts are right in line with what this book outlines. No mandatory s/n but instead incentive for doing so and low-cost programs available.

It's kind of like treating the public the same way you treat a pet......positive rewards for good behavior instead of punishing them for being bad.....


----------



## 3furbabies (Dec 7, 2011)

I still disagree. I'm sorry but that's how most no kill shelters work. I know of people who work(ed) in other shelters and some are even worse. 

The things you outlined in the book are a pipe dream and would never happen in reality. The cost is much too high, and frankly, the government doesn't care about animals(in Canada their are next to no laws when it comes to animals... The most you get is a slap on the wrist). It would take a lot of dedicated volunteers/foster homes...More then most rescues/shelters have. But the big thing is money. Even the city run shelters are struggling, let alone the charity based ones. 

I agree though that it should be made law to spay/neuter animals but again, people would sneak around it and the people who do are the ones that pose the problem( I.e. letting them roam the streets while in heat, etc). Just like all the animals who arnt licensed. There are several outdoor cats in my area that are pets but roam free without any tags/licenses/proof of rabies vac. Nothing is done about this. Sure you can call and complain but animal
Control doesn't care... They are mostly around to deal with wild life.. Then strays. 

It's nice in theory but too many things need to change to make it work.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

The thing is...that it can be cheaper to spay/neuter and adopt out an animal that it is to kill and dispose of an animal. The solution to the roaming cats is TNR. This is MORE effective at reducing feral population than capturing them, and they should be exempt from the licensing laws. 

Mandatory spay/neuter laws is not part of the solution, because not everyone is going to comply. Every animal should be spayed/neutered before they are adopted, and there should be low-cost options available. 

The big thing here is the question if shelters are doing everything in there power to get animals adopted before giving in to killing.

If you know of shelters that are operating poorly, don't you have the urge to do try to do something about it?


----------



## Carmel (Nov 23, 2010)

I guess I'll just repeat that my city has been no-kill for several years, and that it runs the largest cat sanctuary in north America - since 1999. Now you may go "Ah hah!" so that's how it's able to be no-kill... yes, maybe in part. But the numver of cats there has gone done from 900 to 700 since its opening. With proactive measures in the city that have been outlined here... it works.


----------



## 3furbabies (Dec 7, 2011)

shan841 said:


> The thing is...that it can be cheaper to spay/neuter and adopt out an animal that it is to kill and dispose of an animal. The solution to the roaming cats is TNR. This is MORE effective at reducing feral population than capturing them, and they should be exempt from the licensing laws.
> 
> Mandatory spay/neuter laws is not part of the solution, because not everyone is going to comply. Every animal should be spayed/neutered before they are adopted, and there should be low-cost options available.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. There is the odd city here that does TNR but it isn't common. They'd rather keep it in the shelter for years or euthanize(depends on the city). Most shelters here spay/neuter before making the animal available. Rescues don't however. You sign a paper saying you should but that doesn't mean anything. 

As I said before it depends on the shelter. The one I was at didn't kill but they didn't help socialize/rehabilitate semi-ferals etc. They pretty much make them as miserable as possible until they die naturally(illness, old age, etc) when IMO it would be better to euthanize .

Well there is very little I can do. When I started there I had to sign a non disclosure form where if I went public about certain things (like I'm
Doing now) I could be sued. I didn't think about it at the time though. I confronted the directors of the shelter and they were convinced they had the best shelter, nothing was wrong etc and said if I don't like it leave, so I did.


----------



## 3furbabies (Dec 7, 2011)

Carmel said:


> I guess I'll just repeat that my city has been no-kill for several years, and that it runs the largest cat sanctuary in north America - since 1999. Now you may go "Ah hah!" so that's how it's able to be no-kill... yes, maybe in part. But the numver of cats there has gone done from 900 to 700 since its opening. With proactive measures in the city that have been outlined here... it works.


Yes, this works with proactive measures. The problem is most places don't have the resources or don't care enough. I agree this is the best solution but it's based on the city, resources and how much they care. It only works if people make it work and unfortunately 
Most places arnt proactive and think about the now vs the future.


----------



## Mitts & Tess (Sep 4, 2004)

Shan I’m super excited you read the book and caught the vision. Go on FB and subscribe to No Kill Nation and Ryan Clintons sites. There are hundreds more sites that are doing No Kill and working on becoming No Kill in a 5 year plan.

Dave here is a feel good video of the No Kill Equation
http://youtu.be/XxUkWe-LN1U

I have a hard time believing Hoofmaiden, that you read the book or you wouldn’t say it can only work in large cities like SF. In the book did not Nathan Wingrad have that accusation leveled at him so he went to a rural lower income area in Thompson County and create a No Kill Shelter there. Hello?

All of the naysayers here are spewing the same old defeatist excuses and misinformation of why No Kill really can’t and isn’t no kill. Have you taken a look at Austin Texas? A No Kill CITY! Hello? Or maybe killing healthy animals does not bother you. The size of a rescue has no baring on whether they can be no kill or not. 

I’m here to say in 2006, 7 of us band together to do TNR and rescue. We are a small group. *Never once,* on our shoe string budget, did we ever euthanize ala kill a cat that could be vetted back to health. We’ve done over 1500 cat now. 

For those naysayers take a look at this video of Erie Pennsylvania. 3rd poorest large city in the US. Oh wow!!! They are open admission shelter too! This was their journey.




 
Ill finish with my favorite quotes this week.

*Ryan Clinton*, Attorney, Austin Texas, founder Fix Austin
Just one thing separates No Kill communities from non-No-Kill communities: someone willing to own the issue and make it happen.
*Michael Kitkoski,* Rockwall Pets
If you say you love animals, yet you continue to kill healthy shelter pets, you're not trying hard enough to find alternatives to killing.


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

3furbabies said:


> I agree though that it should be made law to spay/neuter animals but again, people would sneak around it and the people who do are the ones that pose the problem( I.e. letting them roam the streets while in heat, etc). Just like all the animals who arn't licensed. There are several outdoor cats in my area that are pets but roam free without any tags/licenses/proof of rabies vac. Nothing is done about this. Sure you can call and complain but animal
> Control doesn't care... They are mostly around to deal with wild life.. Then strays.


Non-compliance is definitely an issue. While Baltimore has had success in the division into non-profit, I think it may be more useful to approach it from municipal legislation. If you have municipal law (and law enforcement) backing, you have that much more wiggle room to punish/fine non-compliance. But, to be totally honest, I feel like a lot of the problems (those that let them roam while in heat, etc) is not because these people are actually _wanting_ to break the law, but because they've been misinformed or not educated at all (e.g. how many people do we know that still hold to the old "a cat should have one little before spaying" myth?)

So here, they have the carrot approach, and the stick approach. The carrot approach is incentives like iheartmypet.ca , which is value-added (people feel they're not just buying a licence, but buying access to vendor discounts). The stick is the stiff fines for non-compliance.

Calgary's not great in this regard. They estimate their licensing compliance at about 90% with dogs, but with cats it's much, _much_ lower (closer to 50%). They put a huge amount of their resources into education, but its not always as effective as you could want.

I don't think money should be _the_ hurdle to cross. There are ways to generate revenue, and I honestly think there are ways to do it that don't rub anyone the wrong way too badly.

3furbabies, I'm not where you are in Ontario, but here's an article about how Toronto could benefit from Calgary's approach to animal control. I just want to quote a few pieces of the interview that really resonated with me, if that's alright;
The fine for an unlicenced pet is $250, but low-income owners can have their pets neutered free. 


> “We have the power to waive licence fees … maybe there’s a senior who can’t afford the licence fee for hardship issues. You have to build that in, that compassion,’’ says Bruce, who calls his city an “animal friendly town.’’
> [...]
> 
> So what is Calgary’s winning formula?
> ...


I try not to get to weird and about my city too much, but I think if ever there was a thread for it, this is it. I don't expect everyone to be aware of the "image" that Calgary has in the rest of Canada, but "progressive" is _not_ it. Seriously. Every year horses die so we can have a big party. There's huge problems. But if a city that hates gays and liberals and taxes and poor people and anything that interferes with their systematic destruction of the environment at the oil sands and stampede pancake breakfasts can do it, I honestly can't see that there are other places in NA that have an insurmountable barrier to progress.


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

I don't mean going door to door or anything invasive like that. It only takes a single officer to sit in a park one afternoon and hand out citations to pet owners.

Think of it like parking enforcement. If you want to be non-compliant in your own home/driveway, nobody's going to bother you. If you want to park in your neighbour's petunia garden, or in the middle of downtown in a fire zone, you're going to get a ticket. I mean, it's not like people don't get parking tickets in TN.

I also don't see how differential licensing can in any way be considered a "law" about s/n. The age of your car (and other factors) determines how expensive your car insurance it. Differential insurance costs doesn't mean it's effectively illegal to drive a new car.

Again, I know that this might not be the most popular opinion, but I don't think that free-roaming dogs and rural animal control can be painted with the same brush as community, town, or city laws. The dogs are effectively wild animals and should be treated as such. Whether they breed or not isn't a huge deal out in the country, because if they're a nuisance they get shot (the same way a coyote would).


----------



## 3furbabies (Dec 7, 2011)

Jacq - the whole pet owner ignorance thing is true in some cases but there are also a lot of people who really don't care. This is why where I live is a high kill shelter. There are endless amounts of stray cats and people letting their unaltered cat roam the street. I have(well had...) people on my Facebook that continue to post pictures of their preggo cat and once it has kittens a mont later they say she's preggo again. Not every case obviously but a lot of people don't think of the big picture and think about what's going to happen to these kittens when a ton of people continue to let this happen.

I live an hour away from Toronto... I think Toronto is one of the places that does TNR ? I know it was somewhere in southern Ontario... Not sure where exactly though. I agree that they can benefit, but again the problem is in actual implementing it. Sure it can be discussed virtually forever but it's getting this to be a nation wide law... Even with laws people don't abide by but it should be something like no shelter/rescue/registered breeder should release a cat without proper registering, spay/neuter , etc. obviously it won't end the problem because people with unaltered cats will still produce kittens but it won't be as bad in the future . It's a start at least.


----------



## Dave_ph (Jul 7, 2009)

Again, I haven't read all the long replies but is someone suggesting the police search our pets for testicles?


----------



## Mitts & Tess (Sep 4, 2004)

hoofmaiden said:


> However, they still euthanize. And IMO there is nothing wrong with that.


*WOW!* I’m stunned your attitude. No wonder you can’t see the potential in all the programs and efforts being made to make changes. You have to care and be proactive. Seems to me you’re just focusing on the results of past failed policies as a reality that can’t change and not embracing the new ideas which are showing results and change. No kill hasn’t arrived but were well on our way and making a difference.



> It's unrealistic in most parts of the US to expect petty bureaucrats to give a darn about animals--and that's who makes the decisions in most small towns.


You’ve missed the point. It’s the true animal lovers that are making the difference and are on a mission to make this a no kill nation. Bureaucrats will do what the people have a vision for. They influence the county or city government. 




hoofmaiden said:


> There are good reasons why the municipal shelter can't foster animals with you--they can't risk law suits.


Again not true. Where I live our Pima Animal Care ala Dog pound isn’t no kill but they willing let people foster or pull dogs and cats. 




3furbabies said:


> I use to work at a no-kill shelter and they are not as good as people think. As previously mentioned, even though they are no kill they still refuse lots of animals. Those animals are then brought to the high volume shelter and are most of the time put down.





3furbabies said:


> The shelter I worked at was under staffed, under paid and most were unqualified. I have no formal training yet I knew more than the vet techs. They didn't seem to care at all. I had to point out several animals that were sick and they always said ya ya ya and didn't look at that animal for weeks. Most of the staff don't care so the animals are neglected. I actually got in trouble for giving cats love and affection. I left after 4 months, I couldn't stand it anymore. There are feral cats there that are hiding in the backs of their cage for years with no one paying attention to them. They don't put them on foster cause they are too wild bit won't put them down so they sit there and take up space making them refuse.


I’ve heard you say this on more than one occasion in posts. Exactly what is this shelters name and location? I’d like to check into it with the people who are leaders in No Kill to find out or let them know what is going on. This should be addressed and not allowed to continue if this is the case. Have they claimed they are No Kill and are implementing all the programs to become no kill? It had to have broken your heart to watch this going on.


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

3furbabies said:


> Jacq - the whole pet owner ignorance thing is true in some cases but there are also a lot of people who really don't care. This is why where I live is a high kill shelter. There are endless amounts of stray cats and people letting their unaltered cat roam the street. I have(well had...) people on my Facebook that continue to post pictures of their preggo cat and once it has kittens a mont later they say she's preggo again. Not every case obviously but a lot of people don't think of the big picture and think about what's going to happen to these kittens when a ton of people continue to let this happen.


This is true, and it's sad, but that's where the "stick" comes in. People who choose to be ignorant may choose to do it out of not wanting a $250 fine. :devil

I agree that sometimes the discussion goes in circles. I didn't personally have anything to do with the steps my city's taken to be low-kill, but I still feel proud to know that it's the world leader in something.

I just find it very disheartening when advocating change is met with defeatist responses of "That will never work here." and "It's never going to happen." Because that's the reason that so many other terrible things happen for so long. 

Maybe it's not appropriate to be a constant advocate for optimism. But if I can say "Look at Baltimore. Look at Calgary. Look at Nevada (ok don't look too closely at Nevada). Look at all of these places that have made it work." Progress is being made and as a whole I honestly believe we are becoming more responsible for our companion animals. It just takes baby steps and for people to be willing to see that there's an alternative to the way things have always been.

I'm utterly convinced that I'll see a nationwide legalization of marijuana in my lifetime, and there's probably a lot fewer pot smokers than pet owners. I'm not sure I'll see a total nationwide shift in animal population control, but I can hope. 

And, again, I haven't seen any completely insurmountable obstacle proposed by the people that say high-kill shelters are necessary. Petty beurocrats bringing you down? _Get new ones_. Don't have enough money? _Generate revenue_. Too many roaming dogs on your acreage? _Shoot them_. (No, not that last one. lol.)


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

Where's the problem, then? I'm just not sure what you mean. 

You have to generate revenue via complaint citizens so you can afford to go after the more difficult ones.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

hoofmaiden said:


> Dear, trust me--I care.* I've been caring for 50 years now and working my butt off and seeing very little progress*.
> 
> A few simple facts:
> 
> ...


So for 50 years, you have seen very little progress. What changes have been made in those 50 years? 

And what animals are not adoptable? (Besides animals that are* ligitimately* untreatable)


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

hoofmaiden said:


> If AC goes out and rounds up all the loose animals, it will take all their time, and then the shelter will be full of animals whose owners probably don't care enough to come get them. Many of these animals will not be adoptable. What then?


Well,
* Money generated from the people walking their dogs on leads (ie - compliant owners who probably don't have a problem paying a licensing fee) - or those pet owner who are not wilfully ignoring law but unaware of the consequences and are willing to pay stiff fines to get their loved pet - will go towards;

A. Renovating the shelter to have a higher capacity.
B. Creating "Adopt-a-thon", fostering, and education programs
C. Staffing those who can work towards rehabilitating and socializing animals that have the potential to become adoptable.
D. Hire more AC officers, who then can divide their time between generating more revenue via citation/solicitation, education (either in the classroom, at pet stores, on television/new media, or at special events like pet expo), and enforcement.
E. S/N and microchipping all animals unowned/abandoned animals that come in before re-adopting them out, thus reducing the overall number of intact animals.

It's fallacious to say that all pet owners who let their pets roam are uncaring, or even that "most" of them would not retrieve their pets from the shelter. You're speaking of a percentage (bad owners) of a percentage (nuisance pets) of a percentage (unaltered animals) of a percentage (roaming animals) of the total as if it's a much larger problem then it is.

Some pets are aggressive, some are too ill to be helped by medicine or rehabilitation. I don't think most people that support the no-kill philosophy truly advocate a state where there's _zero_ euthanasia. That's just ridiculous.

As I said, my city shelter hasn't been at capacity in 25 years, and it hasn't had to resort to euthanasing healthy animals to do it, either.


----------



## 3furbabies (Dec 7, 2011)

Mitts & Tess said:


> I’ve heard you say this on more than one occasion in posts. Exactly what is this shelters name and location? I’d like to check into it with the people who are leaders in No Kill to find out or let them know what is going on. This should be addressed and not allowed to continue if this is the case. Have they claimed they are No Kill and are implementing all the programs to become no kill? It had to have broken your heart to watch this going on.


Again, I can't state the name and location of that particular shelter as I don't wish to sued for defamation. I'm also sure they won't admit to it. Most of the heads of the shelter don't even know what's going on, when I confronted them it was denied even though I seen it with my own eyes. They are no kill and as far as I know they are staying that way. Animals only are euthanize when they are really I'll or have severe behavior issues(rare). My issue is they keep the same unadoptable cats for years when new younger cats come in and get adopted right away. 

These unadoptable cats need to go to foster homes to experience life out of the cage and to become socialized. Some are in foster but for a few days here and there, then back to the cage. A lot of these cats are not good with kids, other cats dogs or even people because the only time they get interaction is when the techs treat them for something or people are shoving their hands in cages. There is currently a cat there who has been there 3.5 years. It's sad. They have spaces in pet stores but they put the kittens there instead of the ones who need exposure


----------



## Mitts & Tess (Sep 4, 2004)

hoofmaiden said:


> Dear, trust me--I care. I've been caring for 50 years now and working my butt off and seeing very little progress.
> 
> A few simple facts:
> 
> ...


Sweetie do you think this is an acceptable solution, to kill them?












Simple facts:

*Most animals are adoptable.* Guess you did watch the video I posted with the facts of the great stride in Erie Penn of adopting out old, disabled, and animals which need daily meds? Yes they are getting homes.

You said 
- Giving space to those who are not adoptable prevents those who are more adoptable from getting in.

Your acting like there is a limited space for saving animals. *Not true.* Most no kill areas dont face that problem because there are foster homes, shelters, making room for them and being proactive about getting them homes. Austin Texas is pulling from outside counties because they have room for more. They arent using old failed policies, they are using the no kill equation and its working.

You said
- Animals do not know they are dying when they are euthanized--it is exactly the same for them as going under for surgery. There are MANY things worse than this, and IMO being in a shelter for a year or more is one of them.

I disagree. I know animals are very intuitive and they pick up on energy of what is happening. Can you amagine how they feel as they are dying alone and unloved because people think its OK to kill them. They dont know they are dying. I think not.

There is nothing wrong with an animal waiting a year for a home. Bottom line he gets a home, a life, happiness. BFD how long it took. It surely didnt stop others from being adopted during that time. You make no sense.


----------



## Mitts & Tess (Sep 4, 2004)

hoofmaiden said:


> Dear, trust me--I care. I've been caring for 50 years now and working my butt off and seeing very little progress.


Havent you heard the saying* if you keep doing the same thing and getting the same results then try something new.* Maybe what Nathan Winograd and others are doing with possitive results are your answer.


----------



## librarychick (May 25, 2008)

Holy cow! After slogging through all that here are my responses... WOW!



Dave_ph said:


> There are a lot of long replies in this thread so I only read the first few none of which told me what The World's Best Cat Vet told me. "There is no such thing as a no-kill shelter". They'll ship cats off to a kill shelter.





Arianwen said:


> I disagree with your vet - world's best or not. There are shelters that only kill for medical reasons. The cat shelter I ahve mentioned take cats from other organisations that don't ahve a no-kill policy - including the RSPCA - but don't send any to other shelters.


There are SOME shelters who only kill for medical reasons, yes. However on this one I'm with Dave. My local Humane Society claims to be 'no-kill' but, as I've mentioned frequently in the past, they have a lot of ways of sneaking around that. Here are two:

1) Being partnered with animal control. This means that any animal found within city limits first goes to AC. The HS people GO TO AC (aka walk across a parking lot...) assess the animal to see if it's adoptable THERE. If it isn't AC euthanises. NOT the HS. IMO this is cheating.

2) Stringent rules for 'adoptable'. 3 out of my 4 cats would not pass this test. Actually. Muffin would pass, but he's a Certified Therapy Cat. Doran occasionally sprays, so they'd either euth him or dump him out on some farm as part of their 'barn buddies' program. A cat that's never been let outside in his life and has no idea what a coyote looks like, let alone that it would love to eat him. Jitzu is sick AND doesn't like people, Torri is painfully shy.

If you say 'litterbox problems', 'aggressive', 'doesn't like other animals', or if it's over about 5 years (I've never seen a cat older than 5 years on their website...and I check a lot) it's basically dead the moment it's admitted. Because it 'isn't adoptable'.

CHEATING!



shan841 said:


> Wow, *Jacq, I was curious as to how things work in Canada, and it seems like you are light years ahead of us.* Maryland has unfortunatly just inacted legislation that says "pit bulls" are inherently dangerous. It has recently caused a huge uproar and has spread fear amongst the public. Landlords are now being held accountable if their tennants own a pit bull and it bites someone. Therefore, renters all over the state are recieving letters that say get rid of your dog, or face eviction if the dog even looks like what the landlord percieves to be a "pit bull", even though their lease says they can have a dog and there was no previous breed limitation. It's absolutley nuts. We could learn a thing or two from Calgary.


I wish I could agree with that statement, but I'm less than 4 hours away and it's a completely different story here. See above. I hope and pray that the EHS changes, but from what I've heard of their current director that won't happen until she retires. She seems to like saying she 'saves animals' more than she actually likes doing it. 



3furbabies said:


> I agree with you. There is the odd city here that does TNR but it isn't common. They'd rather keep it in the shelter for years or euthanize(depends on the city). *Most shelters here spay/neuter before making the animal available. Rescues don't however.* You sign a paper saying you should but that doesn't mean anything.
> 
> As I said before it depends on the shelter. The one I was at didn't kill but they didn't help socialize/rehabilitate semi-ferals etc. They pretty much make them as miserable as possible until they die naturally(illness, old age, etc) when IMO it would be better to euthanize .
> 
> ...


Luckily that's one law I like about Canada/Alberta. In order for a rescue to be eligible for any grants they have to s/n before adoption, make the adopter sign a no crop/dock/dewclaw/debarking/roaming contract. 

This doesn't mean ALL the resuce have to do it (hence why you're seeing that in Ontario) but it DOES mean that that group can't receive any government money until they change their policies. Most groups here (Edmonton, AB) start off with that as a policy just in case.



shan841 said:


> So for 50 years, you have seen very little progress. What changes have been made in those 50 years?
> 
> And what animals are not adoptable? (Besides animals that are* ligitimately* untreatable)


Here? Lots. I listed the common excuses above, but you can also include dogs who don't like other dogs on or off leash (either/or), dogs who've been returned more than twice, dogs who don't like young kids, ect ect ect. Basically any excuse they can use they do.

They are improving a bit because of the Behaviorist they have now, but it isn't much.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

Thanks Mitts&Tess, I am still new to all this stuff so its not easy for me to argue my point effectively. I honestly didn't think that this thread would turn into a debate. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though, as Nathan goes over all the reasons that people get defensive and oppose the no-kill equation in his book. This thread pretty much played out why its been such a struggle....if people are so opposed to change, and don't believe in it, of course it won't work.


----------



## shan841 (Jan 19, 2012)

librarychick said:


> I wish I could agree with that statement, but I'm less than 4 hours away and it's a completely different story here. See above. I hope and pray that the EHS changes, but from what I've heard of their current director that won't happen until she retires. She seems to like saying she 'saves animals' more than she actually likes doing it.


Sorry, I didn't mean to generalize. I meant that I was curious about Canada as a whole, and Calgary seems to be light years ahead of my state in terms of animal control policies.


----------

