Thanks for posting the link, Cindy. Comparing performance is a good way to rate shelters against each other. Though no two situations are the same, there has to be some way to objectively rate shelters.
I can see that Tucson's budget is relatively the same as HSSM's per animal taken in. What I notice (and I did just a quick look) is that Tucson's kill rate is around 20% while HSSM's is closer to 50%. Also, it seems like there are more education and community outreach programs in Tucson than here. While they both take in a lot of money and both do euthanize, comparing the two kind of validates for me that some shelters just do a better job with what they have.
Also, if you look at the numbers, the majority of Tucson's animals were either strays or owner surrender. I had a gut feeling that would be the case. That's why I think the community outreach is so important.
You asked my age...I'm 53 and when I was growing up, almost everyone had a dog but they were almost all mutts. Usually, someone's girl would have a litter and they would give them away to folks they knew. It was all pretty manageable. We had a small city pound at the time to handle strays. Being just a kid then, I don't know for sure but i don't think 'owner surrender' was much of an issue then. People simply took care of what they had. They may not have taken great care by today's standards, but they didn't discard them when they became inconvenient, either.
You're right...I didn't really question our shelter until the arrest of the no-kill operator on animal cruelty charges. I knew that whole business just stunk and started to wonder about what's really going on around here. Well, little by little, a picture is starting to come together and it ain't pretty. |