Animal Shelters and Costs

[SquishTheBunny]

Ive read here many times how in some areas animal shelters are “over run” with dogs. Here, there are many shelters and lots of available spaces for unwanted dogs.

There are several government funded and private shelters in our city, and Im always surprised at what they do for animals compared to shelters in other locations. For example, a young healthy shih-Tzu that had some sort of trauma, resulting in paralysis. Diagnosis is herniated disc and needs surgery if it is ever to walk again. $5000. Other dogs through the shelters have had ICU care, major fracture repairs etc which of course all come with hefty bills.

Is this normal in larger cities, compared to smaller ones? Or is this completely unheard everywhere else?

Also wanted to re-iterate that they don’t spend on one, and turn down others - the “others” just don’t show up like they used to!

[MsM]

Around here the government funded shelters are the municipal shelters for stray and abandoned dogs/cats. They do not offer any extensive care on the taxpayers dime. The only way major vet care is provided is when some group steps in and takes the animal.
Private shelters are a whole different thing. There is a Humane Society which had some government ties but is a separate entity. They may provide a bit more and sometimes advertise for donations for a needy animal. The private shelters and rescue societies are the ones that may spend large amounts on one animal for extensive medical treatments.
Not sure on the overall volume of animals. Most of the municipal shelter dogs tend to be larger with many pittie types.

[Justmyluck]

So the city in which I currently live has a veterinary school and has one of the most well known shelter medicine programs in the country. As veterinarian students we have the ability to graduate with a certificate in shelter medicine. We also have one of the few shelter medicine internship programs in the the country.

This city also has 6 organizations, 4 private rescues, animal services and the Humane Society aligned with Maddies Fund. Which provides countless grants to rescues and sponsors massive adoption events in our city.

Through the vet school there are several programs that allow both the rescues and animal services to have procedures done that in other cities would get animals euthanized. Due to our location in the SE we have a high prevalence of heartworm disease in our shelter population. They used to all be euthanized. Through countless grants the veterinarian school is now able to treat these animals with the gold standard, Immiticide. Complicated unique cases are able to be addressed by students so the students benefit from having the ability to perform complicated more in depth surgeries they would otherwise be unable to do. If not for our shelter animals and the programs that support them.

There are also SEVERAL out reach programs through the vet school and one through a private practitioner to keep animals with their owners. One is specific to very sick or terminal owners. There is essentially free preventative medical and dental care as well as medicine and food provided to these pets for free. There are clinics held once a month for these individuals. These animals would be turned into shelters because their owners could not afford to keep them due to their medical bills ect. Instead they can keep them.

The other program provides veterinary care, food and supplies for homeless and impoverish citizens of our county. This keeps this population of animals from spreading disease and out of the shelter.

There is also currently a program aimed at micro-chipping and registering every owned animal in this county for free. This is from a grant received by a private rescue. The goal once again to keep owned animals out of the shelter.

We also have a premier TNR program aimed at keeping healthy, cats out of the shelter. They also do life saving medical procedures at the TNR clinics such as amputations and enucleation to injured cats and then places them in rescues.

My current foster cat had his right thoracic limb amputated as is was literally hanging off his body when he was found. My last foster had an FHO. Both done through shelter med at the vet school.

[CrowneDragon]

I’m guessing it varies greatly. At the shelter I got my dogs from pretty much anything that sneezed was euthanized. This was in a large but fairly poor city that was completely overrun with animals. They were bursting at the seams and animals were kept in pretty short rotation. No way in hell was anything getting a $5000 surgery.
I see stories about dogs being in shelters for weeks or longer and didn’t realize that was a thing. Around there I think the dogs got days, even if healthy and well-adjusted.

[Casey09]

Our city shelter used to euthanize any dog that even appeared like it might be sick. It was crowded and in an old building and diseases spread quickly.
They still have the same challenges with the building, but they have more satellite locations and foster homes now. They now have a specific fund for special medical needs that the use to treat some of the medical cases.
They are still often full, but they’ve drastically increased adoptions with the satellite locations in shopping centers. The foster homes have also helped with the space crunch.
They do have trainers that evaluate the dogs and help potential adopters choose a suitable dog, but it is hard to find statistics on long term success (obviously with it being a big urban shelter, most animals aren’t being fostered for a long period of time and so I’m sure some change when they settle in).
There have been several shelters around here that have had a case of a severely abused dog that they’ve rehabbed. Those cases often make the news, generate a lot of donations and increased attention to their group, convince people to foster, etc. All in all, I think the treatment expense is only one component of analyzing those cases.

[Arrows_Endure]

I work for a small, private, no-kill shelter. We do the care needed for an animal providing there is a good chance there will be a “good” outcome. We have raised funds to have a bullet taken out of a paralyzed dogs spine. He now walks, although he’s a bit wobbly. We do amputations if needed. I just had a cats eye removed due to an infection and am treating a horrid eye ulcer on another.

Thankfully, our vets help with the bill when they can. If we don’t think the dog will have a good life, or recover enough to be healthy and happy, we will euthanize. But it’s a last choice if we can help it.

Our local shelters are getting really good. They are working towards a no-kill status, and are doing really good about rehabbing sick dogs, training dogs who need it, and finding homes for all the pit bulls. It’s slowly getting better here, and it’s good to see.

[SquishTheBunny]

Its looking like there’s a movement for “better” shelter management now. Now, spending $5000+ on one animal might be up fro debate as to whether that is justifiable, but on a positive note this one particular dog did very well in surgery and has an extremely positive prognosis. Sweet, young and otherwise very healthy dog. Im sure he will get a home in no time.

Nice to hear the trend isn’t localized to one certain area

[Coyoteco]

A lot of animal shelters, whether companion animals or horses, take one case and do extraordinary treatment to exploit for public relations. I don’t knot he shelter that did this, but I know that the fact that a shelter did something like this doesn’t really say anything about the quality of the shelter and what they do with their animals in general. There is a movement for “more money” for shelters and I am not convinced that it correlates to one for “better” shelter management. The pounds (kill shelters) were losing fund-raising ground to no-kill shelters and they have fought back with various things to try to make people contribute their money to the kill shelters. I don’t know how it works in Canada, but ultimately people are people.

I’m glad the young dog is doing well.

[Arrows_Endure]

Now see, I get a little offended by someone saying that shelters only treat major problems to raise funds. As a shelter, we have treated many major things. Yes, we will put something out showing what we are doing with money people are donating, or asking for donations, but I can promise everyone that the best interest of the animal is ALWAYS at the front of our minds. We do “extraordinary” treatment if it is what is best for the animal. Then we try to fundraise to cover the cost. I can’t say I’ve ever seen enough donations come in to even cover the costs of those treatments. The special donations help, but they don’t cover all the costs.

Case in point…
We picked up a min pin from animal control. He had been shot in the back by some asshole, then dumped at ACC. They left him to drag himself around a kennel with no medical care. He was paralyzed. We pulled him with the intention to euthanize him. We got him back to the shelter, and he was so happy, vibrant, and loving that we figured we’d see if there was even anything we could do. Xrays were taken, and it seemed that the bullet was pressing on the spinal cord, but had not penetrated the cord. We consulted with a local neurologist, and he thought bullet removal would help him. He volunteered to do the surgery for $1500. We did some fundraisers and ok’d the surgery. So, $200 for initial xrays, and $1500 surgery. We raised $1200. So there was still $500 to cover. Most shelters barely cover costs, much less “make money”.

[SquishTheBunny]

[QUOTE=Coyoteco;7560584]
A lot of animal shelters, whether companion animals or horses, take one case and do extraordinary treatment to exploit for public relations. I don’t knot he shelter that did this, but I know that the fact that a shelter did something like this doesn’t really say anything about the quality of the shelter and what they do with their animals in general. There is a movement for “more money” for shelters and I am not convinced that it correlates to one for “better” shelter management. The pounds (kill shelters) were losing fund-raising ground to no-kill shelters and they have fought back with various things to try to make people contribute their money to the kill shelters. I don’t know how it works in Canada, but ultimately people are people.

I’m glad the young dog is doing well.[/QUOTE]

Interesting take on it. However, no these shelters in our area have sent hundreds of dogs to us for “specialist treatments” every year. Definitely not a “money grab” on their part. While they do get a discount, they still have bills at the end of it. Most of the dogs are surprisingly large breed dogs (shepherd crosses, rotti mixes etc.) but some shih-Tzu type dogs do come through as well. Not many pitties here, as the are “banned” breeds.

Of course they will highlight the animals that require special treatment - people will often donate to the cause of helping these pets. I see nothing wrong with this though, as it goes back to the shelter as funds to treat more pets. Im not sure why this offends anyone?

All the shelters around this city are “euthanize only if needed”. They will not kill dogs/cats for no reason. Older, unadoptable animals with medical issues are often euthanized, where younger adoptable animals with treatable conditions are fixed.

We deal with both private, and city shelters, and both follow the same policies.

[independentlyawesome]

It’s because it’s a cute little shih-tsu

As one shelter vet I know says “being ugly is a terminal condition when you’re a stray.” It’s a terrible but a truth of overpopulated shelter life. A pit bull with mange will get euthanized. A gangly black dog with ringworm will get euthanized. A young french bulldog needing $1000s in surgery will get snapped up by a rescue who fundraise for him and get him adopted out.

One of my biggest pet peeves are no-kill shelters. It’s a publicity stunt - they just refuse to admit the less adoptable animals and those get euthanized at a different shelter. If a cat stays there for too long, it may get traded to one of the kill shelters. We need a cultural reform where people adopt less adoptable animals before no-kill philosophy will work.

[vacation1]

I get the impression that shelters around me try to give animals as long as they can. The big city shelters and the busier public shelters have to euthanize unless they can pass on a sick animal to a foster or rescue group. Small dogs take up less room than big dogs, amiable dogs from amiable breeds take up less space than quarrelsome dogs from aggressive breeds, etc. The county shelter near me seems to do vet care of bigger issues sometimes - I recall seeing a few “Special Dogs!” on the website. They were usually pit bulls. It’s not always a “cute little dog” - though that would be only just, given that it’s 100% easier to house multiple small or amiable dogs rather than large or aggressive dogs. You can usually stick 3 spaniel mixes in a kennel and everyone will get out alive. 3 pits don’t fit in one kennel, and 2 are way too liable to fight, so the pits take 3 times as much space and are at least 3 times less likely to be adopted.

I hate the no-kill movement. It very clearly blames the shelters and the adopters - aka, the people who actually are doing something effective and useful - for the horror of shelter euthanization. If only the shelters tried harder! If only the wannabe owners would take the pit bulls! Winograd took the easy way out by blaming the people who DIDN’T have a lobby or a PR machine waiting in the wings. I really feel for the shelters - bad enough having to kill kittens and dogs, then to be BLAMED for it? Unreal.

[SquishTheBunny]

None of the shelters here are “no kill”, they will euthanize if needed. The difference here is, I think, we do not have the stray population that some other places have.

The total amount of “current adoptable dogs” in city animal shelters (4 total), in a city of 2.5 million people…is 12.

Private large humane society has about 12-15 as well.

[Coyoteco]

[QUOTE=SquishTheBunny;7560720]
Interesting take on it. However, no these shelters in our area have sent hundreds of dogs to us for “specialist treatments” every year. Definitely not a “money grab” on their part. While they do get a discount, they still have bills at the end of it. Most of the dogs are surprisingly large breed dogs (shepherd crosses, rotti mixes etc.) but some shih-Tzu type dogs do come through as well. Not many pitties here, as the are “banned” breeds.

Of course they will highlight the animals that require special treatment - people will often donate to the cause of helping these pets. I see nothing wrong with this though, as it goes back to the shelter as funds to treat more pets. Im not sure why this offends anyone?

All the shelters around this city are “euthanize only if needed”. They will not kill dogs/cats for no reason. Older, unadoptable animals with medical issues are often euthanized, where younger adoptable animals with treatable conditions are fixed.

We deal with both private, and city shelters, and both follow the same policies.[/QUOTE]

The distinction to me is kill vs. no-kill. Euthanized “only if needed” and “older, unadoptable” are clearly words of kill facilities. The ones you describe are clearly kill and they seem to spend thousands of dollars on one animal while deciding that they can’t continue to keep the “unadoptable” animal alive for awhile longer or spend funds to train or promote him. Many of the “private” shelters that are killed (in the US) function as the government facility. By being private they can get more donations from the public, but they are really only pounds of old.

[Coyoteco]

[QUOTE=independentlyawesome;7560724]
It’s because it’s a cute little shih-tsu

…One of my biggest pet peeves are no-kill shelters. It’s a publicity stunt - they just refuse to admit the less adoptable animals and those get euthanized at a different shelter. If a cat stays there for too long, it may get traded to one of the kill shelters. We need a cultural reform where people adopt less adoptable animals before no-kill philosophy will work.[/QUOTE]

That is simply not true. The shelter you describe is a kill shelter misrepresenting itself. There is a lot of that, but a no-kill does not engage in that activity, and they do exist. Many no-kill shelters have a part of their facility being a sanctuary shelter.

[Coyoteco]

[QUOTE=vacation1;7560800]
…

I hate the no-kill movement. It very clearly blames the shelters and the adopters - aka, the people who actually are doing something effective and useful - for the horror of shelter euthanization. If only the shelters tried harder! If only the wannabe owners would take the pit bulls! Winograd took the easy way out by blaming the people who DIDN’T have a lobby or a PR machine waiting in the wings. I really feel for the shelters - bad enough having to kill kittens and dogs, then to be BLAMED for it? Unreal.[/QUOTE]

You assume that kill shelter people hate killing the animals. From my observations over the course of years, that simply is not true. I don’t know where your idea that anyone blames the adopters comes from.

[SquishTheBunny]

Coyetco - there is no such thing (here) as a “KILL” or “NO KILL” Shelter.

Animals who require euthanasia, for medical or behavioral reasons will be euthanized. Animals who can be treated will be.

If the animals are not “adoptable” but don’t require euthanasia, they are fostered and the shelter pays for their medical care, yes even the geriatrics.

Guess what, a dog suffering with cancer, extreme arthritis or is a threat to the public with agrssion etc. will likely be euthanized. I don’t consider this a “KILL” Shelter, rather a humane shelter.

No shelter here will let a sick animal suffer, just like YOU shouldn’t.