Post by valliesong on Feb 12, 2008 2:13:36 GMT -5
Stu Bykofsky: Dogfights between shelters hurt animals
Philadelphia Daily News
THE GOAL OF making Philadelphia a "no-kill city" for homeless animals within a decade - articulated with hope in 2004 - has stalled, partly because of dogfights between two leading shelters.
That's the opinion of Nathan Winograd, a national expert on no-kill shelters, who believes snarling between the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) and the Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Agency (PACCA) can be deadly to homeless dogs and cats.
The enmity went public last week, when in an Action News report PSPCA charged PACCA with neglect of some animals in its care. In large-volume operations, I know, sadly, that sometimes can happen.
PACCA's role is to collect strays and animals in Philadelphia that have been surrendered by owners, to treat them and to try to find homes for them. PSPCA's role is to investigate cruelty complaints, to provide medical care to animals and to offer adoptions to the public. Some of the animals it adopts out come from PACCA.
After revealing that PACCA was a House of Horrors for animals in 2004, I've attended most PACCA board meetings, so I have an inside, if one-sided, view of relations between PACCA and PSPCA. They were not always rosy, but soured sometime after PSPCA hired Howard Nelson as its CEO last March.
Winograd was hired by PACCA in 2005 to analyze the problem-plagued agency, to suggest remedies and lay out a road map to "no-kill" status.
While PACCA was on a good trajectory for a few years, it now has stalled, says Winograd, who is a zealous animal advocate. He has no dog in this fight and criticizes both PSPCA and PACCA.
Progress has stalled partly because of warfare between the two agencies, says Winograd, but also because of "complacency" of PACCA leadership about killing animals, and a lack of oversight that's allowed "poor care to creep back into the agency."
Complacency "couldn't be further from the truth," bristles PACCA Board President Dana Spain-Smith, who just sold her business to devote more time to the PAWS Old City adoption center that opened last month. (PACCA's donor-funded arm is called PAWS, the Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society.)
At PACCA board meetings, I see no "complacency" with the kill rate, reported monthly. Last year, 60 percent of the animals were saved. It's still not enough, but in 2005, the year PACCA was reorganized, the save rate was 39 percent. It was less than 20 percent before that.
As to poor care and shelter cleanliness, those are problems - the product of PACCA's too-small budget and staff. PACCA CEO Tara Derby admits she has adopted out animals with "upper respiratory infection, or kennel cough. We send them home with antibiotics prescribed by the veterinarian staff." (From adopters' complaints I have seen, I believe medicine is not always provided, though that may be because the adoption counselor was not aware of the animal's health problems.) In contrast to past practice, Derby says, all animals are neutered before adoption.
PACCA says PSPCA wants to get back the animal-control contract, now worth almost $3 million, it surrendered in 2002. PSPCA's Nelson denies he wants the contract back, but told me he submitted a proposal "at the request of the Health Department." Health Department Executive Deputy Commissioner Joseph Cronauer says the PSPCA bid was unsolicited.
Nelson says his main concern is that PACCA is providing "poor health and medical care."
PSPCA sends me pictures of dogs pulled out of PACCA with an abscess or an open wound; PACCA responds with a photo of a dead dog refused medical attention at PSPCA.
PSPCA continues to cooperate with PACCA, says Nelson, taking about 1,800 animals to adopt out last year. About two-thirds arrived with health problems, he says.
"If 66 percent of the animals are rife with infection and problems," she wasn't told, says Derby. PSPCA, she fires back, regards fleas or ear mites in kittens as reasons to reject animals for adoption. Nelson denies that and has told PACCA he needs reimbursement for treating sick animals PACCA sends to him.
On and on the tail-chasing goes, wasting time and energy that would be better spent on animal welfare. Even as they fight like cats and dogs, they all say their first concern is the animals; yet animals are playing second fiddle to ego or fundraising or public relations or private tantrums. It's become an emotional tit-for-tat.
Last Thursday, PSPCA Board President Richard Sperry sent a letter to the PACCA board suggesting a meeting to review complaints and evidence against PACCA.
I hope the meeting results in a unity of purpose to protect and save suffering animals.
That's the goal, right? *
E-mail stubyko@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5977. For recent columns:
go.philly.com/byko.
Philadelphia Daily News
THE GOAL OF making Philadelphia a "no-kill city" for homeless animals within a decade - articulated with hope in 2004 - has stalled, partly because of dogfights between two leading shelters.
That's the opinion of Nathan Winograd, a national expert on no-kill shelters, who believes snarling between the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) and the Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Agency (PACCA) can be deadly to homeless dogs and cats.
The enmity went public last week, when in an Action News report PSPCA charged PACCA with neglect of some animals in its care. In large-volume operations, I know, sadly, that sometimes can happen.
PACCA's role is to collect strays and animals in Philadelphia that have been surrendered by owners, to treat them and to try to find homes for them. PSPCA's role is to investigate cruelty complaints, to provide medical care to animals and to offer adoptions to the public. Some of the animals it adopts out come from PACCA.
After revealing that PACCA was a House of Horrors for animals in 2004, I've attended most PACCA board meetings, so I have an inside, if one-sided, view of relations between PACCA and PSPCA. They were not always rosy, but soured sometime after PSPCA hired Howard Nelson as its CEO last March.
Winograd was hired by PACCA in 2005 to analyze the problem-plagued agency, to suggest remedies and lay out a road map to "no-kill" status.
While PACCA was on a good trajectory for a few years, it now has stalled, says Winograd, who is a zealous animal advocate. He has no dog in this fight and criticizes both PSPCA and PACCA.
Progress has stalled partly because of warfare between the two agencies, says Winograd, but also because of "complacency" of PACCA leadership about killing animals, and a lack of oversight that's allowed "poor care to creep back into the agency."
Complacency "couldn't be further from the truth," bristles PACCA Board President Dana Spain-Smith, who just sold her business to devote more time to the PAWS Old City adoption center that opened last month. (PACCA's donor-funded arm is called PAWS, the Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society.)
At PACCA board meetings, I see no "complacency" with the kill rate, reported monthly. Last year, 60 percent of the animals were saved. It's still not enough, but in 2005, the year PACCA was reorganized, the save rate was 39 percent. It was less than 20 percent before that.
As to poor care and shelter cleanliness, those are problems - the product of PACCA's too-small budget and staff. PACCA CEO Tara Derby admits she has adopted out animals with "upper respiratory infection, or kennel cough. We send them home with antibiotics prescribed by the veterinarian staff." (From adopters' complaints I have seen, I believe medicine is not always provided, though that may be because the adoption counselor was not aware of the animal's health problems.) In contrast to past practice, Derby says, all animals are neutered before adoption.
PACCA says PSPCA wants to get back the animal-control contract, now worth almost $3 million, it surrendered in 2002. PSPCA's Nelson denies he wants the contract back, but told me he submitted a proposal "at the request of the Health Department." Health Department Executive Deputy Commissioner Joseph Cronauer says the PSPCA bid was unsolicited.
Nelson says his main concern is that PACCA is providing "poor health and medical care."
PSPCA sends me pictures of dogs pulled out of PACCA with an abscess or an open wound; PACCA responds with a photo of a dead dog refused medical attention at PSPCA.
PSPCA continues to cooperate with PACCA, says Nelson, taking about 1,800 animals to adopt out last year. About two-thirds arrived with health problems, he says.
"If 66 percent of the animals are rife with infection and problems," she wasn't told, says Derby. PSPCA, she fires back, regards fleas or ear mites in kittens as reasons to reject animals for adoption. Nelson denies that and has told PACCA he needs reimbursement for treating sick animals PACCA sends to him.
On and on the tail-chasing goes, wasting time and energy that would be better spent on animal welfare. Even as they fight like cats and dogs, they all say their first concern is the animals; yet animals are playing second fiddle to ego or fundraising or public relations or private tantrums. It's become an emotional tit-for-tat.
Last Thursday, PSPCA Board President Richard Sperry sent a letter to the PACCA board suggesting a meeting to review complaints and evidence against PACCA.
I hope the meeting results in a unity of purpose to protect and save suffering animals.
That's the goal, right? *
E-mail stubyko@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5977. For recent columns:
go.philly.com/byko.
I look forward to learning much here