Many Recommendations Point to More Euthanasia at Long Beach Animal Shelter

The following is an annotated list of the recommendations that the recent audit make that point toward more euthanasias. Each recommendation is followed by commentary by Stayin' Alive Long Beach.

Animal  Intake and Flow – Short-term Recommendations (Audit, Page 7)

• Make outcome decisions (i.e. transfer out or euthanasia) promptly to prevent suffering, while obeying existing laws such as the Hayden Law. (Bullet 6)

Stayin' Alive notes:  Transfers to other shelters and euthanasia are not the only possible outcomes for animals – relatively easy to implement changes in adoption policies and a foster program would have almost-immediate positive impact.

• With current resources ACS should not be taking on long term medical cases. Animals with long-term medical conditions should be found a medical foster or rescue. Housing animals long-term-in a shelter (typically beyond a two-week LOS) can lead to deterioration of behavior. If medical foster or rescue cannot be located, treatment decisions should be based on the ability to safely and humanely provide relief, prognosis of recovery, likelihood of placement, duration of treatment, expense and resources available. When adequate pain relief cannot be achieved, transfer to a facility that can meet the animal’s needs or humane euthanasia must be provided. (Bullet 7)

Stayin' Alive notes: LBACS doesn’t have a foster program. Without a foster program, the probability of finding medical fosters is small, which means that more animals will be euthanized. The way this recommendation is stated, “expense and resources” can be used as a rationale for euthanizing very treatable animals. We agree with the point that LBACS should not be taking on long-term medical cases, as it has problems addressing even basic humane conditions for animals at the shelter. However, the answer to this problem is to hire qualified leadership with expertise in lifesaving animal sheltering.
 
If LBACS had a viable adoption and foster program that moved healthy animals out of the shelter, they would be able to treat many of these animals. Sacramento ACS, a comparable shelter, does not choose euthanasia for its treatable animals and instead garners community support to get prompt and competent medical care for their animals with medical needs.  They do this because they are committed to meeting the Sacramento community’s expectations that they will have a humane, proactive, city-run shelter. You can see an example here: https://goo.gl/Y4ZoGz. 

Animal Intake and Flow – Long-term Recommendations (Audit, page 10)

• During the strategic planning process, stakeholders should decide if investment in behavior modification is a future priority. Until resources are allocated for behavior modification, fosters, or socialization, placing animals with a rescue should be a focus. If placement cannot be achieved, humane euthanasia should be considered to ensure the animals do not further deteriorate. (Bullet point 3)

Stayin' Alive notes: This recommendation again ties improvements in sheltering practices to increased resources and says that if placement with rescue organizations cannot be achieved, euthanasia should be considered. This provides a considerable loophole for the City to justify killing of animals because of a supposed lack of resources, when many of the audit’s recommendations can be achieved without substantial additional resources (e.g., shifting adoption hours to allow people to visit the shelter after work; reducing extended hold times and networking animals earlier and more). Note the recommendation doesn’t mention the implementation of a viable adoption program as a focus; instead, it talks about placing animals with rescue organizations, who have increased their intake from LBACS over the past four years and, as a result, are overworked and under-resourced.


​