Winter 2010 - PAWS Chicago

Transparency in Animal Sheltering continued
> adoptable: is defined as any animal that is
healthy or treatable – from illness or injury.
Circling The Wagons Rather Than Changing
With The Times
Given the increasing and justified pressure from
the public to reduce the killing, it should surprise no
one that the traditional shelters go out of their way to
hide the truth of their impounded animals’ outcomes.
In addition to false oral representations by shelter personnel
that the pet will be placed in a wonderful home,
the illusion of saving lives is further carefully crafted
with such representations as “there is no time limit for
your pet’s stay in our shelter,” “we screen carefully to
make sure your pet finds a loving home,” and “we exert
our best efforts” to find the animal a home. These
statements mask the true nature of the kill shelter’s
operations, and that your pet may not find a home and
instead will be euthanized.
It’s What The Shelters Don’t Tell You That Can
Cost Your Pet His or Her Life
Many traditional shelters employ temperament
tests. At best, these tests were designed to evaluate behavior
so that issues can be remedied and to facilitate
matching animals with appropriate homes. Yet far too
often, temperament tests become an excuse to label
animals “unadoptable” and summarily put them to
death. For example, the SAFER test was created by
Emily Weiss and is one of the most common temperament
tests employed by shelters today. According to
Emily Weiss’ website, the purpose of this test is to help,
“animal welfare professionals all over the country
identify potential aggression and opportunities for
behavior modification – which ultimately leads to
more adoptions through appropriate placement.” This
test was not designed to snuff out the life of any animal.
Other tests, such as the Sue Sternberg test which
includes “food guarding” – taking food away from the
shelter animal while he or she is eating to determine
if the animal has any “aggressive” tendencies – have
been subject to intense criticism and their validity,
reliability and scientific basis, if any, have been called
into serious question.
Further issues of temperament testing reliability
and validity include the fact that traditional shelters
often employ these tests soon after the animal arrives
at the facility when the animal is in unfamiliar and
frightening surroundings, having recently been lost or
abandoned. In addition, some shelters give temperament
tests to animals too young for their personalities
to have developed. Even if the tests were otherwise
highly accurate in predicting behavior, under these
conditions, the results can yield false positives for
aggression.
The most heinous aspect of temperament testing
from a shelter transparency perspective is that many
shelters use them to label animals “unadoptable” and
euthanize them on that basis; then, they report to the
public their adoption rate for “adoptable” animals
only. This effectively excludes from reporting all of the
> As the public increasingly demands better
outcomes for shelter animals, some shelters
work harder and implement improved
programs to achieve better results for the
animals. Other shelters, work even harder
to conceal the truth.
animals who were labeled “unadoptable” and killed.
For example, a shelter may report that it saves “97% of
adoptable animals,” without disclosing what happened
to those labeled “unadoptable,” or what percentage
were given the death label. This categorical exclusion
from reporting for those labeled “unadoptable” deceptively
solidifies the illusion of success and is a fraud on
the public paid for with the lives of animals.
Continued on page 34
33