Return to Table of Contents

This text may not be edited or altered, and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without permission. For editorial licensing of the pictures or text, please contact ZUMA Press at (949) 494.7704 or e-mail Info@zReportage.com.

'No kill' May Be Future of S.A.S

11/21/2004

Text by © Lisa Sandberg/San Antonio Express-News/ZUMA Press

     San Antonio leaders, responding to widespread outrage over the mass slaughter of dogs and cats at the city animal pound, vow to improve conditions and seek a "no-kill" system that someday will save most of the pets.

     In doing so, they must reverse the "catch-and-kill" approach supported by managers of the pound and decades of neglect that turned the shelter into one of the country's deadliest for stray and unwanted animals.

     Pet lovers by the hundreds demanded changes at the pound last week after the San Antonio Express-News exposed outdated practices at the shelter, which this year will gas nearly 50,000 dogs and cats to death — more per capita than any other major city in the country.

     Mayor Ed Garza, known for walking his two Labradors at Woodlawn Lake, said the pound was stuck in the "dark ages" and he added that he'd use the last months of his term to steer San Antonio in the direction of a "best class" city for animal care.

     "This needs to be a priority," said the mayor, whose term expires in June.Garza said he'd like to see Animal Care and Control's advisory board come up with a plan for San Antonio to become a no-kill city, a place where healthy adoptable animals aren't euthanized.

     Garza's top aide, Interim City Manager Rolando Bono, agreed and said his staff was looking at best practices that would make the pound more progressive.

     Bono said he'd consider turning Animal Care and Control into a stand-alone agency, with its top official reporting directly to him.

     San Antonio long has been accused of foot-dragging at the 60-year-old pound, which was lambasted three years ago for its practices in a report by the National Animal Control Association.

     The pound's director, veterinarian William Lammers, told the newspaper he was surprised his staff didn't follow the association's recommendations to, among other things, stop gassing puppies and kittens, whose lungs may not be able to absorb enough carbon dioxide to kill them, and to verify that gassed animals were dead before carting them off to a landfill.

     Failing to follow the lead of other cities, the San Antonio pound doesn't embrace volunteers or foster families to save companion animals.

     While other cities aggressively promote adoptions, cages in the adoption room here often sit empty for days. While other cities euthanize with lethal injections, San Antonio uses the gas chambers.

     The litany of problems goes on. The national pet euthanasia rate has fallen about 80 percent over the last two decades, yet San Antonio's rate has nearly doubled during that time.

     San Antonio has an efficient system for rounding up animals to euthanize, but it devotes few resources to the most effective method for reducing the number of unwanted animals — spay and neuter programs.

     The city employs two people to staff a free, low cost spay/neuter clinic.

     Coverage of the pound sparked a week of criticism, culminating Saturday morning with a protest outside the pound in Brackenridge Park that drew about 100 people in the rain.

     Many of the protesters said they'd waited years for the city to pay attention to the conditions.

     "The system has to change," John Anderson said.

     Hundreds of e-mail messages and phone calls poured into the newspaper and City Hall offices last week.

     "They want something done," said Tina Blanco, who as the mayor's correspondence secretary found herself talking to many of the callers.

     Despite the mayor's wishes, city officials with direct oversight of the pound deflected criticism by stating the pound was accomplishing its mission.

     "It's doing its job," said Frances Gonzalez, an assistant city manager. "The mission of that facility is a public health mission."

     In a memo sent to the mayor and the City Council early in the week, Metro Health Director Fernando Guerra defended the chamber for its "humane advantages." He insisted the agency had implemented the recommendations made in the 2001 animal-control report.

     "Impounded animals are handled in accordance with these accepted animal control procedures. All supervisors uphold these standards and in turn require implementation by all kennel attendants and animal care officers," Guerra wrote.

     Softening his stance at week's end, Guerra said he'd be willing to consider switching to lethal injection if the community felt strongly about the issue.

     And he said he "couldn't guarantee that every one of the handlers" was following what he said were clearly laid-out handling procedures.

     He added that San Antonio wasn't in a position to emulate the best practices adopted by other cities.

     "The resources do not exist in this community to do the optimal," he said.

     "I can tell you that the psycho, social and economic conditions are very different in San Antonio. You can't compare in any way San Diego with the city of San Antonio. Even trying to compare us with Dallas and Houston, there are very significant differences. They have a much greater economic base and philanthropic support to address (animal control) issues," the health director said.

     Councilman Julian Castro, a mayoral candidate, noted that other cities with equal or greater socio-economic problems had managed to attack the root causes of animal overpopulation.

     He said San Antonio seemed to suffer from "a sense of paralysis" when it came to finding solutions to the issue of abandoned animals.

     New York City euthanized 27,000 fewer animals than San Antonio last year. Ed Boks, a leader of the "no kill" movement, said he accepted the top position at New York City's Animal Control precisely to rob communities around the country of the excuse 'we can't do it.'

     If we can do it in New York, Boks said, it can be done anywhere.

     Austin has reduced its kill rate by 32 percent in the seven years since city leaders there adopted a comprehensive plan to eliminate the need to kill healthy animals that display no behavioral problems, said Dorinda Pulliam, director of Austin's animal control facility.

     Though Austin recently lost 10 percent of its staff to budget cuts, it has made up for it in part by bringing in volunteers, who contribute about 19,000 hours of labor a year.

     San Antonio has reduced its pound staff by 8.5 percent in recent years, and several San Antonio councilmen said they'd support restoring funds to turn things around.

     "Apparently we're not doing the job a lot of people thought we were," Councilman Chip Haass said.

     Kathryn Bice, executive director of the Humane Society of Bexar County, said she was drafting a proposal that would enable the city to adopt lethal injection for most animals within 90 days.

     She said she was also urging the city to visit progressive animal control facilities around the country before finalizing plans for the city's $12 million animal pound that is slated to open on the Southwest Side in 2007.

     The community will get a chance to speak on the issue at a town hall meeting Tuesday at 7 p.m. at the SBC Technology Center at St. Mary's University.

     Inside the pound, meanwhile, beleaguered city employees say changes have been slow in coming, despite all the publicity. Puppies and kittens are still being gassed, they say, and cages are still going into the chamber packed with animals.

     This text may not be edited or altered, and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without permission. For editorial licensing of the pictures or text, please contact ZUMA Press at (949) 494.7704 or e-mail Info@zReportage.com.

Download The Story

Return to Table of Contents