June
2001
Adoptions
and the CACC: The Numbers Speak for Themselves
By Elizabeth Forel
|
|
|
As I opened the brochure for “Adoption Options”—a
seminar promoting shelter adoptions in Pennsylvania—I noticed that
one of the featured speakers was Marilyn Haggerty-Blohm, executive director
of the Center for Animal Care and Control (CACC), the animal control
facility in New York City. The event, which occurred in May, described
the CACC—i.e. Blohm’s methods—as having “dramatically
increased successful adoptions at the CACC” and Blohm as “a
national leader in this initiative.”
Huh? Did I read that correctly? Is this the same CACC, whose recently
published figures in the CACC’s Monthly Animal Activity Report
for the year 2000 actually showed that direct adoptions to the public
stayed pretty much the same from 1999 to 2000 and represented only 8.7
percent of intake. Wasn’t this the same Marilyn Haggerty-Blohm
who was appointed to this position by her friend Mayor Giuliani in 1996
after a career as a NYC government employee in solid waste management;
who had no previous shelter experience before she took the job; whose
already generous salary had recently been increased by 12 percent, while
the 2002 budget for the CACC had been decreased by 11 percent? Wasn’t
this the same Blohm who perhaps may be looking to position herself
in
a positive light now that her benefactor is leaving office? Or had
I somehow entered into an alternate universe?
Numbers manipulation is a relatively new practice utilized by shelters
that kill animals—most often animal control facilities, such as
the CACC, which contract to take in any and all animals. For most of
the 1990s the “No-Kill” movement had been gathering strength
and popularity. Sounds good on the surface—but the truth is somewhat
different. Some no-kill shelters fundraise by bragging that they never
kill any animals, often not admitting that they only take in animals
they consider to be adoptable and only when they have room. They let
someone else do the killing without ever looking back. Getting a black
eye, losing donations and being called “killers” by those
who do not know better, kill shelters soon learned to retaliate in an
equally deceptive way by manipulating adoption numbers. It works like
this: A shelter takes in 50,000 animals in a year, kills 40,000 and
adopts out 10,000. It would appear that only 20 percent of the animals
got adopted—not an impressive number. But if only 20,000 of those
50,000 animals were subjectively deemed “adoptable,” a shelter
could brag that they adopted out 50 percent (of adoptable animals)…big
difference. The balance—30,000 animals—become the “unadoptables” and
are not even factored into the equation.
In the end, with both “movements,” the so-called “unadoptable”
animal loses out. In the first case because he is not even considered
worthy of getting into the shelter. In the second case because he is
not even considered worthy of being put up for adoption. He is the forgotten
one…the one that under funded grassroots rescue groups often take
if he is not killed first.
A Closer Look at the Numbers
Statistics published by the CACC for 2000 indicate they took in
60,838 animals—up from 59,711 in 1999 and 54,380 in 1998; 45,203
animals were received by the shelters from the public and another 15,635
were brought in by the CACC rescue truck. Of those numbers, 5,280 were
adopted to the public, about the same as 1999; shelters and rescue groups
removed another 8,994—an impressive 31 percent increase from the
year before. The real heartbreaking number that the CACC does not want
the public to focus on is the number of animals killed. In 2000, it
was 41,207, an increase of 3.5 percent from 1999, which was an increase
of two percent from the year before. This represents a whopping 68 percent
of the total intake of animals. This is the number the grassroots animal
protection community must focus on—41,207 dead animals—113
per day—five per hour.
But back to the “Adoption Option” brochure and the claim that
the CACC under Haggerty-Blohm “dramatically increased successful
adoptions.” Wondering who composed the brochure, I spoke to Betsy
Saul, president of Petfinder.org, a co-sponsor of the event. She proudly
told me that she was the author and considered Blohm a leader in this
field. She also said that Blohm had told her that in 1998, the CACC
had increased adoptions by 38 percent, by another eight percent in ’99,
and by an additional two percent in 2000. But she was unable to tell
me 38 percent of what.
Wanting to give the CACC the opportunity to provide the numbers to
substantiate this claim, I left several messages asking for this information.
Finally,
I received a disingenuous, convoluted e-mail response, whose numbers
not only did not add up but did not agree with the “official” CACC
numbers submitted to the Department of Health. Percentages were used
to make claims, but the base numbers were missing. There appeared
to be an intentional effort to manipulate numbers.
For several recent months, I was a dedicated CACC volunteer, taking
digital pictures of animals in the adoption ward and posting them on
Petfinder.org, an amazing Internet organization that provides an excellent
adoption outlet for shelters and rescue groups. I simply wanted to
give
these animals a chance. Going to the shelter on a weekly basis was
not easy. I almost never saw the same animals twice. Once I questioned
what
happened to 12 cats I had photographed when two days later only one
was still listed. I was told that my query bordered on insubordination;
that eight of the cats had been euthanized and that if I wanted this
kind of information in the future I would have to officially request
it from their General Counsel. Fine, so I wouldn’t ask anymore—I
just wanted to get the animals out of there as quickly as possible.
But management would continue to make it difficult for any caring volunteer
to continue with this project.
In March, the CACC began using a new video camera that was intended
to photograph every animal in the shelter system and list the “adoptable”
ones on Petfinder.org. There were problems with the camera from its
inception. The photos posted on Petfinder.org were no longer close-ups;
they were very distorted, with bad resolution. In addition, the staff
who now take most of the pictures are instructed to put the cats in
plastic or wire mesh boxes to photograph them, which gives a bad message—i.e.
this cat is so wild, she has to be confined to a wire box to be photographed.
I tried to complain about this to management, but received no response.
I also asked that they refrain from listing some of the more menacing
or derogatory names on Petfinder’s that the animals’ former
people had given them, such as Bitch, Barco, TwoFace, Scarface, Devil
and Evil. Again, they ignored me. In the face of such lack of caring,
I resigned out of frustration.
What we have been doing in this city has not been working. The present
impound-and-kill system continues indefinitely because it is institutionalized,
politically safe and operates behind a curtain of secrecy. Our politicians
have been complicit in this tragedy, accepting the kill numbers as normal,
while not speaking out against this slaughter of the innocent.
We have an election in November and an opportunity to get a new and
caring mayor and City Council. It is up to all of us to speak up for
the animals and make it happen.
Elizabeth Forel is a long-time animal activist and is Director
of the Coalition for New York City Animals, Inc.
