The illusion of transparency

There’s a very good reason why high-kill shelters only release their animal live-release stats once a year*. And why they are buried at the back of their glossy annual report, filled with page upon page of back-patting, and a few dozen case studies where the millions of dollars of donations actually resulted in a pet leaving alive out the front door, rather than as ash from the on-site crematorium.

And of course that reason is spin.

Throughout the year, when people enquire about hard-data kill rates they’re either banned entirely from social media pages or they’re given a blurb which reads something like;

“Yes, we acknowledge last year’s stats around (cats/dogs) left a lot to be desired. That is why this year we have put an enormous emphasis on saving the lives of our (cats/dogs) through implementing (foster care/increased rehoming/new facilities) and this will see many more (cats/dogs) saved than in previous years.”

And the questionee has no choice but to take that answer at face value, and the supporters of the organisation get to chatter in congratulations, and it takes from a few months through to a full year for anyone to be able to validate whether or not what was being said was in any way true.

Essentially, the pet-loving community who want to make a difference is stymied. It cannot take action as the problem is being heralded by the organisation as ‘solved’. Then, more than a year later when the results come out (most July 1st – June 30th Annual Reports aren’t released to the public until Oct/Nov) and the public again start asking questions, they’ll get an answer like;

“Yes, our last years’ kill rate was high, but that is old news. THIS year we have a whole host of new initiatives which are saving lives now.”

And the organisation effectively buys itself a whole ‘nuther year before it has to answer to the public again.

Once a year reporting also allows for the stats to be broken down in their most palatable form:

33% – returned
33% – rehomed
33% – killed

You’ll see this breakdown often in high-kill sheltering publications, because it doesn’t look so bad. But the truth it reveals is actually pretty disturbing.

33% returned is a terribly low amount. Studies have shown that 60% – 80% of dogs have owners looking for them and will go home should the pound offered proactive reclaim programs.

33% rehomed – 33% killed is also a terrible result. Killing as many pets as you save can only be deemed to be an abject failure on the part of the shelter (imagine any other industry celebrating that it failed as many times as they were successful).

By continuing to make any critics or concerned citizens constantly work with old data, the shelter can keep killing AND keep its reputation and social media spaces squeaky clean.

Combating the spin

An organisation who has nothing to hide will tell its public monthly how its intakes, reclaims, rehoming and kill rates are tracking. That allows the public to become involved immediately, and for alternatives to be found in real time, to save pets that would otherwise be killed. It allows an ongoing discussion about the origin of homeless pets, the reasons that they are killed, and genuinely work towards real tangible solutions.

If you follow the social media pages of shelters – especially if you’re a financial donor or bequestor – ask them. They should be willing to give you the stats around their operations for the previous month and be willing to answer your questions on such. ‘Annual Report, reporting’ is simply another form of Resistance, designed to keep killing behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. Don’t put up with it.




*That’s if they’re released at all. If you’re not getting a full intakes vs live release rate set of figures from your chosen organisation, either demand them, or stop supporting them immediately.




See also: Resistance is how a traditional, high kill pound or shelter defends the status quo when it realises that its community has turned against it.