Animal Welfare Professionals

We are a "Friends of" organization who pays for all the vetting need of the dogs and cats in the city animal control facility.  Our policy has always been we do all this AFTER the animal has a committed adopter.  We aren't keen on spending a lot of money on an animal only to have it euthanized.  The current city adminestration wants us to start vetting the animals prior to adoption.  We are OK with that but want to have some sort of a legally binding agreement or contract with the city that if the animal we spend money on dies, gets lost, gets euthanized then the city will reimburse my group for expenses.  Does anyone have a form along those lines?  We have no control over what happens to the animals or who they go to when adopted.    A similar recent case is of a cat that was at animal control for many weeks.  We recently agreed to have the cat vetted and paid for the rabies vaccination, ear mite medication and office visit to the tune of $81.   The owner was found the day after we took the cat to the vet.  The owner wants the cat back and from what I can tell, we are going to be out the vet expenses.  We are a small group, not flush with funding and this doesn't sit well with me.    I know vetting prior to adoption encourages people to take the animal home that day but what if the dog/cat isn't adopted.  I'm just frustrated with trying to do right by the animals and still protect our limited funds for animals going to new homes.

What I'm hearing from your question is that you feel that money spent on animals being adopted to new homes is money better spent compared to money spent on animals who are reunited with their owners or animals who end up needing to be euthanized for one reason or another. I would challenge you to consider if you really believe that's true and why. I'm a staff veterinarian at an animal control and we treat animals all the time that aren't adopted and I don't consider it a waste because it's what's best for the animals. Frankly, I'm happy if I treat an ear infection while an animal is on a stray hold and it goes home because who knows if the ears would have gotten treated otherwise AND being reunited with owners is the best outcome for most dogs that come in as strays - it's better to go home with people they know.  I can't have animals under my care who are suffering because they're not receiving appropriate medical care. Often we're talking about spectrum of care or palliative care to keep animals comfortable while we wait to see what their outcome will be, but simply not treating isn't a viable option. The only things we wait to treat until we have adopters are major surgery (like orthopedics) and heartworm treatment - partly because of the cost, as you said, but also because of the lengthy recovery periods that are better off doing with the dog in a long term home. 

We are a "Friends of" organization who pays for all the vetting need of the dogs and cats in the city animal control facility.  Our policy has always been we do all this AFTER the animal has a committed adopter.  We aren't keen on spending a lot of money on an animal only to have it euthanized.  The current city adminestration wants us to start vetting the animals prior to adoption.  We are OK with that but want to have some sort of a legally binding agreement or contract with the city that if the animal we spend money on dies, gets lost, gets euthanized then the city will reimburse my group for expenses.  Does anyone have a form along those lines?  We have no control over what happens to the animals or who they go to when adopted.    A similar recent case is of a cat that was at animal control for many weeks.  We recently agreed to have the cat vetted and paid for the rabies vaccination, ear mite medication and office visit to the tune of $81.   The owner was found the day after we took the cat to the vet.  The owner wants the cat back and from what I can tell, we are going to be out the vet expenses.  We are a small group, not flush with funding and this doesn't sit well with me.    I know vetting prior to adoption encourages people to take the animal home that day but what if the dog/cat isn't adopted.  I'm just frustrated with trying to do right by the animals and still protect our limited funds for animals going to new homes.

Thanks for making me take another look at this from a different point of view.  To clarify, an animal that is sick or injured gets taken to the veterinarian ASAP and I don't have an issue with spending that money.    It's the standard spay/neuter/rabies/SNAP test that I question doing before anyone is interested in the animal.   The euthanasia rate at this animal control facility is low enough for it to be considered no-kill and they city intends to keep it that way, ie: only serious illness/injuries or aggression leads to euthanasia .     We agreed to go ahead and take care of the vetting needs of the dogs there now so that they may be fostered or adopted ASAP.  The city wants the facility empty so that much needed repairs can be done.   One of the dogs is heartworm positive.  We started him on Doxy and Heartgard but with no adopter, I hesitate to cover the additional $750-$900 cost of treatment.    We pay for heartworm treatments for the dogs who have an adopter willing to administer the meds, take the dog to vet appointments and follow the protocol for heartworm treatment.     

Does your shelter spay/neuter/vaccinate/SNAP test the cats and dogs upon intake or is there some deciding factor for when it gets taken care of? 

The cat I referred to is still at animal control.  No one has come to claim it after saying they would.   

What I'm hearing from your question is that you feel that money spent on animals being adopted to new homes is money better spent compared to money spent on animals who are reunited with their owners or animals who end up needing to be euthanized for one reason or another. I would challenge you to consider if you really believe that's true and why. I'm a staff veterinarian at an animal control and we treat animals all the time that aren't adopted and I don't consider it a waste because it's what's best for the animals. Frankly, I'm happy if I treat an ear infection while an animal is on a stray hold and it goes home because who knows if the ears would have gotten treated otherwise AND being reunited with owners is the best outcome for most dogs that come in as strays - it's better to go home with people they know.  I can't have animals under my care who are suffering because they're not receiving appropriate medical care. Often we're talking about spectrum of care or palliative care to keep animals comfortable while we wait to see what their outcome will be, but simply not treating isn't a viable option. The only things we wait to treat until we have adopters are major surgery (like orthopedics) and heartworm treatment - partly because of the cost, as you said, but also because of the lengthy recovery periods that are better off doing with the dog in a long term home. 

We are a "Friends of" organization who pays for all the vetting need of the dogs and cats in the city animal control facility.  Our policy has always been we do all this AFTER the animal has a committed adopter.  We aren't keen on spending a lot of money on an animal only to have it euthanized.  The current city adminestration wants us to start vetting the animals prior to adoption.  We are OK with that but want to have some sort of a legally binding agreement or contract with the city that if the animal we spend money on dies, gets lost, gets euthanized then the city will reimburse my group for expenses.  Does anyone have a form along those lines?  We have no control over what happens to the animals or who they go to when adopted.    A similar recent case is of a cat that was at animal control for many weeks.  We recently agreed to have the cat vetted and paid for the rabies vaccination, ear mite medication and office visit to the tune of $81.   The owner was found the day after we took the cat to the vet.  The owner wants the cat back and from what I can tell, we are going to be out the vet expenses.  We are a small group, not flush with funding and this doesn't sit well with me.    I know vetting prior to adoption encourages people to take the animal home that day but what if the dog/cat isn't adopted.  I'm just frustrated with trying to do right by the animals and still protect our limited funds for animals going to new homes.

We vaccinate for distemper/parvo/parainfluenza/bordetella and deworm on intake since those are at risk for spread within the shelter. We rabies vaccinate and spay/neuter and heartworm test once animals are available for adoption (i.e. once they've completed their stray hold and behaviorally/medically cleared for adoption). So this sounds like sort of an in between of the options you're looking at. I'm not spaying/neutering animals who may still be returned to owners or who may be euthanized for aggression, but also not waiting for them to be adopted. Once they're available for adoption we get all of that done as soon as possible so that, ideally, when someone wants to adopt them it's already done and we don't have to worry about trying to make sure they come back for spay/neuter. 

Thanks for making me take another look at this from a different point of view.  To clarify, an animal that is sick or injured gets taken to the veterinarian ASAP and I don't have an issue with spending that money.    It's the standard spay/neuter/rabies/SNAP test that I question doing before anyone is interested in the animal.   The euthanasia rate at this animal control facility is low enough for it to be considered no-kill and they city intends to keep it that way, ie: only serious illness/injuries or aggression leads to euthanasia .     We agreed to go ahead and take care of the vetting needs of the dogs there now so that they may be fostered or adopted ASAP.  The city wants the facility empty so that much needed repairs can be done.   One of the dogs is heartworm positive.  We started him on Doxy and Heartgard but with no adopter, I hesitate to cover the additional $750-$900 cost of treatment.    We pay for heartworm treatments for the dogs who have an adopter willing to administer the meds, take the dog to vet appointments and follow the protocol for heartworm treatment.     

Does your shelter spay/neuter/vaccinate/SNAP test the cats and dogs upon intake or is there some deciding factor for when it gets taken care of? 

The cat I referred to is still at animal control.  No one has come to claim it after saying they would.   

What I'm hearing from your question is that you feel that money spent on animals being adopted to new homes is money better spent compared to money spent on animals who are reunited with their owners or animals who end up needing to be euthanized for one reason or another. I would challenge you to consider if you really believe that's true and why. I'm a staff veterinarian at an animal control and we treat animals all the time that aren't adopted and I don't consider it a waste because it's what's best for the animals. Frankly, I'm happy if I treat an ear infection while an animal is on a stray hold and it goes home because who knows if the ears would have gotten treated otherwise AND being reunited with owners is the best outcome for most dogs that come in as strays - it's better to go home with people they know.  I can't have animals under my care who are suffering because they're not receiving appropriate medical care. Often we're talking about spectrum of care or palliative care to keep animals comfortable while we wait to see what their outcome will be, but simply not treating isn't a viable option. The only things we wait to treat until we have adopters are major surgery (like orthopedics) and heartworm treatment - partly because of the cost, as you said, but also because of the lengthy recovery periods that are better off doing with the dog in a long term home. 

We are a "Friends of" organization who pays for all the vetting need of the dogs and cats in the city animal control facility.  Our policy has always been we do all this AFTER the animal has a committed adopter.  We aren't keen on spending a lot of money on an animal only to have it euthanized.  The current city adminestration wants us to start vetting the animals prior to adoption.  We are OK with that but want to have some sort of a legally binding agreement or contract with the city that if the animal we spend money on dies, gets lost, gets euthanized then the city will reimburse my group for expenses.  Does anyone have a form along those lines?  We have no control over what happens to the animals or who they go to when adopted.    A similar recent case is of a cat that was at animal control for many weeks.  We recently agreed to have the cat vetted and paid for the rabies vaccination, ear mite medication and office visit to the tune of $81.   The owner was found the day after we took the cat to the vet.  The owner wants the cat back and from what I can tell, we are going to be out the vet expenses.  We are a small group, not flush with funding and this doesn't sit well with me.    I know vetting prior to adoption encourages people to take the animal home that day but what if the dog/cat isn't adopted.  I'm just frustrated with trying to do right by the animals and still protect our limited funds for animals going to new homes.

We are a "Friends of" organization who pays for all the vetting need of the dogs and cats in the city animal control facility.  Our policy has always been we do all this AFTER the animal has a committed adopter.  We aren't keen on spending a lot of money on an animal only to have it euthanized.  The current city adminestration wants us to start vetting the animals prior to adoption.  We are OK with that but want to have some sort of a legally binding agreement or contract with the city that if the animal we spend money on dies, gets lost, gets euthanized then the city will reimburse my group for expenses.  Does anyone have a form along those lines?  We have no control over what happens to the animals or who they go to when adopted.    A similar recent case is of a cat that was at animal control for many weeks.  We recently agreed to have the cat vetted and paid for the rabies vaccination, ear mite medication and office visit to the tune of $81.   The owner was found the day after we took the cat to the vet.  The owner wants the cat back and from what I can tell, we are going to be out the vet expenses.  We are a small group, not flush with funding and this doesn't sit well with me.    I know vetting prior to adoption encourages people to take the animal home that day but what if the dog/cat isn't adopted.  I'm just frustrated with trying to do right by the animals and still protect our limited funds for animals going to new homes.

Hello Sharon, 

I just wanted to reply based on our experience at our shelter. This whole process starts at our surrender/intake department. We require (depending on circumstance) a surrender fee to cover an intake exam/shots at least. This helps curb some of the costs coming into the shelter, although I know this isn't always an option, especially for state-run shelters. Fortunately, our clinic is attached to our building that does our medical. However, it is still a significant cost since we neuter/spay, vaccinate, and microchip before our pets go up for adoption.  For situations like strays with the potential to reclaim, we typically vaccinate on intake if possible. Still, we have a policy to thoroughly scan the pet on intake and ensure we post on our local missing pet forum to see if we can find the owner. If the pet stays in long enough for our stray hold and longer, we issue a reclaim fee depending on the situation. This isn't always the case because we also have the animal's best interest at play and follow up by providing resources that the owner may need. I understand funding is challenging as we are a privately owned non-profit and rely on donations from our community to accommodate homeless pets. Partnering with a clinic that can offer discounts for partnering with them can help relieve medical situations. I am unsure of your marketing, but seeing you are "Friends of Horseshoe Bend Animals," I suggest looking at "Friends of DACC" in Michigan. They are a non-profit that helps support our largest municipal shelter in Detroit, and they are having a lot of similar struggles and others that have that support helping them overcome them. Maybe taking the time to look into their program and see if there is any way to help you would be beneficial. I will put the link to their website below! 

https://www.friendsofdacc.org/

I hope I helped a little, and don't get discouraged. Animal welfare is all about finding new ways to help our animals and the community. 

We are a "Friends of" organization who pays for all the vetting need of the dogs and cats in the city animal control facility.  Our policy has always been we do all this AFTER the animal has a committed adopter.  We aren't keen on spending a lot of money on an animal only to have it euthanized.  The current city adminestration wants us to start vetting the animals prior to adoption.  We are OK with that but want to have some sort of a legally binding agreement or contract with the city that if the animal we spend money on dies, gets lost, gets euthanized then the city will reimburse my group for expenses.  Does anyone have a form along those lines?  We have no control over what happens to the animals or who they go to when adopted.    A similar recent case is of a cat that was at animal control for many weeks.  We recently agreed to have the cat vetted and paid for the rabies vaccination, ear mite medication and office visit to the tune of $81.   The owner was found the day after we took the cat to the vet.  The owner wants the cat back and from what I can tell, we are going to be out the vet expenses.  We are a small group, not flush with funding and this doesn't sit well with me.    I know vetting prior to adoption encourages people to take the animal home that day but what if the dog/cat isn't adopted.  I'm just frustrated with trying to do right by the animals and still protect our limited funds for animals going to new homes.

Thanks for your response to my dilemma.   We do not have the resources your shelter has but neither do we have the number of animals your place cares for.  Your programs for volunteers and enrichment for the animals is outstanding!  I think if we had some assurances from the city (who controls the animal control facility) that they would not euthanize fully vetted animals due to space issues, we would be more inclined to pre-vet the animals before they have a committed adopter.  There was a turn over of the elected officials and city employees here in 2022 and I think we are all pretty much on the same page now as far as animal care.    I've been involved with animal shelters and animal welfare issues since 1990 and I'm not going to bail out now.   Thanks again for taking the time to respond!   

Hello Sharon, 

I just wanted to reply based on our experience at our shelter. This whole process starts at our surrender/intake department. We require (depending on circumstance) a surrender fee to cover an intake exam/shots at least. This helps curb some of the costs coming into the shelter, although I know this isn't always an option, especially for state-run shelters. Fortunately, our clinic is attached to our building that does our medical. However, it is still a significant cost since we neuter/spay, vaccinate, and microchip before our pets go up for adoption.  For situations like strays with the potential to reclaim, we typically vaccinate on intake if possible. Still, we have a policy to thoroughly scan the pet on intake and ensure we post on our local missing pet forum to see if we can find the owner. If the pet stays in long enough for our stray hold and longer, we issue a reclaim fee depending on the situation. This isn't always the case because we also have the animal's best interest at play and follow up by providing resources that the owner may need. I understand funding is challenging as we are a privately owned non-profit and rely on donations from our community to accommodate homeless pets. Partnering with a clinic that can offer discounts for partnering with them can help relieve medical situations. I am unsure of your marketing, but seeing you are "Friends of Horseshoe Bend Animals," I suggest looking at "Friends of DACC" in Michigan. They are a non-profit that helps support our largest municipal shelter in Detroit, and they are having a lot of similar struggles and others that have that support helping them overcome them. Maybe taking the time to look into their program and see if there is any way to help you would be beneficial. I will put the link to their website below! 

https://www.friendsofdacc.org/

I hope I helped a little, and don't get discouraged. Animal welfare is all about finding new ways to help our animals and the community. 

We are a "Friends of" organization who pays for all the vetting need of the dogs and cats in the city animal control facility.  Our policy has always been we do all this AFTER the animal has a committed adopter.  We aren't keen on spending a lot of money on an animal only to have it euthanized.  The current city adminestration wants us to start vetting the animals prior to adoption.  We are OK with that but want to have some sort of a legally binding agreement or contract with the city that if the animal we spend money on dies, gets lost, gets euthanized then the city will reimburse my group for expenses.  Does anyone have a form along those lines?  We have no control over what happens to the animals or who they go to when adopted.    A similar recent case is of a cat that was at animal control for many weeks.  We recently agreed to have the cat vetted and paid for the rabies vaccination, ear mite medication and office visit to the tune of $81.   The owner was found the day after we took the cat to the vet.  The owner wants the cat back and from what I can tell, we are going to be out the vet expenses.  We are a small group, not flush with funding and this doesn't sit well with me.    I know vetting prior to adoption encourages people to take the animal home that day but what if the dog/cat isn't adopted.  I'm just frustrated with trying to do right by the animals and still protect our limited funds for animals going to new homes.

We are a "Friends of" organization who pays for all the vetting need of the dogs and cats in the city animal control facility.  Our policy has always been we do all this AFTER the animal has a committed adopter.  We aren't keen on spending a lot of money on an animal only to have it euthanized.  The current city adminestration wants us to start vetting the animals prior to adoption.  We are OK with that but want to have some sort of a legally binding agreement or contract with the city that if the animal we spend money on dies, gets lost, gets euthanized then the city will reimburse my group for expenses.  Does anyone have a form along those lines?  We have no control over what happens to the animals or who they go to when adopted.    A similar recent case is of a cat that was at animal control for many weeks.  We recently agreed to have the cat vetted and paid for the rabies vaccination, ear mite medication and office visit to the tune of $81.   The owner was found the day after we took the cat to the vet.  The owner wants the cat back and from what I can tell, we are going to be out the vet expenses.  We are a small group, not flush with funding and this doesn't sit well with me.    I know vetting prior to adoption encourages people to take the animal home that day but what if the dog/cat isn't adopted.  I'm just frustrated with trying to do right by the animals and still protect our limited funds for animals going to new homes.

Hi Sharon -

While I think that ideally all animals would start vetting right away on intake, I think there are mid-point steps along the way for you to try things out.

Firstly, the issue of using limited resources on animals who might not have live placement in the end (putting aside the RTO situation you and Rebecca addressed well), is real. But, putting vetting into animals more quickly might allow for faster live placements and therefore more live placements. As a municipal organization, I think it would be challenging for us to enter into the kind of agreement you're suggesting (just based on governmental purchasing and contract requirements).

But I have a suggestion: can you work on a scoring system to identify "fast track" animals? Animals that you are relatively certain will be adopted and adopted quickly? If you can vet those prior to an adoption commitment, perhaps you will see animals move through the system more quickly, and you can change the score that qualifies an animal for pre-vetting.  For example, a score might be higher for a popular breed, size, or absence of known health concerns.  While this may seem "unfair" to the other animals, they will have more staff time when the animals who are quick to adopt can leave same-day, rather than staying extra time waiting for vetting.

I'm certain other folks have resources for fast-track/slow-track scoring systems - maybe even in the Maddie's library!

Best of luck!

We are a "Friends of" organization who pays for all the vetting need of the dogs and cats in the city animal control facility.  Our policy has always been we do all this AFTER the animal has a committed adopter.  We aren't keen on spending a lot of money on an animal only to have it euthanized.  The current city adminestration wants us to start vetting the animals prior to adoption.  We are OK with that but want to have some sort of a legally binding agreement or contract with the city that if the animal we spend money on dies, gets lost, gets euthanized then the city will reimburse my group for expenses.  Does anyone have a form along those lines?  We have no control over what happens to the animals or who they go to when adopted.    A similar recent case is of a cat that was at animal control for many weeks.  We recently agreed to have the cat vetted and paid for the rabies vaccination, ear mite medication and office visit to the tune of $81.   The owner was found the day after we took the cat to the vet.  The owner wants the cat back and from what I can tell, we are going to be out the vet expenses.  We are a small group, not flush with funding and this doesn't sit well with me.    I know vetting prior to adoption encourages people to take the animal home that day but what if the dog/cat isn't adopted.  I'm just frustrated with trying to do right by the animals and still protect our limited funds for animals going to new homes.

We are a "Friends of" organization who pays for all the vetting need of the dogs and cats in the city animal control facility.  Our policy has always been we do all this AFTER the animal has a committed adopter.  We aren't keen on spending a lot of money on an animal only to have it euthanized.  The current city adminestration wants us to start vetting the animals prior to adoption.  We are OK with that but want to have some sort of a legally binding agreement or contract with the city that if the animal we spend money on dies, gets lost, gets euthanized then the city will reimburse my group for expenses.  Does anyone have a form along those lines?  We have no control over what happens to the animals or who they go to when adopted.    A similar recent case is of a cat that was at animal control for many weeks.  We recently agreed to have the cat vetted and paid for the rabies vaccination, ear mite medication and office visit to the tune of $81.   The owner was found the day after we took the cat to the vet.  The owner wants the cat back and from what I can tell, we are going to be out the vet expenses.  We are a small group, not flush with funding and this doesn't sit well with me.    I know vetting prior to adoption encourages people to take the animal home that day but what if the dog/cat isn't adopted.  I'm just frustrated with trying to do right by the animals and still protect our limited funds for animals going to new homes.