Shelter: Six Years of Decreased Intake

San Angelo City Council will discuss dog intake policies in its upcoming meeting.  The City of San Angelo Animal Shelter contracts with Concho Valley PAWS for adoption and veterinary services.  Together these organizations have choked off shelter intake in a series of changes over the last six years.  Council's background packet has historical statistics on shelter intake.  Missing is the just completed fiscal year.

In FY24 the Shelter took in 2,259 pets, a decrease of 642 or 22% fewer than the year before.  PAWS began assisting the Shelter via a contractor relationship in FY18 (when the shelter took in 5,914 pets). During PAWS tenure City Animal Shelter intake decreased 62% or by 3,655 pets.  That's a drop of 300 pets per month.

Anyone dealing with the Animal Shelter or Concho Valley PAWS hears how "data driven" they are, but rarely see much, if any data, especially on spay/neuter. 

Contrast PAWS characterization of the meeting in an e-mail to supporters:

City Council to Consider Eliminating

Critical Life Saving Programs for Animals

With city management's recommendation:

...referring the intake policies to the originating committee, including Animal Services staff and Concho Valley PAWS leadership.

San Angelo Live, often a shelter/PAWS mouthpiece, wrote about referring to the originating committee but failed to include that Concho Valley PAWS is a key part of that committee.  They later ran a piece specifically on PAWS concerns.

Live somehow missed Animal Shelter service cuts to the tax-paying public (while their budget grew tremendously).  Pets Alive and Best Friends Animal Society drove new shelter initiatives which shifted responsibility to "the community."

"Community sheltering" started years after the city instituted mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pets.  A chronic lack of enforcement meant litters of puppies and kittens contributed to shelter overcrowding.  The City Shelter added to the overpopulation by returning thousands of unaltered pets to owners.

Neither moving to assisted living nor death are valid reasons for the shelter to accept a pet.  The number of loose dogs in our community grew significantly under "managed intake."  In January Shelter Chief Morgan Chegwidden called it a crisis as "pet owners are dumping their animals at the Animal Shelter or letting them loose."

The recent dog attack on an Animal Control Officer arose from a home that had ten dogs, many unaltered.  The owner had citations for both failure to spay/neuter and not having a permit for having at least seven dogs.  Social media reports indicate the owner tried to surrender some dogs to the shelter to remedy their situation but was refused.  The city has no documents relative to this report.  The horrific nature of the attack on a professional may have been the impetus for this agenda item.  If a trained officer could be taken down what chance would a regular citizen have?

Concho Valley PAWS is mobilizing its supporters to turn out for public comment.  It's e-mail outreach included: 

Dog intake diversion does not mean dog intake is "closed" but instead allows support alternatives that prevent shelter overcrowding and euthanasia for space.

The reality for many residents has been that the shelter is closed to them for their particular need.  The City ran a story on shelter dog "Amelia" who'd been turned out into the streets:

Amelia’s “mom” passed away several years ago after a long battle with cancer. It appears her “dad” attempted daily care for Amelia while struggling with his own health but was ultimately hospitalized and permanently moved to assisted living.  No one was coming for Amelia.

And she did not qualify for owner surrender under city shelter policies.  The story read like an indictment of managed intake.

It took years to get into this sad and disturbing situation.  And it will take years to get out of it.  An overwhelming public comment session from Concho Valley PAWS followers will likely not help City Council deal with underlying issues or help them paint a picture that balances the needs of people/pet owners with the needs of pets currently in the shelter alongside the need for safe city streets.  

The need for this picture has been a long time coming.  Delegate this to an "originating committee" and it may never get painted.

Update 11-30-24:  ConchoValleyHomepage ran a story on PAWS outreach but noted that PAWS leadership is part of the solution.  The story did not show the dramatic decline in shelter intake over the last six years.

Mayor Brenda Gunter's State of the City address included public safety but not Animal Services.  She did talk a lot about public-private partnerships.  Might one involve Animal Services?