Compassionate Director is often listed last in the eleven but it really is the most important element of the NKE. If the shelter does not have a Compassionate Director – a hard working, compassionate animal control, shelter or executive director that is disconcerted when a dog or cat that is healthy or treatable is killed in their facility, - the other 10 programs simply will not be successful. Efforts are reduced to going through the motions but results – saving lives - will either not improve or will only slightly improve. This is where one person makes all the difference in the world.

There are signs that a director lacks compassion – but you need to look beyond a person that might appear to be professional, nice or polite. One employee who worked outside the office of the Executive Director (ED) of a large shelter organization tells this story “the shelter manager and photographer would arrive to take a photo of the Executive Director for the newsletter. They would pose the ED and he would gingerly take the dog or cat for the pose. There was no interaction between the ED and the animal. Often the photographer would need to say – hold the animal closer. When the photo session was over the ED would stretch out his hands with the animal and demand that someone ‘take this’ and get me the lint brush”. Does this describe a Compassionate Director? If he can’t stand to hold them – he certainly doesn’t have the passion to save them.

Directors lacking compassion are content in placing the blame for killing on EVERYTHING but themselves - their abilities or lack of ability. They will say things like … there are simply too many animals for the available homes (“pet overpopulation”), the shelter is not given adequate funding by local government or charitable contributions to get the job done without killing, or they have public safety obligations and the animals are in too bad of a condition to do anything else but kill them. A big sign of a director lacking compassion is that their save rates are not improving from one year to the next.

Since compassion is not a skill that can be learned – the director that lacks this quality needs to be replaced. Bottom line - this person can not do their job of saving lives with the skill sets they possess. Others in top management may need to go too because they have learned to be ineffective. No real progress will be made as long as they remain.

Livingston County is an excellent example of what a difference a Compassionate Director makes. The prior director gave every cat and dog 14 days to be adopted and then killed them even though there were empty cages. She justified the actions insisting it was necessary to control disease. She explained liability concerns as to why volunteers should not be used and she could find every excuse under the sun as to why it was necessary to keep things status quo.

October 2010 the new director of animal control and the shelter started at Livingston County – Debbie Oberle. She wasn’t given any more funding but she walked in the door with a life saving mission and has accomplished saving lives in just the first year. Debbie instituted a volunteer program, the shelter has adoption events, public friendly hours, they offer low cost spay/neuter to low income residents. Often the cages are full but now the shelter’s atmosphere is friendly and caring. When she needs to make space in the shelter they have different discounts or promotions to get the animals into a good home. All the things her predecessor said were impossible. Debbie had to institute process changes at the county to allow her to undertake various programs – she just did it – no excuses. She provided leadership. Some staff followed her leadership some were replaced. Livingston County residents and their County Board of Commissioners are proud of their shelter now.

A telling characteristic of a Compassionate Director - they are NEVER satisfied with their results. They want to do more and be better. They want more than anything to see every animal in their care alive and happy in a new home.

Eight shelters are responsible for killing 50% of the dogs and cats killed in Michigan shelters in 2010.  For a listing go to www.michiganpetfund.org.

Although many will argue high kill rates are due to lack of
money, shelter space, irresponsible pet owners, pet overpopulation, bad condition of the animals brought to the shelter…..the
truth is that many of Michigan’s shelters conduct their operations the same way
they have for the last 20, 30 even 50 years.   

In Livingston County, we have witnessed a COMPLETE
turn-around at the county shelter with new shelter director Debbie
Oberle.  In 2009, ½ of the animals that entered the shelter were
killed.  We expect that in 2011 the shelter report will reveal – with one
full year of operation under her belt that Livingston County will be close to
saving 90% of the animals that enter the shelter.  The county didn’t increase
the budget, the shelter didn’t get larger, and people didn’t wake up one day
and become better pet owners – no – Ms. Oberle just started incorporating
modern programs with a passion of saving lives.

Citizens in Livingston County in 2009 went to the County
Commission and demanded change and accountability of their tax dollars at the
shelter.  They are now getting it. The
questions is - - - will other communities demand accountability of their tax
dollars and will those who contribute to animal welfare not for profit shelters
demand accountability for their donations?  Or is the status quo – killing
innocent homeless cats and dogs acceptable?

“No-kill” is a rallying cry; a slogan that defines a movement.  The term “no-kill” clearly and powerfully protests the status quo - - -that being the killing of savable animals.  At the same time, it describes a new approach to animal sheltering and a new commitment to saving lives within animal welfare organizations and communities.  So what does the Michigan Pet Alliance mean by the term “no-kill”?  We use the Maddie’s Fund definition which is saving both healthy and treatable dogs and cats, reserving euthanasia only for unhealthy and untreatable animals.  You can find the full definition on our website.

Some organizations call themselves “no-kill” while at the same time they “select” which homeless animals they take into their care or close their doors when they are full.  These rescues and shelters are more accurately Adoption Guarantee organizations.

Other shelters, either by law or charter have no choice in what animals come through their doors - they must accept them all - - - whether there is room for them or not.  These are the organizations which should rightly wear the moniker of “no-kill” if they can meet the litmus test.  With an overpopulation of companion animals in Michigan it takes a real commitment to work towards a “no-kill” status and a REAL ACHIEVEMENT to meet the criteria.

Status quo is not only an ethical question - - - it is just bad government for those municipal shelters that euthanize as a solution to overpopulation.  We have been euthanizing animals in shelters for over 60 years and have not solved the over population problem.  Einstein described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  We must hold our governments accountable in solving the pet overpopulation problem with solutions that work.

The Michigan Pet Fund Alliance has worked with the Oakland Pet Adoption Center (Oakland County Animal Control) for the last 5 years.  The county committed to working to become a “no-kill” shelter.  It has not been easy and it has not happened overnight but they are just about there and will be there by our established goal of 2010.

We as an animal welfare community and pet lovers need to commit to changing the status quo.  We need to commit to collaborating with each other.  We need to keep focused on a vision where no healthy or treatable animal is euthanized and pour our energies into achieving the goal of a “no-kill” state by holding our governments responsible for solutions that work.

We welcome your comments in creating a “no-kill” state for Michigan and encourage all shelters to adopt Maddie’s definitions, so we can begin to speak the same language.