Chapel Hill News
August 31, 2003
Editorial

Humane Society points way to change

Anyone looking to the Humane Society to exonerate the animal 
shelter operations of the Orange County Animal Protection Society 
would have been disappointed by the long-awaited Humane Society 
report released last week. 

The report to the Orange County commissioners set out a long 
litany of ills at the shelter off Airport Road, among them:

-- Poor cleaning and sanitation practices.

-- Non-existent ventilation and air flow in animal areas.

-- A badly designed system for receiving incoming animals and 
properly managing their health, resulting in excessively long 
average stays in the shelter.

-- Lack of a standardized system for isolating sick or injured 
animals.

-- Cluttered and poorly designed facilities.

-- Poor building maintenance: "In general, it appeared as though 
maintenance issues were routinely ignored."

-- A "disorganized and unstructured" animal flow process, lack of 
proper training for staff and lack of standard procedures for 
routine operations.

The Humane Society didn't say so, but the general impression 
presented by the report is of an animal shelter that is dirty, 
poorly managed and unhealthy for animals. Clearly, there is a lot 
of room for improvement.

The question is, should the county scrap its contract with the 
APS and run the animal shelter itself? The Humane Society report 
doesn't address that question, but a separate report by the 
county staff outlines what it would take for the county to take 
over the shelter. That would include hiring a staff of 19 people, 
compared to 16 now employed by APS, and changes in services from 
the current APS operation. Among the changes not providing --
low-cost spay-neuter services for the public, as provided now by 
APS, and reduction in hours for emergency animal rescue services.

The cost to the county of operating a shelter itself, according 
to the report, would be $1.1 million in the first year (including 
start-up expenses) and $964,943 the second year. By comparison, 
the county now pays APS $428,818 annually to operate the shelter.

Given those numbers, we think the county commissioners should 
look long and hard before getting into the animal shelter 
business. The county would be paying twice what it does now for 
the service. It would be getting into an area about which it 
knows very little, when an infrastructure already exists to 
provide that service. And there are unknowns, such as a projected 
reduction in volunteer involvement, that could end up reducing 
the quality of service to citizens (and animals).

While the Humane Society assessment of APS was critical, it was 
not entirely negative. It credited the organization for positive 
adoption procedures, such as counseling sessions with 
pet-adopters, and cited positive feedback from people who had 
adopted pets. The most serious shortcomings had to do with animal 
health and sanitation issues, which APS has begun addressing. 
Many of the concerns had to do with policies and procedures, 
which we daresay the Humane Society would find at many animal 
shelters around the state. Society officials cautioned that the 
report should be regarded as a tool for change, not a weapon for 
attack. 

The report recommends creating a task force to review its 
recommendations and set priorities for improvements. That's 
probably a good idea, although the recommended study period of 
four months is too long. The shelter already has been studied for 
a year. There are a lot of entities with a stake in this issue -- 
APS, its many critics, the town of Chapel Hill, which contracts 
with APS for animal control. But most of all, for the sake of the 
animals, the commissioners need to get on with making decisions 
about the future of animal care and protection in the community. 
________________________________________________________________