Wow, talk an about an about face. The self serving claim would be concerning if it weren't for the fact that it's so easily shown to be untrue, and the claims have as much credibility as me saying that Godzilla stopped by for breakfast.
Here's the real timeline to clear up the fantasy that the MN CAPA page tries to twist into CAPA being successful in Delaware. When you see the numbers we've put into perspective with the events and their timing as they occurred, it's obvious that Delaware's euthanasia numbers were dropping before CAPA ever went into effect. The numbers and dates speak for themselves.
While the "No-Kill" movement tries to claim Delaware's success, and even highlight 2010 in their graphic further below, does anyone really think they are Dr. Who and CAPA can hop into a time machine and account for euthanasia statistics before CAPA even went into effect? All I can do is shake my head in disbelief that "No-Kill' propaganda has reached this new all-time low.
Really, didn't they realize that the general public could easily see through the lies by merely looking up the bill and seeing the core "No-Kill" provisions in CAPA didn't even begin until January 1, 2011, or do they merely think their followers are too dumb to figure it out. Either way, all I can say is shame on them for treating their followers like morons.
"Section 8. The provisions of Chapter 80, Title 3, §8002(a) and §8004(d)(ii) shall take effect on January 1, 2011." - Delaware SB280 - CAPA
NKD & MN CAPA Did Teach Us Something
The even stranger part is that by "No-Kill" highlighting the huge drop in euthanasia in 2010, they've also shown why government funded spay neuter programs are far more successful and cost effective than the "No-Kill" Scramble.
In fact, "No-Kill" can't even take credit that years that followed CAPA were a result of CAPA, since the timeline shows the drop had already begun before CAPA ever started, but after the state spay neuter program began. So I think that No-Kill Delaware and the MN CAPA page should be credited with showing that there is a less costly alternative to Nathan Winograd's version of "No-Kill" that doesn't require the shortcuts that allow suffering, or the warehousing that has bankrupted shelters like Safe Haven.
By posting statistics for our shelters, they've allowed us to see that the "No-Kill" shelters in our state aren't super sizing their adoption programs as No-Kill Delaware likes to profess, and many of them have in fact adopted out less animals year after year, especially if you look at the shelter sites for more recent statistics.
We're also able to see that transfers were occurring before CAPA, and while the transfers inched up some just after, the stats that I'm currently seeing on our shelter sites indicate that rescues are taking less transfers now. In fact, some of the rescues are even importing animals from Maryland (hopefully with the required veterinary certificates as they cross state lines).
You can also see the drop in intake as shelter doors shut to cats in the fall of 2011. I would imagine those closed doors that everyone knew would happen could be why the MN CAPA page has a final euthanasia number for 2012, but may not have wanted the world to see the drop in intake in the more detailed statistics that the doors on our shelters began to slam shut shortly after CAPA was implemented.
So really, what did CAPA accomplish - nothing except shelter financial losses, a new state office that will cost taxpayers $600,000 a year, and costly lawsuits & complaints.
Another Look At The Numbers
What we do know is that "No-Kill" is expensive. That it has and will continue to bankrupt shelters and continually tap the wallets of taxpayers. That's why Delaware is the only state to pass the "No-Kill" legislation. As horrid as CAPA has been for DE, other states see how much worse it would be for larger states.
RENO/WASHOE
And Nevada Humane can only continue to remain a viable entity for another 5-6 years based on the the losses they've sustained since the no-kill effort began.
Washoe/NHS - Intake 15,000.
2005 Combined Expenses - $5,347,996.
2010 Combined Expenses - $7,816,195.
Note - Nevada Humane has lost nearly $4.1 million since no-kill began.
Nevada Humane
$4.1 Million in Deficits Since No-Kill Effort Began 2006
2004 403,343.00
2005 2,168,793.00
2006 (1,000,367.00)
2007 (855,614.00)
2008 (237,365.00)
2009 (1,000,164.00)
2010 (293,971.00)
2011 (749,016.00)
Austin Animal Services
2008-09 $ 5,397,428
2009-10 $ 6,008,659
2010-11 $ 6,883,679
2011-12 $ 7,612,186
2012-13 $ 8.2 million
2013-14 $ 8.9 million proposed ($714,000 increase)
Compare the "No-Kill" numbers above to New Hampshire's statewide spay neuter program cost of $300-350,000 a year, or even Delaware's state spay neuter program at around $300,000 based on the statistics posted about the program by Delaware Animal Advocacy Guild recently, and it's clear that spay neuter is far more cost effective for states to pursue than "No-Kill's CAPA. In fact, the cost is only a fraction of the amount that "No-Kill" communities have seen their costs increase.
And the additional sign that New Hampshire's program has also been more successful that CAPA, is the fact that they actually have a shortage of dogs. That is what allows them to import dogs like the Safe Haven ones that were transported when Safe Haven failed. Yet Austin has closed doors when they have been overcrowded, which explains why their costs continue to increase.
I can't imagine why any legislator would pay nearly 10 times the costs of spay neuter programs like New Hampshire, especially when New Hampshire has been shown to be more effective given the fact that they didn't need to slam their doors shut like many of of the "No-Kill" communities.
Legislators need to take their fiduciary responsibility for the taxpayers seriously, and the fact is that New Hampshire's model should be what fiscally responsible legislators should be considering to lower pet overpopulation in their states. And legislators should be saying NO to the snake oil of the "No-Kill" movement called CAPA, especially since it is so ineffective that it requires it's leaders to claim successes of the past that weren't even related to their own failed product.
Update - From Committee Meeting in Minnesota 2/27/14
Here is a link to the Minnesota Committee Meeting where CAPA was discussed.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/audio/ls88/ag022714.asx
Delaware testimony in Minnesota began around the 1:17.5 minute mark
Jane Pierantozzi of Faithful Friends testified on behalf of CAPA in Minnesota at this meeting. It's apparent where Minnesota obtained their statistics that they've posted for Delaware. Yet again, the NK movement presented the fiction that CAPA decreased euthanasia rates since 2009, despite CAPA being implemented in 2011. And lastly, like Nathan Winograd, Ms. Pierantozzi points the finger at the larger national animal welfare organizations while her shelter took in less animals each year since CAPA was implemented as can be seen in the statistics above. Sorry, but I don't see where PETA is to blame when it was the "No-Kill" shelters choice to take in less animals that results in less adoptions. I guess blaming everyone else is the modus operandi of "No-Kill", so I can't say I was surprised by it.
She spoke about how statistics could be impacted by leadership at a shelter. So lets address this. What Ms. Pierantozzi didn't state in her testimony in Minnesota, was that according to the statistics provided by Minnesota, Faithful Friends took in 1,208 animals in 2009 before CAPA began. Yet they took in significantly less animals after CAPA was enacted - nearly half the animals 639 in 2010, and 864 animals in 2011. So contrary to the "No-Kill" movements claims that "No-Kill" shelters increase adoptions, the adoptions at Faithful Friends have in fact decreased. So yet again, we see "No-Kill" bash the shelter that take in the largest number of animals, while they sit back and take it easier by taking in less animals, proving the point that CAPA was merely a weapon of mass harassment.
Lastly, a legislator asked about the cat situation. Of course Ms. Pierantozzi just discussed ferals and didn't mention the fact that a large number of the cats not accepted at our animal shelters aren't feral and are actually abandoned pet cats which in some cases have been declawed and are defenseless. She also didn't address the fact that our residents are the ones that now have to foot the bill for the brood of cats born on their properties. While some of our residents may be more than willing and able to do that, it's still shameful that our state has shifted that burden onto the unlucky person where cats are dumped, and in many cases that's in rural and poor areas where the dumping won't be captured on video. The testimony also failed to mention that many areas have seen a significant increase in the cat population.
Ms. Pierantozzi also said New Hampshire stopped taking in feral cats, but this chart shows a significantly different story. It was a gradual 7 year process, so NH didn't just shut their doors to cats overnight. Let the numbers speak for themselves.
http://www.aspcapro.org/sites/pro/files/nh-summary_0.pdf
No vote was taken at this meeting, and it was discussed on some of the "No-Kill" sites that the bill would be on the next committee schedule, but to date it is not on that schedule. Let's hope Minnesota legislators realize that a bill that essentially slammed the doors of Delaware shelters shut is not good a good public safety/health decision, or a humane one for the abandoned animals that end up on the streets. And that they realize that shifting the burden from shelters onto the community, whether residents of that community have the resources or not, is not a solution.
