The Dallas Morning News Metro Section carries an update on changes at the animal shelter. Shelter staff have been making changes for some time and some of those have been as a result of attention raised by individuals opposed to the city's use of carbon monoxide euthanasia.
 
The American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States recognize two forms of euthanasia as humane: sodium pentobarbital injection and carbon monoxide inhalation. Both groups recognize the latter method conditionally because of past abuses, the greater chance of mistakes, and its use being limited to animals without respiratory difficulties. The Garland shelter uses both methods and operates strictly within the recommended and legal conditions.
 
One line from the article has been oft repeated by the News but I know of no evidence to support the claim originally made by DMN Problem Solver Katie Fairbank: "[A] Dallas Morning News investigation revealed that young, sick or elderly cats and dogs had been gassed in violation of state law." She delivered a list of claims to shelter staff but never sought their answers, proceeding to publication right away. Had she checked, she would have learned that department staff members were only able to find one instance of improper euthanasia, which was documented in a memo to Council and the city manager: "After reviewing the records from 2007 provided by the media, there does appear to be one instance of an animal younger than four months of age that was euthanized by respiration of carbon monoxide. It was euthanized by a Shelter Attendant who is no longer employed by the City of Garland."
 
I commented earlier that I understood that the shelter would transition to injection-only euthanasia very early next year based on comments by others in authority. I misunderstood and the policy is as documented in the memo linked above and as covered in the article below.
 
In negotiations, both parties seek to reach a resolution upon which both can agree. To successfully reach an agreement, both sides usually have to move toward common ground. If either or both parties refuse or cannot reach that common ground a stalemate results. These issues surrounding the animal shelter seem to have settled to where there is insufficient common ground. The shelter uses euthanasia because there is not enough room or resources to hold all animals indefinitely or until they are adopted. The same is true for all shelters, especially now. The major organizations that set the standards agree that the two methods used are humane. Protesters, some local and others not, claim that one of the methods is inhumane and needs to be abandoned.
 
I don't see any common ground so I expect the stalemate to continue for the foreseeable future.
 

From the Dallas Morning News:

Shift to lethal injections for animals on target

12:00 AM CST on Sunday, December 6, 2009
By RAY LESZCYNSKI / The Dallas Morning News
rleszcynski@dallasnews.com
 
Garland Animal Services officials say they're on target to meet a goal of shifting the euthanization of 3,000 animals from gas to lethal injection next year.
 
But the gas chamber will still be the final destination for about 1,000 animals at the Garland animal shelter.
 
In an Oct. 1 memorandum, city health director Richard Briley said that by 2010, only vicious dogs, feral cats, wild animals or other animals that present a significant danger to shelter staff would be gassed. Two days later, Mayor Ron Jones said he envisioned "in the near future to be euthanizing by injection only."
 
To date, there is no directive to further limit a process that is legal but has nonetheless brought controversy upon the city.
 
Jason Chessher, the city's environmental health administrator, predicts that carbon monoxide gas will be used on fewer than 20 percent of the animals euthanized at the shelter beginning Jan. 1. The decision will be made on an individual basis, rather than by breed.
 
"The driving factor there is whether staff can handle that animal," said Chessher, who oversees the shelter.
 
From the start, that plan has not satisfied those who oppose the gassing of animals.
 
Council meetings have been picketed outside City Hall and met with spoken and written criticism of euthanasia policy inside council chambers. Scrutiny on the shelter increased dramatically in September, after a Dallas Morning News investigation revealed that young, sick or elderly cats and dogs had been gassed in violation of state law.
 
Jones said in September that method of euthanasia was the lone unsettled issue between the city and the opponents. But clearly, a deeper rift now exists – evidenced by the forming of the group Garland Citizens for the Reform of the Animal Shelter.
 
"Frankly, we don't trust the shelter staff to make the right decisions," said Dr. John Pippin, a Dallas cardiologist and group spokesman.
 
Garland is by far the largest Texas city that still uses a gas chamber. The method is state-approved and, the city believes, no less humane than lethal injection.
 
"I will not allow anything inhumane to be done in my watch," Briley said. "We do not in any way feel the use of carbon monoxide is inhumane."
 
The city has seen a 50 percent spike in the number of dogs it takes in since 2002. Most of the change is an influx of breeds that by city ordinance can only be released back to the owner, like pit bulls.
 
Chessher said in the months since converting to injection-only, two Richardson shelter staffers had been hospitalized because of animal attacks during the euthanasia process and that Garland staff would not be subjected to similar hazards.
 
Briley said that a transition period was needed to renovate the euthanasia area because two-thirds of the condemned animals are presently gassed. Lighting, plumbing, flooring and cages were updated, he said, to meet state standards. The city's bid process also factored into the timetable.
 
"It would have been a lot easier on us if we would have said 'we'll start tomorrow,' " Briley said.
 
The expanded Animal Services Advisory Committee met Nov. 20 and elected former Garland Health Director and 35-year health professional Pat Fowler as its chairman.
 
Fowler points to Garland's 1960s animal facility as the "oldest shelter anywhere." He envisions Garland following the lead of Irving, which is building a $7 million shelter, and other cities that have either built or renovated recently, including Dallas, Plano and Richardson.
 
"They've really made a commitment to the animals and animal owners," Fowler said. "I think the time has come for Garland to make a commitment for a new shelter."
 
Chessher agrees: "It's a dog pound. We need a shelter."
 
Council members say the city will not consider another bond project until at least 2013. Opponents say that's too long to wait for reforms, in euthanasia and elsewhere.
 
Garland resident Michelle Ferrer testified at a recent city council meeting that the return rate of the 438 animals the center released to rescue groups is zero, but that staff does not work with volunteer and rescue groups as actively as do other cities.
 
Lee Lutz of Garland testified before council that the city has yet to follow up on an ASPCA offer of free training in safe animal handling, compassion fatigue, stress management and networking.
 
"The things that need to be done could be done with the shelter where it is now and how it is now with some policy adjustments," Pippin said.
 
Briley said a new shelter would present more areas for open viewing and adoptions and more opportunities for volunteers. But it wouldn't be a cure-all.
 
"Our largest issue in Garland is irresponsible pet ownership. We can never keep up with that," Briley said.
 
Fowler said his committee's role is to advise the council and to make sure Animal Services is operating within state law. He sees the euthanasia and adoption policies as being within the committee's advisory scope, perhaps as early as its Jan. 15 meeting.
 
About a dozen residents attended the first posted public meeting of the Animal Services Advisory Committee. State law requires the board to meet three times a year, but Ferrer told the council more needs to be done.
 
"Quarterly for one hour is not a resource for us to address all these animal issues," she said.