The false debate about 'open' vs 'managed' admission animal shelters

A shelter or animal control agency that responsibly manages its intake flow is still an open admission shelter.

Whether you are for or against managed admission, or an apologist for a so-called shelter that proudly calls itself "open admission" as it marches pets from the admission desk to the kill room, or an avid no-kill advocate, it's still highly likely that you speak as if  "open admission" and "managed admission" shelters are, by definition, two different things.

But that's not true. Shelters that fulfill the legal or contractual requirements of their municipality as to what animals they are required to admit, and that additionally have provisions for emergency intake for animals in immediate need, are open admission shelters.

That doesn't change if they work with pet owners to delay intake until the shelter has room, the animal has had vaccinations, or a foster home opens up. Nor does it change if they instead work with the pet owner to try to help them keep the pet, or to find a home for the pet themselves.

Evidence is mounting that the long list of policies and programs we term "managed" open admission save lives, help pet owners in need, get pets needed veterinary and basic care, and do so without increasing pet abandonment nor diverting intake to other facilities.

That's why those of us who support this sea change in animal sheltering should stop letting advocates of outdated sheltering practices choose the terms that describe it.

Managed open admission works. Unmanaged open admission is irresponsible and inhumane. They are both open admission.

 

Comments

[GW]

Before I read this post, I wasn’t familiar with the term “managed” admissions. I only knew “open” and “limited,” so I thank you for putting this on my radar. I read the hyperlinked entry and managed admissions policies do sound like they have great potential to help save lives. I’m glad to hear they’ve been successful in the two communities cited.
Still, as part of a team running a city shelter in a very low-income and under-resourced area, I’d be cautious and careful about implementing a waiting list. Even though our staff is trained to offer non-judgmental help to anyone surrendering an animal, we saw the number of strays skyrocket when we did away, for a time, with the overnight drop-box. When the drop-box was reinstated, those numbers returned to their previous levels. I’m not saying it won’t work and I agree though that we need to keep thinking outside the box, but populations even within the same country can sometimes respond very differently.
I have to say it does bum me out to read such snarky comments about those who work in municipal, so-called open admissions shelters: “…an apologist for a so-called shelter that proudly calls itself "open admission" as it marches pets from the admission desk to the kill room.”

[Stephen Hopper]

Strange world we live in where those who claim to care so much about animals cling to the dogma of "There's just too many, nothing can be done", so let's not even try.. In fact, let's oppose those who do.." The sheer fact that what we have been doing since creating the first shelter hasn't worked..
The true definition of insane.