“In theory, SAPA’s a great idea,” said Kelly Walls, a local activist who works with Homeward Bound Dog Rescue. “But they came on board and they really were not prepared to deal with the number of animals that their contract required for them to pull. They didn’t really have the infrastructure. And people thought because there was some success with the program in Austin with Austin Pets Alive that it would equally translate to success here in San Antonio, and that has not always been true. SAPA infrastructure has basically been crumbling since day one.”
Walls, along with other animal rescuers who have been paying attention to Pets Alive’s struggles, have expressed concern that its focus on getting San Antonio’s no-kill level up has caused them to move animals into foster homes despite real concerns about the animals’ behavior and health.
During the City Council meeting on Wednesday, ACS promised to look into the circumstances surrounding a dog named Wonton. The dog, according to documents supplied to the Rivard Report, was fostered out by Pets Alive to a family with a 3-year-old child in September of 2015.
In an apparently unprovoked attack, the dog bit the child on the back of a hand. Though the wound was not severe, the child required stitches and the foster family returned Wonton to Pets Alive with a request that he not be euthanized, though they noted that he did not seem to do well around kids.
In December, the dog was fostered out again, this time to a family with a 7-year-old child. In another seemingly unprovoked attack, Wonton bit the child on the back of the neck. When the animal was turned into ACS, Pets Alive declined to pull him again. It’s unclear what happened to Wonton, but Urrutia said on Thursday that ACS would investigate the case.
Criticisms about the nonprofit’s ability to manage its large number of animals are
not new. In 2012, shortly after Pets Alive set up shop in San Antonio, an activist and volunteer took video from inside the kitten ward at its Marbach clinic.
The video shows sick kittens, eyes crusted shut, nestled alongside apparently healthy littermates. Shortly after the video was released, a researcher with PETA filed a complaint with the city, alleging a high mortality rate among the kittens under SAPA’s care.
At the time, Pets Alive responded to the videos and allegations with an acknowledgement that they were having growing pains, but noted that it is not unusual for motherless kittens to die at relatively high rates, even with excellent care. One employee said the video was taken out of context during a late-night visit. Later, an unannounced visit by ACS inspectors concluded in a report that the animals in Pets Alive’s care were healthy.
Since then, former volunteers have continued to allege that Pets Alive sometimes provides incomplete medical care for sick and injured foster animals because of lack of funds, raising questions about how it prioritizes the animals that it takes in. If Pets Alive takes in only, or even primarily, the animals that need extra money and more resources, they might have a hard time effectively treating all of those animals and reaching sustainability.
Many rescue organizations attempt to balance their budgets by taking in fewer expensive cases, and filling the rest of their spots with more easily-adoptable animals that will bring in adoption fees without massive expenditures. But this is fundamentally at odds with Pets Alive’s mission to save the animals that other adopters and organizations have passed over.
Seamus Nelson, who works at the San Antonio Humane Society and is District 1’s representative on the ACS board, agrees with some animal rights advocates who think that Pets Alive needs to be more strategic in how they allocate their resources.
“I’m not suggesting that these pets needing medical attention don’t deserve a chance,” Nelson said. “They definitely need a chance. But when you’re talking about the sustainability of an organization, if that’s what’s dragging you down and that’s what you’re hemorrhaging resources into, how many pets are you not saving because of the number of resources you’ve put into this one? I think that’s an important thing to weigh out.”
As Pets Alive struggles to right its financial situation, questions will likely continue about what it can do to fulfill its mission in a city still striving to be no-kill. What is certain, City Council agreed on Thursday, is that a broader conversation about the sustainability of San Antonio’s no-kill status is needed.
“The main problem of course is human behavior,” Mayor Ivy Taylor said on Wednesday. “We are needing a larger discussion on what our goals are related to animals. … Public safety is our top priority.
.)
