Guest-Op: County shouldn’t build its own animal shelter

By Keely Lewis
Special to the Advance

Running an animal shelter the size of Palm Valley Animal Society is dangerous and messy and heartbreaking, and the cost of doing it right is high. Whenever public entities decide that saving money is more important than saving lives, bad things happen. Hidalgo County’s recent exploration into building and running its own intake facility potentially puts it on the path to a worst-case scenario. Meanwhile, McAllen’s recent reinvention of its animal welfare approach shows that smarter strategies can accomplish both goals.

The article in last Sunday’s issue of The Monitor (July 16), “Hidalgo County mulls severing ties with PVAS, building its own animal shelter,” painted a negative picture of PVAS when in reality, the Valley’s largest and longest-running non-profit shelter is one of the only bright spots in Texas’s bleak animal welfare history.

Nowhere in the article was there any mention of lifesaving, adopting, rescuing, fostering, not even a mention of the word humane. If the county’s primary goal truly is to operate “at the lowest cost of dealing with unattended animals,” massive euthanasia would be the order of the day. Any county official who says differently is naïve about the county’s ability to build a high-functioning intake facility and run it humanely at less than it pays PVAS now.

In full transparency, our operating expenses in 2022 totaled $5,029,445. We took in 12,599 animals that year, not counting the 946 we helped rehome outside of the shelter at no cost to our entities. Our revenue for that same period totaled just short of $4,670,000, with almost $1.9 million from grants, donations, adoption, events and other fundraising efforts. We requested additional funds from our partner entities to make up this shortfall, due mainly to sharply rising utility and supply costs. While the county originally agreed to pay $250,000, ultimately it did not.

The county’s own feasibility study is proof that entities should not attempt this high-wire act alone. When it was identified as having the second highest death rate of any shelter nationwide, Weslaco became the focus of a campaign to force necessary change. Along with many other cities, Pharr, San Juan and Alamo contract with Weslaco for their animal control, all entities that formerly worked with PVAS and opted for a cheaper alternative.

Cameron County’s record is even worse. Last year, more than 85% of animals arriving at their facility were killed within days of their arrival, meaning these two facilities alone accounted for 8,200 animal deaths in the RGV last year.

Yes, they save money, but the budgets for these two provide for only a short stray hold and one life-ending shot, often before owners can locate their pets and reclaim them. Their inclusion in this feasibility study should raise red flags about any recommendations that the county should abandon its proven partner.

In addition to taking in thousands of animals annually from the county’s unincorporated areas, which we’ve been doing for decades, and finding the majority of them lifelines, PVAS offers some of the largest vaccine clinics in the U.S. free of charge to all county residents, provides free services for helping rehome lost and found animals, and regularly gives out thousands of pounds of dog and cat food along with flea and heartworm preventatives free to Valley residents.

The county leaving PVAS and going off to do its own thing would be a huge step backward for animal welfare in the upper Valley. No other local organization has the vast resources, connections, experienced staff and know-how that PVAS has from decades in the trenches. Our ongoing efforts directly address many of the county’s public safety concerns.

The reasons given for the county’s dissatisfaction don’t sound nearly compelling enough to sever ties. We did have service issues during COVID, along with everyone else, but we did the best we could throughout the pandemic. Severe flooding can temporarily impact our ability to intake animals, but we reopen as soon as humanely possible. We’ve struggled to make ends meet post-COVID because the cost of utilities, payroll and everything else went up while our contracted prices stayed the same.

In spite of this, PVAS annually achieves more live outcomes through adoptions and rescues than all other Valley companion animal organizations combined.

As disheartening as it was to learn of the county’s mindset by reading about it in the newspaper, I know in my heart that PVAS remains a valuable partner worth having and appreciating. Nothing has excited me more than the recent shift in attitude and efforts from the dynamic leadership at the city of McAllen.

They’ve renamed their animal control department Animal Care Services, but that’s just the beginning. They’ve changed their protocols for picking up strays and responding to suspected animal abuse, making smarter decisions in the field. Educating their community and pet owners about caring for their pets and how to handle strays will help reduce the overcrowding at PVAS while keeping more pets in their homes.

If the county is looking for models to emulate, they need look no further than their largest city. Our PVAS board is proud to remain partners with a city this progressive about the treatment of its animals, one that encourages its residents to be part of the solution in conjunction with its experienced partner shelter. If only all our entities had this pro-active attitude, the plight of lost and unwanted animals in the RGV would be much improved.

The county’s time and resources would be far better spent partnering with McAllen, Edinburg and others, working closely with PVAS, possibly pooling resources for a state-of-the-art shelter on PVAS’ centrally located 10-acre Trenton property that could include a public-facing, low-cost spay-neuter clinic.

If cost saving truly is the driving force behind Hidalgo County’s exploration into building its own facility, it hey end up spending as much or more than it does with PVAS annually. But that’s assuming they’ll have a functioning shelter, with live outcomes part of their priority. There’s only one way they for sure can achieve the “lowest cost,” and it has nothing to do with lifesaving, only killing. Ultimately, that’s a high price to pay.
---------------
Keely Lewis is a retired journalism teacher and board secretary of Palm Valley Animal Society.