City Considering Moving Town Lake Animal Center East

Hello and good morning:

On the issue of reducing the pet overpopulation I would agree, Dorinda put in place clear plans to reduce pet overpopulation in Austin. If the folks are right about this out of sight out of mind issue, there will be more animals killed at TLAC, maybe she thinks this will reduce pet overpopulation. However, I do not see any clear plans for more space for the animals at this new site, I don't see any plans, clear or otherwise, for increasing the number of TLAC 'approved" foster homes, and from some of what I have heard, Dorinda has recently gone a bit rabid and turned on her own foster program, as well as some local rescues, accusing several of them of cruelty and visiting and raiding them. This activity will definitely NOT in anyone's way of thinking ever increase the number of foster homes that TLAC so desperately needs. Remember, the kill rate has not gone down, but has remained stable. So much for this incredibly smart woman.

I think the animal shelter should be viewed like a business. Would you not locate the business of adopting cats and dogs in a location that is not closest to the clients you are trying to attract. I am a small business owner and the main criteria for a sucessful business is location plain and simple.

I do not know the facts about the demographics of who is most likely to adopt, but common sense leads me to believe the current shelter is much more convenient than the proposed one. Please contact your city council members and let them know we don't need to relocate the shelter.

Since 1990 I have adopted 13 dogs and 20 cats so my interests are behalf of our favorite four legged friends.

Thanks to everyone who has commented on this post. I am obviously not an expert, but I think it is an interesting topic, so I wanted to do a post on it, even though I don't have all the facts.

Personally, I will miss the shelter if it gets moved to the East. I recognize this is not a factor in the decision making process, but my wife and I visit the shelter about once every two weeks, largely because it is close to our home. We aren't set on adopting a dog, but if we found the perfect one, we probably would. We won't visit the new location nearly as often, as we seldom stray east of Pleasant Valley and would need to make a special trip.

Anyway, I hope this works out (lowers the kill rate) if the city decides to make this move, as it will be difficult to get that prime real estate back.

It's great to see so many people concerned about animals in Austin. I think one of the problems we have is a lack of facts. For example, the city keeps talking about the flooding issue. In 8 years as a volunteer, I can only remember 2 or 3 occassions when animals have needed to be moved, but I'm sure I'm not aware of every such event. How often is flooding really a concern? BTW, this is flooding from drainage problems, not flooding rising up from Town Lake and crossing Cesar Chavez because the shelter is in the 500-year floodplain.

The city has made it sound as if it would be significantly more expensive to rebuild at the current location and we just can't afford to do it. But the numbers I've seen only show a 200,000 difference. Their recent presentation at the AAC meeting made no mention of cost or feasibility of using the current site. We need to know the real cost difference and any other factors weighing against the current location.

The city keeps talking about the great programs and features they will have at the new shelter. If they think a dog park and dog trail are needed in east Austin, by all means put them in that site. You don't need the shelter there to do that. The outreach-type programs they are talking about should certainly be put in place whether the shelter is moved to that location or not. Emancipet, which does a huge number of spay/neuters that are helping to reduce our pet population, is currently located at that site. (They will have to find a new location if the shelter is moved there.) So spay/neuter services are already available in East Austin and at probably lower cost to the taxpayer than if the city provided those services directly.

This is not an East Austin vs West Austin debate. I prefer the current location, but there would be nothing wrong with a shelter in the heart of the most popular destination area in East Austin. Think of all the popular destinations that are less than 5 minutes from the current shelter and help draw visitors and volunteers to the shelter. What is the draw near the proposed location? The area is pretty barren. I would guess most passing traffic is airport-bound and unlikely to stop. Would you put your new retail business or restaurant in that location?

Finally, if the shelter does move to the proposed site. I hope the city plans to invest in a significant ongoing advertising campaign to promote the new location. Williamson county's new shelter is really struggling right now, in part because people aren't aware of their new location.

Hello all,

It's great to see folks having a robust discussion of the shelter-relocation issue on this site. It's a debate that many people have felt is needed on the issue, and it is critical to the success of a democracy.

After reviewing literally hundreds of pages of city public records on the relocation issue, it's the viewpoint of FixAustin.Org that moving the shelter to the City's eastern edge and out of its urban core will result in more animals dying at our pound. The City already kills more than 12,000 dogs and cats every year, as it has done for each of the last 6 years. And during the same period, the shelter's annual budget has increased from less than 3 million in 1999 to almost 5 million this year.

Our research does not support the move to the City's proposed location in any way. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of adoptions come from West and South Austin; the City's own population-growth figures project that the City will grow mostly to the south and north, not east; the City's own numbers show that the animals sheltered at TLAC do NOT primarily come from East Austin, nor do the majority of animals returned to owners, which come primarily from the south and west of Austin. Finally, the City can rebuild at TLAC's current location and address the flood-plain issues for the City's own estimate of $400,000--- roughly the same amount that the City has budgeted for art in the new shelter.

In any event, we encourage everyone to continue engaging in this debate and to learn as much as you can. The facts simply do not support the City's position-- even the City's own "facts."

And to the person who posted earlier that those against the shelter relocation represent only a marginalized minority, stop by FixAustin.Org and see for yourself the list of several hundred (and growing) Austinites who have signed a petition opposing the relocation. Indeed, the more people know the facts about the issue, the more they agree the move is a horrible, horrible idea.

Finally, it should be noted that the City has never once conducted any analysis of the impact of its proposed new site on adoptions, adopters, volunteers, visits, or kills. That's a fact.

Best regards,

FixAustin.Org

The city can't just suddenly decide to use the land for condos anyways. Read up on what it means to be "dedicated parkland" around here.

Of course, there's also the conspiracy theory that the city wants to move TLAC off the property so they can sell it to some overpriced condo developer for mucho $$$... but I won't go there..."

Ummmmm ya' just did and I, for one, think that it is a perfectly legit move on the city's part.

There is no doubt that these will become condos. How about, "The Doghouse on Town Lake" or "The Austonian...Terrier"or just "Old Seller"

Getting a pet from an Animal Shelter or rescue is the ***ONLY*** responsible way in the city of Austin to get a pet. We kill literally thousands of dogs and cats every year in this city.

Not knowing about the shelter if it is on another side of town is a poor argument because everyone who lives in any city in this country should know that it is bound to have an animal shelter. IMO they should move even further out of town and spend the extra money on doing tons of outreach to the people who live here and teach them not to kill defenseless animals.

Have you ever tried to make it to the shelter by closing time (read: rush hour)?

Yes, i have. And by bus, too. And you know what? With walking from the nearest route 3 stop on lamar (there are no bus stops near the shelter) and bus riding time, I was able to make it with 15 minutes to spare. it's called planning.

And i agree with Dan. I'd not even know about the shelter if it was that far east, again, because i ride the bus exclusively. While most people do not live downtown, it is a centralized location. Most people don't live on the east side either, and i don't see how putting a shelter there will improve the numbers on strays. I do think, OTOH, they need to build a new shelter and not so close to the river, as the flooding thing is bad and TLAC looks like it's on it's last leg, not to mention there needs to be more space for the dogs to run and for owners to get to know their prospective pet before they jump into an adoption.

For referance: I choose to ride the bus and not own a car, so that invalidates any "if you can't afford a car, you shouldn't have a pet" arguements.

>>Opponents of the plan say that the move would lead to lower adoption rates (and higher euthanasia rates) because the new location is more remote.

Translation: Lots of white Austinites are afraid to drive into East Austin.

This plan sounds great. And why not just finish extending the hike and bike trail so that the new location is near it too (after all 1st and Airport is about as close to the lake as the current shelter). And to those complaining about I-35. Let me introduce you to some roads. 183 east of I-35. MLK. Oltorf. Pleasant Valley. Amazingly, you can travel quickly and pleasantly east of I-35 without using I-35.

Eva, there are certainly shortcomings of the current location, but I think you understate the adoption rate issue. I adopted a dog there a year ago, and if it was that far east I'm not sure I would have gone there (or even known about it). I think there are just as many good homes for the dogs and cats at TLAC in west Austin as east Austin, and if you're talking about getting there before closing time, there's no way I'm going near I-35 at rush hour. Sure, nobody lives downtown, but everybody lives close to downtown.

Of course, there's also the conspiracy theory that the city wants to move TLAC off the property so they can sell it to some overpriced condo developer for mucho $$$... but I won't go there...

dan

if you're too lazy to travel across town to get a pet, you're probably too lazy to take care of one.

Funding for this shelter move was included in Prop. 7, which was approved a while ago . . .

I'm not sure if your poster reviewed the facts or just relied on local coverage from the Statesman, but this post is far from giving an accurate view of the issue at hand.

TLAC Shelter Director, Dorinda Pulliam is an incredibly smart woman who has put in to place clear plans to reduce pet over population in Austin.

She knows that the answer to pet overpopulation lies in putting more resources in proactive solutions (educating pet owners and spaying and neutering so we dont end up with roaming and homeless critters in the first place) as opposed to reactive (warehousing and finding homes for the flood of homeless pets).

Housing the new shelter in East Austin is a progressive and visionary move by the City. The vast majority of dogs are being impounded East of 35 and Dorinda wants to reach out to community members in their neighborhoods to prevent animal intake in the first place (responsible pet ownership information and spay/neuter access). How can you knock that?

The flooding at TLAC is real and seriously effects the ability of the city to properly care for the poor animals in its care. Dorinda can show you all the pictures that she's shared before the public and City Council on numerous occasions in her successful bid to win support for the shelter.

Your poster made it seem as if the City wants to move the shelter east so its officers wouldnt have to drive as far to pick up strays and decided to make up the flooding issue as an excuse. This is far from the truth.

The real fault here is a bunch of ill-informed Austinites who think its cool to have the shelter right next to the hike and bike trail and next to downtown where---whoops---nobody lives. Have you ever tried to make it to the shelter by closing time (read: rush hour)?

If convenience to its target audience is a key factor, the proposed location in East Austin is smart.

If you did any research, you'd know that Lori Mitchell is part of a very small group of marginalized activists who critize the city at every turn. They keep getting coverage in the daily because one of their (few) members works at the Statesman.

The majority of respected animal welfare organizations in Austin (Austin Humane Society, Animal Trustees of Austin, Emancipet, and the ASPCA) are supportive of the city's decision. They are in the trenches every day along with Dorinda and I trust their opinion.

While I applaud your coverage, I hope that the Austinist writes with a more critical eye in the future.

this place does flood pretty easily.

back in early january, hundreds of dogs and cats in the intake wing were displaced, moved and stressed further due to rising water.