Utah County faces a significant challenge in animal welfare, particularly regarding the high rate of cat euthanasia at its shelters. According to the nonprofit Best Friends Animal Society, four out of every 10 cats brought into Utah County’s animal shelters are killed. This statistic starkly contrasts with other major counties in Utah, which have successfully implemented programs to improve survival rates for cats. The situation raises questions about why Utah County lags behind the rest of the state in this critical area of animal welfare.
The state’s overall save rate for dogs and cats stood at 85.2% at the end of 2018, while Utah County’s rate was significantly lower at 73.2%. This difference represents the largest lifesaving gap in Utah. To reach the benchmark 90% save rate, widely considered the threshold for “no-kill” (allowing for humane euthanasia only in cases of extreme health or behavioral issues), Utah County would need to save an additional 1,290 animals. The county with the next largest gap, Salt Lake, needed to save 710 more lives to reach the 90% goal. Cats are disproportionately affected; Utah and even Utah County surpassed the 90% save rate for dogs alone several years ago.
Utah County operates two special service district shelters: South Utah Valley Animal Shelter (SUVAS), serving Provo and southern areas, and North Utah Valley Animal Shelter (NUVAS), serving Orem and northern areas, including the Utah County Animal Shelter Lindon facility. Both shelters are members of No-Kill Utah (NKUT), a Best Friends campaign aimed at helping Utah shelters increase their save rates. Arlyn Bradshaw, Mountain West regional director for Best Friends, noted that while relationships have been forged and improved in other parts of the state to boost save rates, “Unfortunately, it’s not happening in Utah County.”
The Role of No-Kill Utah
No-Kill Utah is a coalition comprising 57 partner organizations across the state, including NUVAS and SUVAS. The campaign’s ultimate objective is to make Utah a no-kill state by 2020, with every county achieving a 90% save rate. Their philosophy asserts that achieving a no-kill status is not only possible and sustainable but should be a universal goal for animal welfare organizations. The number of Utah shelters reaching a 90% save rate more than doubled from 13 in 2012 to 30 in 2018, a success largely attributed to NKUT’s educational initiatives and support. Best Friends defines killing a shelter animal as euthanasia when a positive outcome, such as adoption or safe return to the original location, was possible. Appropriate euthanasia is reserved for animals with extreme health or behavioral issues, which is why the 90% benchmark is used.
Lydia LaSalle, executive director of the Best Friends Utah program, has presented to both SUVAS and NUVAS boards, advocating for what they consider the most effective solution for improving cat save rates: a return-to-field program specifically for feral cats.
Understanding Return-to-Field Programs
A return-to-field (RTF) program offers an alternative to traditional impoundment and euthanasia for healthy, unadoptable free-roaming cats. LaSalle explained the current fate of many cats entering shelters: “Cats enter the shelter from the community, and then they’ll stay in the shelter for a five-day hold, and then they’ll be killed in the shelter because there’s no alternative for them.”
No-Kill Utah strongly encourages Utah County shelters to adopt an RTF program. Under this model, a feral cat captured by animal control is taken to a facility to be sterilized (spayed or neutered), vaccinated, and ear-tipped (a universal sign that indicates sterilization). The cat is then returned to the safe location where it was found.
Utah’s Animal Welfare Act mandates a five-day holding period for stray animals to give owners time to reclaim their pets. Before 2011, the only exception was for animals requiring humane euthanasia for extreme medical reasons. However, the Community Cat Act, enacted in 2011, created a legal pathway for shelters to release stray cats before the five-day hold to a sponsor operating a community cat program. This act significantly facilitated the implementation of return-to-field programs in Utah, although it does not require shelter participation.
The sterilization component of RTF is crucial for managing free-roaming cat populations and preventing the birth of unwanted kittens. “Kittens are a very vulnerable population in shelters… So preventing kittens from entering shelters is really important,” Bradshaw emphasized. He added that neonatal kittens entering shelters often have compromised immune systems and may be euthanized immediately as they cannot survive the shelter environment. “You have to recognize that the catch and kill method for free-roaming cats clearly has failed… I think the board members in Utah County would admit that.” Tug Gettling, director of NUVAS, the Utah County Animal Shelter Lindon facility, stated that he does not believe the shelter’s current approach to feral cats is effective.
NUVAS Explores RTF, SUVAS Hesitates
While No-Kill Utah presented the concept of a pilot RTF program to both SUVAS and NUVAS, only NUVAS has agreed to investigate the possibility. Gettling noted, “Over the years I have met with Best Friends on several occasions to discuss TNR (trap, neuter, return) programs. I have always been, and continue to be, grateful for their willingness to help.”
Temma Martin, public relations specialist for Best Friends Animal Society, indicated that her understanding is that SUVAS board members have outright rejected the idea of return-to-field. Brian Wolken, a captain with the Provo Police Department and a seven-year member of the SUVAS board, expressed his stance in a January letter: “I’d be happy to discuss ways to reduce animal euthanasia as long as it doesn’t include the TNR program. While I understand the desire to save feral cats from euthanasia, I also have to look at other areas that may be impacted by cats.” A representative from SUVAS declined to comment to the Daily Herald at the time.
The NUVAS board, overseeing the utah county animal shelter lindon, formed a committee in May to research the adoption of a return-to-field program. A decision has not yet been made. Yvette Rice, a lieutenant with the Utah County Sheriff’s Office and a member of the NUVAS committee, stated, “It’s really hard for me to make a comment on where this is about to lead because we’re in the beginning stages of the research.”
Gettling explained that before making a decision or recommendation, the committee must evaluate the potential impact on residents within the district, the animals under their care, and the community, as well as the feasibility and financial implications.
Rice highlighted the challenge of temperament testing for feral cats. “The big thing is when you talk about feral cats, they tend to not have good temperaments,” she said. “When you look at the animal shelter and what’s brought in, in order to adopt them out, they do temperament testing to make sure they’re not dangerous to people. There’s a higher rate of euthanizing cats because of that temperament factor.”
Best Friends has offered comprehensive support for a pilot program, including 100% of the funding, staffing assistance, establishing a hotline and email, community conflict resolution services, microchips, and more, typically for a three-year period. The estimated cost after the pilot, including a full-time administrator salary, medication, fuel, and equipment, is projected at $56,800. Best Friends would continue to cover vaccinations and surgeries indefinitely.
During a NUVAS board meeting on June 27, Rice outlined the committee’s cautious approach. “Ultimately, we kind of feel like we want to wait to approach our governing boards for our entities until we have identified the pros and cons, if you will, so that we can lay the totality before them so that they can say, ‘OK, given all this information, we do or we don’t want to participate,’” Rice explained. “We’re trying to provide a breakdown to each one of the board members so that they know what financially will be the impact after Best Friends pulled out.” She noted that substantial research and work are still needed before presenting a recommendation to the entities they represent. Despite the apprehension, LaSalle encouraged NUVAS to “Give it a shot. Because everything else we’ve tried hasn’t worked.”
Rice affirmed the board’s desire to minimize euthanasia rates, which motivates their consideration of the program. “We’re not interested in going out and killing animals,” Rice stated. “I know sometimes people have this idea that we just go out and kill things on a whim; that’s not the case. If we can provide an opportunity to let these animals live a life unbothered and in turn they’re not making a negative impact on the community, then we would love that.”
Success in Other Utah Counties
Several other counties in Utah have successfully implemented Best Friends’ return-to-field program. Salt Lake County, West Valley City, Taylorsville, Weber County, Davis County, West Jordan, and Murray all adopted variations of the program between 2011 and 2017, resulting in significant increases in their cat save rates, bringing them close to or exceeding 90%.
Salt Lake County provides a compelling example. In 2010, before adopting the program, their shelters had a cat intake of 4,864 with a save rate of only 63%, leading to approximately 1,800 cat euthanasias. By 2018, eight years into the program, their cat intake was 4,073, but their save rate had climbed to 91.3%, with only about 354 cats euthanized. Salt Lake County surpassed the no-kill rate while managing the largest RTF program in the state’s most densely populated area, demonstrating its effectiveness and addressing common concerns, according to LaSalle.
Callista Pearson, marketing and development manager at Salt Lake County Animal Services, observed a noticeable reduction in the number of free-roaming cats in neighborhoods after the program’s implementation. She reports no negative effects and widespread community acceptance once educated about the program’s goals. Most residents are attached to the cats and prefer them returned to their neighborhoods after sterilization. While occasional relocations occur if complaints arise, Bradshaw notes that the program leads to a reduction in both the free-roaming population over time and the number of animals entering shelters, as ear-tipped cats are typically not impounded by animal control.
LaSalle also highlighted the positive impact on shelter staff morale in West Valley City after adopting RTF. “One of the things that the operation manager said was immediately the staff moral went up, not having to kill those animals, it was huge,” she stated, underscoring that the program benefits not only the community but also the dedicated staff who prefer not to perform euthanasias.
Opposition and Concerns Regarding RTF
Despite the success in other areas, the concept of a return-to-field program faces opposition in Utah County. Tug Gettling, director of the utah county animal shelter lindon, reported receiving only a few unsolicited opinions from the community, all against RTF. His solicited opinions from a handful of community members and discussions with animal control officers also revealed universal opposition.
LaSalle acknowledged these concerns but suggested they often stem from a lack of education. While some citizens dislike stray cats in their neighborhoods, she has found that most people, once informed, prefer a solution where cats are sterilized and returned rather than euthanized in shelters.
At the June NUVAS board meeting, Yvette Rice outlined potential downsides the committee is examining. These include the environmental impact, potential disease transmission issues, and liability concerns if a released animal causes harm or damage. A significant concern raised was the long-term cost of the program after the initial Best Friends-funded pilot phase ends.
Pathways to a No-Kill Rate in Utah County
Arlyn Bradshaw of Best Friends asserts that the path to achieving a no-kill status for a shelter is not complex: “The formula to get a shelter to no-kill is not rocket science.” While adopting a return-to-field program is identified as the primary means for Utah County to reach a 90% save rate for cats, other actions are also crucial.
Simple calls to action for Utah residents include prioritizing adoption from local shelters, such as the utah county animal shelter lindon, rather than purchasing from breeders or pet stores. No-Kill Utah specifically distinguishes genuine shelter adoption as lifesaving. Additional steps involve ensuring personal pets are spayed or neutered to prevent unintended litters, volunteering time at local rescue organizations and shelters, and donating financial resources to support animal welfare efforts.
County residents who support a return-to-field program and lower euthanasia rates are encouraged to voice their opinions directly to members of the NUVAS board or their local representatives. As Bradshaw summarizes, “We don’t blame shelters for the circumstances they’re put in. The problem is a community problem that we need to collectively work together to solve.” This emphasizes that improving animal welfare outcomes, particularly for cats at places like the utah county animal shelter lindon, requires a unified effort from shelters, governing bodies, and the community.
[internal_links]
Conclusion
Utah County’s high cat euthanasia rate, particularly in comparison to other counties in the state, highlights a significant challenge within its animal shelter system, including facilities like the utah county animal shelter lindon. While organizations like Best Friends and No-Kill Utah advocate for proven solutions such as the return-to-field program for feral cats, the adoption of such initiatives faces internal debate and external concerns within the county. The North Utah Valley Animal Shelter in Lindon is currently researching the feasibility, offering a potential path forward, while the South Utah Valley Animal Shelter has expressed opposition. The success of RTF programs in neighboring counties like Salt Lake provides a strong case for their effectiveness in increasing save rates and improving animal welfare. Ultimately, addressing this issue requires continued dialogue, research, and a collective commitment from shelter leadership, local government officials, and engaged community members to implement strategies that prioritize saving more animal lives.
