A Letter from the Executive Director: APA!’s Request for Full Use of the TLAC Space

by austinpetsalive • Posted in: Awareness/ PR

Volunteers and Supporters:

As most of you know, we will be losing our 2807 Manchaca headquarters in just a few months and are searching for a permanent home. In the meantime, we have asked the city for permission to move all of our current operations to the Town Lake Animal Center (TLAC) space. APA! already has an arrangement with the city to run an overflow adoption center for the the Austin Animal Center (AAC) at TLAC. Currently, only animals from AAC are housed at TLAC, but in our ask to move our entire operations to the facility, we have also asked for permission to include animals from other sources that will definitely die if we do not help them.

You can watch our specific proposal here. If you go to Item 3, Part 1, you can hear my comments at the 11:30 mark of part 1. Some of our volunteers and supporters also made comments.

We want to clarify that our work with other counties does not offset the work we do here in Austin, nor does it displace animals. The reason we know that is because we have already been performing that widespread work for the last 14 months and Austin is at a 92 percent save rate for all of 2011. Austin is APA!’s priority – we are so proud of the hard work we and the city have done to bring us to a 92 percent save rate, making Austin the largest city in the nation to be considered no-kill. However, our work is not done. While 92 percent of animals are being saved in Austin, perfectly healthy, extremely adoptable dogs and cats are still dying in outlying communities. And with the current resources in Austin set up as they are, we have the opportunity to help save some of these animals.

Here is a brief overview of where Austin currently stands:

Before APA! started in 2007,  the city was at a 50% save rate and 14,000 animals were dying per year. At the time, animals being euthanized consisted of:

  • Easy to adopt animals- nothing wrong with them- just need more time and better exposure- 10%
  • Minor issues but otherwise easy to adopt or rehome- ringworm puppies, 7 week old animals, shy, 10%
  • Bottle baby kittens and puppies- 1,200 per year- too young to survive without bottle feeding – 10%
  • Critically ill/injured animals (includes parvo) – 10%
  • Behaviorally challenged large breed adult dogs 5%

APA! has built innovative programs (including a bottle baby nursery, an intensive parvo ward and a medical ward) and we are saving 100 percent of the first four categories above. It is the fifth category – behaviorally challenged large breed adult dogs – that is still a struggle for both us and for AAC. At this point in time, we are currently taking 50 percent of the dogs in this category and are working to expand our behavior program to enable us to take more of these dogs in the future. There are currently no cats, kittens, puppies, small breed dogs, or friendly large dogs in the city of Austin being euthanized due to lack of space. And there have not been for the last 12 months. That is because APA! has saved these animals as soon as they were in danger.

For the large dogs with behavior problems, it is our hope that the city will soon be hiring a behaviorist, as outlined in the No-Kill Implementation Plan that passed in March 2010, to help the dogs that need extra help making it out of the shelter. We feel that with the city-staffed behaviorist and our own growing behavior program, we will reach a point in the next few years where all saveable animals are being saved in Austin. That will be over 90 percent.

We understand that citizens are concerned about animals from the five county area coming into Austin,but it is important to also understand that APA! operates adoption cites outside of Travis County and draws adopters from outside the county to our in-county adoption sites. So while we are pulling animals from other counties, we’re also adopting them out to other counties. In fact, over the last four years, 1,200 more animals were adopted into homes outside the city limits than were brought into the city.

The work we do with other counties and shelters does not affect our work in Austin. Our innovative programs to save neonatal kittens, puppies with parvo, cats with ringworm, and medically injured/ill animals from AAC will stay in place, but we need a facility from which to continue to perform our lifesaving work.

While we have our sights set high in hopes of creating a no-kill Central Texas, and ultimately, a no-kill state, our work in Austin will never end or diminish.

Other reasons using the TLAC facility makes sense:

  • The structure is currently 75% vacant
  • There is no additional cost to the city if APA utilizes this vacant space to save lives
  • It is the only option that will guarantee that APA! can continue saving the bottle babies, parvo puppies, and other critical animals from AAC and help keep Austin at its 90%+ goal
  • The city has no back up plan or alternative that will save the animals APA! can’t save if we have no home, which means the City of Austin will revert to a 81% save rate
  • There are already many city-subsidized organizations that help animals outside the city limits including Austin Humane Society and EmanciPET
  • Allowing animals literally within a stone’s throw of Austin to die is morally unacceptable when there is an abundance of resources available to help them.

We urge you to use this link to email all of Austin City Council to ask them to please allow APA! to move our existing operations into Town Lake Animal Center so that the city of Austin can maintain a 92% save rate. You can also join us at a special Animal Advisory Commission meeting to vote on this issue next Monday, March 5, at 6 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Austin Energy Building Assembly Room, 1st Floor.

Don’t let a few naysayers cause Austin to lose its status as the largest no-kill city in the United States. Please, let your voice be heard!

If you have any questions, please feel free to email email hidden; JavaScript is required.


Dr. Ellen Jefferson

Executive Director, Austin Pets Alive!

For more information:

30 Responses to "A Letter from the Executive Director: APA!’s Request for Full Use of the TLAC Space"

  1. Lisa Smithsays: February 29, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    I live in Reno, NV, so don’t know that my input will be very helpful, but I emailed three of your city council members. I sincerely hope that your request is granted. When will you find out?

  2. Lindsaysays: March 1, 2012 at 11:07 am

    The value of a life should not be defined by zip codes or lines on a map. So long as animals outside of Austin aren’t impacting the ability to save lives inside of Austin, then there is no reason at all APA shouldn’t be able to save animals from surrounding communities. And statistics prove that saving these additional lives isn’t hurting Austin in the least.

    It would be morally reprehensible to allow these animals to die simply because they aren’t “from Austin”. City Council must allow APA to move into the empty portions of TLAC and continue their life saving work!

  3. phyllissays: March 2, 2012 at 12:42 am

    I agree, the value of any life “should not be defined by zip codes or lines on a map.” The Austin City Council surely will vote in favor of using the available space to further reduce the number of animals killed just because they have no one to speak for them.

    Austin is a remarkably sensitive town and the City Council must surely act in the name of kindness and reflection of a higher spiritual law that says “do not kill” and also, “do no harm.”

  4. emilysays: March 2, 2012 at 8:47 am

    While I agree that every life is precious, it is frustrating to watch APA decline dogs from AAC that are then euthanized while they continue to import dogs from San Antonio and other cities. If APA wants to use property paid for by the Austin taxpayers, then the Austin community should be the top priority. If there are no dogs being euthanized for space in Austin and there are still kennels available, then and only then does it make sense to use City of Austin resources to assist other cities – other cities that have a wider tax base then Austin does, I might add.

    While I commend APA for their commitment to no kill, if they continue to allow Austin dogs to die so that they can bring in another litter of puppies from San Antonio, then they ought to make their mission clear so that Austinites understand how their tax dollars and donations are being spent.

  5. austinpetsalivesays: March 2, 2012 at 10:25 am

    Emily, we have been very clear and honest about our resources for dogs with behavioral issues. The dogs we save from other counties do not directly compete with the dogs at risk in Austin. The only dogs that we are not able to take 100% of are the large dogs with behavior issues. We have built innovative programs to save ALL of the other animals at risk of euthanasia from AAC, and because of that, there are currently no cats, kittens, puppies, small breed dogs, or friendly large dogs in the city of Austin being euthanized due to lack of space. And there have not been for the last 12 months. As mentioned in the blog post, it is our hope that the city will soon be hiring a behaviorist, as outlined in the No-Kill Implementation Plan that passed in March 2010. We feel that in collaboration with the city and their behaviorist, we can work together to save more of these dogs.


  6. Eliassays: March 2, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Two hot Summers ago, myself and a lot of like-minded animal rescuers worked very hard to transform a plain and vacant south Austin building into what is now a vibrant Austin Pets Alive headquarters. That said, since APA has to now move, I think our labor of love should continue and what better space than the Town Lake Animal Center? Join us in our qwest to keep Austin as one of America’s largest no-kill cities! Many barks and purrs from those that cannot speak up for a great organization and an even better idea.

  7. emilysays: March 2, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Melissa, I would be thrilled if APA continued to provide overflow kennels at Town Lake Animal Center. However, I must reiterate that adoptable dogs declined by APA continue to be euthanized for space in Austin.

    The dogs deemed not “friendly” enough by APA and AAC staff are often shy dogs, overwhelmed by the shelter environment. I have personally adopted one of these dogs and fostered several others until they were adopted. Unfortunately, I have watch helplessly as far more have been destroyed for no better reason than the fact that they didn’t “show well.” There is no justification in using the city’s meager resources for the sole benefit of other cities so long as this is still a common practice.

    The dogs that APA brings from San Antonio and other communities absolutely compete with Austin dogs. Under APA’s proposal, these dogs would be allowed to occupy kennel space owned by the city while Austin’s homeless pets continue to die for lack of space.

    I would be more than happy to support this proposal if it is amended to use city resources exclusively for homeless pets in the city until such time as the City no longer must euthanize for space. As I stated above, and in my letters to the city council, “if there are no dogs being euthanized for space in Austin and there are still kennels available, then and only then does it make sense to use City of Austin resources to assist other cities.”

  8. Maggiesays: March 2, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    It makes me angry that APA would try to bring in animals from other cities before Austin has zero animals needing homes. There are stories all other the news about how the new shelter is too small and they have to euthanize for space. Why isn’t APA getting those dogs? Those are the ones that need the most help, not ones from other cities, especially if my tax money is going to be subsidizing APA.

    APA please do not do this. Focus on Austin animals! They live here and need help first!

  9. Crystalsays: March 3, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    OMG. Dr. Jefferson wrote “For the large dogs with behavior problems, it is our hope that the city will soon be hiring a behaviorist, as outlined in the No-Kill Implementation Plan that passed in March 2010, to help the dogs that need extra help making it out of the shelter.” There is a video of the behaviorist teaching AAC volunteers and dogs were actually adopted on that day. OMG. Are Austin Tax Payers going to have their taxes raised due to all the extra pets killed because pets are coming in from 5 other counties? Can you image how many more Austin pets can be saved when WE work together instead of bring pets from 5 other counties into Austin? OMG. Are Austin Tax Payers going to have their taxes raised to house the pets coming in from 5 other counties or is Dr. Jefferson obtaining funds from those counties to house pets here in Austin? In order to continue being a No Kill city, Austin Animal Center only intakes pets from Travis county. Is this the loop hole Dr. Jefferson is using to get pets from 5 other counties into Austin?

  10. austinpetsalivesays: March 3, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Crystal, the video you saw was a contractor, not the full-time behaviorist outlined in the No-Kill Implementation plan that was passed two years ago. If you look at our numbers, you’ll see that we’ve always taken in animals from the surrounding five counties, and yet Austin is at a no-kill rate of 92 percent. Nothing is changing. We are just asking for a facility to continue our life-saving work.

  11. austinpetsalivesays: March 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Emily – Unfortunately, I disagree with you, as I see the at-risk for dogs every single day. The dogs on that list need significant resources and help for behavioral rehabilitation, which APA! does not have at this time and is trying to achieve. Our ask for the TLAC space will not change anything about our operations except our location.


  12. austinpetsalivesays: March 3, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Maggie – we are taking dogs from AAC every single week, almost on a daily basis. You can see our numbers on our website. As I mentioned above, nothing about our operations are changing – we have always taken in animals from the five counties, and Austin is at a 92 percent save rate.

  13. EmilyCsays: March 3, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    While I don’t understand the inner workings of why APA! cannot help the “large dogs” in need of behavioral rehabilitation, I don’t see the harm in pooling resources to save ONE of these dogs instead of brushing their needs off on the basis of “we don’t have the resources to save them so we’ll wait until we do to save them in masses.” That still doesn’t help the Austin dogs any. I do understand it is easier to save dogs from other cities/counties that have a higher chance at getting adopted, but how long will we have to wait for large organizations such as APA! to step on the bandwagon and really save the dogs that truly need to be saved – those that have behavioral issues that need to be addressed instead of euthanizing them because they “cannot be fixed”? I do not believe a dog cannot be rehabilitated – if resources are what’s required, then I’d love to see more time and effort spent towards that that Austin taxpayer dollars go towards to save AUSTIN dogs regardless of their issues, even if it’s just that ONE dog. One dog who can be saved, especially if it has behavior issues, along with dedicated people willing to work with that ONE dog, is more experience to help more of these dogs that APA! are not taking at the moment. The way I see it, waiting on more resources to help the truly high-risk euthanasia dogs is just the same as pushing the issue aside and ignoring it. I am all for saving as many animals as possible, but my heart goes out to all those high-risk dogs that have behavior problems – these dogs deserve the same chance that a dog without issues have.

  14. CRsays: March 4, 2012 at 11:14 am

    There is a reason that the City of Austin built a new facility. The TLAC facility is not fit for animals to reside there. There is no climate control for the dog kennels and the cat facilities are rampant with mold and other allergens. 75% of the facility is not in use for a reason–it isn’t safe for animals or humans. Austin Pets Alive should not WANT to house animals there. And they certainly do not have the veterinary staff to deal with the levels of illness that they will need to if this facility is full again.

  15. anne osieckisays: March 4, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Please help these animals as they cannot help themselves just like little children.

  16. Crystalsays: March 4, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    San Antonio Pets Alive received a $300,000 grant to help them with the animals in that city. It is my understanding that APA was also paid $100,000 by the city of San Antonio to help them become a no-kill city. Austin still has our own problems with pet over population so why should our animals pay the ultimate price for APA’s deal with San Antonio?

    In a public meeting last week it was stated by APA that they are only bringing in “adoptable” animals (small dogs and puppies) from other cities/counties, to off-set the cost of caring for the animals they take from the Austin shelter. If APA is looking for animals that do not require them to spend any money on or may be more quickly adopted, there are plenty of pet owners trying to find homes for their dogs. They could take in healthy, “adoptable” animals from our own area that need help in staying out of the shelter. They could take back all of the animals people decide not to keep after APA’s 30 day return policy.
    If the Town Lake location is to continue being used long-term, then those spaces should be strictly reserved for our city’s animals, and for for overflow of the current Austin shelter location. They are paid $12,000 a MONTH for taking animals from AAC.

    APA is a PRIVATE non-profit and is NOT city owned or ran by city employees and needs to stop relying on the citizens of Austin and Travis county to bail them out every time they hit a stumbling block.

  17. Lindsaysays: March 4, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    AAC receives $6million a year for animal services – why is everyone so mad at APA for not having the money/resources to save these dogs when they get next to no tax government funding? Why doesn’t everyone ask Abigail Smith why AAC isn’t solving this problem with her multi-million dollar budget? They haven’t hired the behaviorist that they have had approved funding for since 2010. Why isn’t anyone asking AAC why they won’t fill that position?

    Also, keeping APA out of TLAC means putting a lot of programs in jeopardy – a LOT of dogs and cats could die needlessly (inside and outside of Austin) if the city blocks this proposal over a handful of dogs dying each month.

    Each year 1,200 bottle baby kittens, 300 parvo puppies, 1,000 adult cats – all of these animals that are housed and cared for at the Manchaca facility will be in jeopardy if APA doesn’t get TLAC. Is it worth letting these thousands of Austin animals be at risk of death, and letting Austin go back to being no kill because of a disagreement over how to manage the last 2-3% of dogs dying at AAC?

    APA made Austin no kill. APA will keep Austin no kill, but for once, APA needs some help from the city. It has, up until now, done almost all of its work with literally no help from AAC (and always having to fight an up hill battle with the city to get anything done). This one time it is asking for help to continue saving the lives AAC can’t/won’t, and once again, they are having to fight for it. I for one am sick of it. APA made Austin no-kill, let it keep Austin no-kill!

  18. Mallorysays: March 5, 2012 at 7:50 am

    This is absolutely ludicrous. How ANYone can sit here with a straight face and LIE about how:

    – the City is already paying APA! about $12K a MONTH to sit on CITY PROPERTY paid for by Austin taxpayers (so that they can now bring in competition for Austin’s pets)
    – the City won’t incur add’l costs for APA! to strong arm their way into TLAC (does APA! plan to pay their own staff to care for animals on city property or will the City be sending over staff paid by Austin taxpayers?)
    – how APA! would even *want* to occupy a decrepit facility that is a health and physical liability for both the animals AND staff (the grounds are a hotbed of disease and the walls are literally falling into the dog runs as I’m writing this)
    – how APA! continues to doctor numbers through their PASS programs and people with pets to turn in are cut off at the door before calling those turned away a “live outcome” (and thus included in the daily numbers, i.e. this glorious so-called 92%, another public lie)
    – how NONE of the other dozens and dozens of committed and ETHICAL rescues operating within the rules were never granted the same special privileges as TAKEN by APA!
    – and why APA! should be given a 6-figure contract from San Antonio in the first place when there is CLEARLY so much to be done here (priorities skewed much?)

    There are a myriad of other issues I could list, but bottom line – AUSTIN Pets Alive! needs to remember where they came from – AUSTIN. And they’re certainly not making many friends at all within the front line community that has been saving lives for DECADES before APA! decided to come in and put a profit on the idea. Just another road paved with “good intentions.” Kinda like Pawmatch, but with better PR and the occasional bottle of bleach.

  19. Renasays: March 5, 2012 at 11:35 am

    I agree with Lindsay. APA! is the organization that works the hardest to keep the community of Austin No Kill. While beautiful, the city’s Austin Animal Center has fewer kennels than Town Lake and so started at a great disadvantage for the animals. For now, we need to concentrate on a place for APA! to move their life-saving resources. Let’s not forget that APA! is a 501(C)3 and is not run by the city. Kitten season is almost here and there is no time for attention to be drawn away from important work. Please contact your council members.

  20. Susan Rileysays: March 5, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    APA does an outstanding job in saving animals. Does anyone really want this to stop over whether or not they help a small number of animals from outside the city, especially since they adopt out more animals to outside the city than they take in. When have county/city lines trumped saving lives? APA will sure not be able to do what they are doing if they have no facility to operate from. And as I understand it, this would be temporary until they can locate a suitable place. May I remind folks in Austin that people outside the city shop here, donate here, and otherwise support the city.

  21. Jodysays: March 5, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    What we all agree on is our passion for the animals in our community who need help. What fuels our emotions on this topic is that we are not yet saving them all. So let’s agree we are all interested in the same thing – doing the very best for the health and safety of all our community members – our animals and our neighbors. It is how we achieve that goal that is triggering the debate.
    I believe it is good for APA to hear the passion and vigorous support of community members in improving actions for the animals still at risk. It is always good to be reminded of what still needs to be done. It is not fair, however, to place all the blame at the feet of APA. What purpose is served by punishing APA – a non-profit agency, if doing so diminishes their capacity to save all of the other animals?

    Let’s direct some of our frustration not at the agency that is trying to make (and has done so) Austin a no-kill city, but at the feet of the city council for lack of implementation of the

    Animal Services
    City Council approved the Animal Services implementation plan in an effort to
    increase live animal outcomes. This plan includes 5.50 new positions: two 2.0 Vet Technicians, 0.50 Veterinarian, 1.0 Animal Behaviorist, 1.0 Public Health Educator and 1.0 Animal Care Customer Services Representative Senior. In addition to increased personnel, the plan includes funding for an offsite adoption program, foster care program, spay street program, an emergency care fund and a public awareness campaign. FTE 5.50 $756,694. These figures come from the 2010-2011 proposed Austin City Budget. Lindsay is right – Austin has not followed through on the approved hiring of a behaviorist. Crystal, your tax dollars are not going up because of APA. Your tax dollars are not being spent as the City of Austin said they would spend them. The fire should be held at the feet of the administrators
    go to http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/boards/results.cfm?bid=2 for the Animal Advisory Commission,
    go to http://www.austintexas.gov/department/austin-city-council-members to contact your city council members
    go to http://www.austintexas.gov/email/animalcustomerservice to voice your concerns about the euthanasia of large dogs with behavioral problems when the hiring of a behaviorist has been approved.
    The City of Austin is ahead of schedule in becoming a ‘no-kill’ city because of what APA does. But APA is a partner in this process with the City. As strong an advocate as you want to be for animals, I ask you all to be vigorous participants in the process that leads to the election of officials. Make your voices heard in City Hall.

  22. David Pasztorsays: March 5, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    “APA made Austin no kill. APA will keep Austin no kill”
    “APA! is the organization that works the hardest to keep the community of Austin No Kill.”
    Actually, a tremendous number of people made Austin no-kill, and continue to work very hard to keep it that way. APA is a large, vital component of that, but it is only a component. Please do not so blithely dismiss the thousands of volunteer hours that others of us expend towards the same goal. We respect and appreciate what APA does, but do get a bit rankled at APA folks, many recent arrivals on the scene, who believe they invented the wheel. The list of organization and individuals who helped Austin reach this landmark is quite long, and spans everyone from politicians and activists to volunteers at dozens of organizations, rescue groups and, yes, a lot of very hardworking city employees at TLAC/AAC. Achieving No-Kill is not just posting a monthly live outcome number, it is building a system of programs and resources to consistently make sure all possible animals are being saved. APA, for all the excellent and valuable work it does, cannot do that alone. It is now proposing some changes to the system that have real potential to make things more difficult for others working towards the same goals. Stopping to ask what impact these changes will have on the overall No-Kill picture is not anti-APA. It is common sense.

  23. Jennifersays: March 5, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    It is an outright lie that every large dog in AAC is being saved. APA is passing over dogs that just aren’t perfect in favor of “more adoptable” puppies from Sab Antonio. AAC can’t compete with that! Our tax dollars need to focus on Austin. APA has done one heck of a snow job on the people of Austin. Such a shame. APA is a great organization, but if it wants this space, it needs to go back to pulling some harder cases from AAC– an I’m not talking about behavioral, just some older dogs.

  24. austinpetsalivesays: March 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Jennifer, I think you misunderstood the post. We are definitely not saying that all large dogs at AAC are being saved and have always been open about our limitations with the large dogs and our desire to build up a stronger behavior program to save them all.

    Please see our Q&A for more details about our request and its impact to taxpayers.

  25. austinpetsalivesays: March 5, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    Yes, APA plans on paying for our own staff to care for the non-City animals on TLAC property. This request will not cost the City or the taxpayers anything.

    Yes, the TLAC facility is certainly not ideal, but this is a temporary solution to continue saving lives until we have a new building.

    Our PASS program numbers are not counted in the City of Austin’s “live outcome” numbers. By offering resources to people who show up at AAC to surrender a pet, we are able to lower the intake numbers a bit for the ones who are able to take the help from PASS.

  26. austinpetsalivesays: March 5, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    APA always takes back any pet that we have adopted out. Sometimes, we will ask people who need to surrender their pet back to us if they can foster the pet until we can find a new home. Of course, if the situation is dangerous or otherwise urgent, we will take the pet back immediately.

  27. Sarahsays: March 8, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    I agree with David above. APA has made huge strides in *helping* make Austin a no kill city, but there were dozens of organizations working for years ahead of them that are part of the process. I was shocked to see that APA even gave credit to Emancipet and the Austin Humane Society in this article. In their press releases and blogs they always seem to imply they operate in a great vacuum where they are the only saving grace in a city full of people that care about pets. Emanicpet and Animal Trustees providing low cost spays and neuters, Austin Humane trapping/neutering and releasing over 20,000 feral cats, breed rescues, behavioral modification programs at Austin Humane etc etc have ALL impacted the city’s kill rate over years of work. APA was the push that was needed to get over that great ledge and I will always be grateful for their work, but it is not time to start shipping in “adoptable” animals.
    I would be happy to see APA take over the TLAC facility and continue their amazing programs, but how about considering taking in owner surrender pets from citizens of Austin first? I have no problem including Williamson or possibly Bastrop counties into those populations, Round Rock is practically part of Austin anyway, but San Antonio? We have plenty of puppies here.

  28. Jesssays: March 9, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    I can appreciate everyone’s concern over the final piece of the no-kill puzzle, the last 5% or so containing large breed dogs with behavior issues. APA has taken in many of these dogs, rehabilitated them, and sent them to forever homes (look into the Louie’s Team program and Giving Dogs a Fresh Start). Unfortunately this takes quite a bit of money and resources thus limiting APA’s ability to take in EVERY one of these dogs. AAC needs to be held responsible for some of this and hire a behaviorist, as proposed in the No-Kill Implementation Plan. If APA does not receive the extra space at TLAC, it will hinder APA’s ability to pull these dogs needing a little TLC and be detrimental to Austin’s no-kill status. As for the state of the building- it’s not perfect by any means, but this is only until APA can find a permanent home elsewhere. I’m sure most of the animals would prefer to be uncomfortable temporarily than dead permanently, not to mention that health inspectors have said that TLAC is mostly fine.