Mayhew International visit to Moscow August 2009

 

Wednesday 26th August

We had been invited to a Press conference in the morning, organised by the Russian newspaper, “Argumenti i Fakti” and local animal welfare activists, many of whom we were already in contact with and had been for many years. Journalists from local media and a biologist /lawyer knowledgeable on the legal aspects of the subject were also present.

It was a forum to enable the volunteers and activists to express their views on the problems seen in Moscow shelters and the lack of support given to volunteers. We were interviewed by a journalist for the publication on what we do in Moscow, our relationship with the City Authorities and their visit to London in 2008.

Emotions ran high, but there was more of a consensus between the different groups to move forward together. We agreed to raise some of their concerns with the City officials we would be meeting over the next few days.

We also visited one the Northern Moscow Administrative Municipal Shelters, run by one man. There were some workers carry out building work and basic cleaning duties – mainly Central Asians. This was not a newly-built shelter but one that has been functioning for some years. Although he was obliged to take in dogs from the Northern part of Moscow, he was not received the fees from the authorities for the animals for some time. He was carrying out reconstruction work on the shelter, building more units and informed that he was funding this himself. Contained here were approximately 500 dogs and some 15 cats, of which few were sterilised, but the majority vaccinated, flea’ed and wormed. The new units were made of concrete breezeblocks, with wooden or dirt floors and sometimes a wooden kennel inside. No heating. Some steps had been taken to given the animals names and basic information on the kennel gates – whether vaccinated or not, whether sterilised, wormed or not and dates of when these treatments had been carried out etc. Lots of puppies and multiple dogs in the units. The cats were kept in a separate room, where they were free to wander. Particularly poor was an enclosed shed where unvaccinated pups were kept. Good that they were separated from other dogs but the conditions were old, very dirty and smelly, without light and overcrowded. Some of the older kennel areas and small open plots where dogs could run around a bit, but otherwise no real exercise area except for one quadrant of land in the centre of set-up, which wall woefully insufficient for the number of dogs held there.

Again, there was no veterinary clinic was provided on site. We met a final year vet student there who was vaccinating and checking the animals. The owner claimed to pay her himself. In discussion with her, we asked whether she would be interested in working as a vet for stray companion animals. Asking about sterilisation, she informed us that on graduating she would only be knowledgeable of non-invasive veterinary techniques, - cat castrates. She would not be able to perform invasive surgery such as bitch spaying. On asking if she would perform dog castrates, this was dismissed as unacceptable.

It was also explained that animals were not sterilised as he had no funds from the City to do so. However, he showed us a room which he planned to convert into an operating theatre and had been given an ancient operating table. He asked for help with sterilisations and we will consider sending in a veterinary team to sterilise the cats.

 

Thursday 27th August

Meeting with the Deputy Prefect for the Eastern Administrative Region of Moscow.

He was responsible for the construction of the municipal shelter in his region, the first mega shelter of Moscow, which had been the most advanced in construction when we visited last.

We had it confirmed that the Moscow City Government budget for the stray dog issue had been cut by two thirds. This was also backed up by a copy of a letter from the Finance Dept of Moscow Government, passed to us by activists and animal welfare supporters, that there had been failings with all the 10 projects in Moscow and that shelters were built without water facilities, proper drainage and sewage provision, heating and electricity. It was claimed his department had gone through 5 inspections by the authorities for irregularities.

The Deputy Prefect was obviously exasperated that he seems to be the focus point for all complaints, petitions etc. from interested parties even when they concern other districts in Moscow. This can be based on the fact that the Kozhukovo shelter is by far and away the best equipped – the only one with veterinary facilities and probably the biggest and has received a lot more PR than other mega-shelters, with visits from Luzhkov and media shindigs on site. We believe that Moscow City Government are using Kozhukovo as a model/showcase facility (by their standards).

A shelter website had been created by the local municipality, which explains about the facilities and the potential for animal adoption, but did not go into further detail about each individual animal (http://priutvao.ru). The site is also in English. We suggested they review the translation as such words as “asylum” do not necessarily generate the right image. There is also an unofficial website posting animals for adoption from the shelter run by volunteers.

We expressed the concerns which had arisen from the press meeting the previous day. It is clear that there is a great impasse between groups of volunteers and the administration and what help they can offer the shelter. Volunteers now go through an application process, based on documents from The Mayhew taken by the delegation in October 2008. However, it is being interpreted in a rather draconian manner, which in effect prevents/discourages volunteers being a good resource. On the other hand volunteers need to accept that there have to be certain rules and regulations but it is how this is managed and that is missing at the moment. Again emotions run high and there is a lot of disinformation.

Upon visiting the Kozhukovo shelter it was clear that some small progress had been made from our last visit in March 2009. On our previous visit we were very concerned with much of what we had seen. In particular, the veterinary provisions were minimal to non-existent and the condition of the 750 dogs held there were poor at best. Nowhere near the standard five freedoms recognised in the UK.

There was a new Deputy Operational Manager, a younger man, who seemed genuinely more on the ball and more willing to show and talk. There is now a vet team consisting of 10 vets and 5 vet assistants and 160 “animal care” personnel – the term to be used loosely.

The number of animals had now increased twice in number with 1638 dogs and over 100 cats now on site. The state of the kennels was the same as before, if marginally more enrichment in those we were shown. There was no information about the animals in the cages. There was some provision of equipment with leads, collars and muzzles hanging up for staff and volunteers to use. We were shown some grass exercise areas with seesaws, climbing frame, balls and toys.
Many of the dogs seemed friendly and approachable, of those we were shown, however, when away from the presented animals we managed to video some animals portraying signs of stress and behavioural concerns.

We were shown storage rooms with dried foods, canned goods and dietary food, cleaning equipment and fluids. We spoke to one lady who was employed just to wash the dog bowls. There were also kitchens with huge ovens and vats which are used to cook food for the animals in winter.

The veterinary clinic was now fully operational and neutering up to ten animals a day. In total, we were informed that approximately 1000 of the animals on site had now been sterilised between March – August 2009.

Further encouragement was taken from the knowledge that up to 300 dogs had been adopted by the local public since March 2009. We asked to see records of adoptions and how they were carried out. We saw handwritten records with detailed adoption forms, which were based entirely on the model we gave them that we use at The Mayhew Animal Home in London. Dogs that were adopted were, according to the records, sterilised, male and female, vaccinated and flea and wormed.

Further work is required to improve the veterinary care in the clinic. Processes such as providing a ten-day post sterilisation operative care period are antiquated and no longer required with modern techniques and procedures. There were some discrepancies in the amount of operations they claim to carry out and the numbers of post-operative places available.

On entering the shelter each animal goes into quarantine for one month, even for owned animals. We were not allowed to enter the quarantine area. Querying the length of quarantine this was to include 10 days to wait for signs of rabies, rabies inoculation, 10 days wait, flea and worm, 10 days wait before sterilisation. Again this is a practice we believe to be unnecessarily lengthy and encumbers the turnaround of animals and surgeries.

The veterinary clinic was fully equipped with two large operating rooms, post-op care rooms, autoclave, instruments, ultra-violet light etc. We were shown fridges of vaccines and drugs. Elementary improvements could be easily made in the operating room, with the provision of heated mats during surgery and the use of animal surgical positioners to further support the animal during surgery.

We witnessed two operations, one on completion, one midway. We would not consider them to be of a Mayhew standard, but this is where we can provide training and support. Many of the veterinary surgeons at the shelter seemed to be recent graduates with little experience of modern surgery on companion animals. Consequently, much of their work uses old techniques and is liable to put the animal in question under unnecessary stress.

According to the Chief Vet they have had no losses post surgery, but they lose about 2-3 % of the intake through illnesses that the dogs are already suffering from on admittance. When questioned about euthanasia, the vet team are not allowed to do it on site, nor do they want to do it generally. A special service company has to be called to remove the animal for euthanasia. Apparently, this has only happened once since the shelter became fully operational.

We discussed the function of volunteers again with the shelter management. They have provided a kitchen and rest room area for volunteers and there are a lot of billboards proclaiming about their volunteers. We exchanged information about standard surgical procedures with us and elements of our adoption scheme and how we assess and rehabilitate behavioural issues with animals. There is a distinct lack of this is the shelter environment as it is now and another element in hindering the promotion of an adoption culture.

A huge hindrance is the location of the shelter – in the middle of nowhere – at least 3 miles from nearest metro station. No busses presently. The shelter now provides a mini-bus service from the metro station for staff and for volunteers who happen to be there at the right time.

It was admitted that this was a problem and also that the number of dogs was just simple to many to deal with effectively.

At the end of our visit to the shelter it was concluded that we would in the near future – possibly Spring 2010, as per the request of the Moscow Veterinary Committee with accommodation, travel to and from the shelter funded through the Moscow City Government, provide a sterilisation master class at the shelter run by our veterinary team.

 

Friday 28th August

An animal welfare activist, and originator of a cat sterilisation programme in the 90’s, took us to another couple of shelters, one privately run in the North west but outside Moscow and one in Khimki in the Northern district.

The private shelter is run independently and the land is rented for the shelter from the local municipality and is currently been granted permission to buy a piece of land to construct a shelter to where she plans to move the animals. This shelter, Zavpredkov, is situated in the Odintsova region of North West Moscow. She had one employee who lived on site, another employee on a daily basis and some volunteers. The facilities were fairly old in their design housing approximately two hundred dogs. Most of the kennels were assembled from wood and chicken wire, with multiple animals on occasion in the same holding area. The site was on the edge of woodland where she regularly exercised the dogs. However, all animals were vaccinated and sterilised at her cost. A vet visited the facilities when required and sterilises onsite for which she pays. She had started adopting the animals, though in no great numbers. We were pleased to hear that she performs home visits as well; however, she is consequently met with resistance from potential adopters. Her intention was to build a facility for 1000 dogs on the new land, but we tried to put her to rights here with the obvious arguments which she appeared to accept and understood.

Subsequently, we were taken to another shelter in Khimki, this time run and supposedly funded by the Northern District of Moscow.

This was quite appalling. Twenty-nine dogs were being kept isolated in kennels indoors with very little natural light and ventilation. None of the animals had constant access to water when we visited and it evident that their kennels had not been cleaned for some time. There was one “caretaker” – who seemed a kindly soul, with his very pregnant dog by his side, who was obviously non-plussed by our concerns. None of the animals were neutered and there was no separation of the sexes. The caretaker couldn’t see this was an issue either.

However, adjacent to this was a newly built mega shelter, presently standing empty. From information gleaned, the shelter would be run by the construction company who built it and on whose land it was. Hardly uplifting.

We visited another shelter in the Northern District with IFAW on Monday, 31st August, prior to Mitvol’s visit to TESS. This to provide him with information on poor construction, poor standards and potential of making TESS shelter, which also falls into the Northern district, as a model and example for humane population control management and learning centre.

We also met with another vet, who had received training in sterilisation and flank spaying from Pro Animale in the 90’s and is willing to carry out neutering for us if there is potential to expand the programme in 2010.

 

Conclusion

The small, but noticeable improvements seen at Kozhukovo and initiation of certain practices suggest after our first visit and recommendations have been partially implemented. It was most encouraging to see the veterinary facilities and a willingness to learn from us.

It is clear, however, that there are still major failings and further work needs to be done to implement more basic animal care management, proactive adoption procedures as well as better volunteer management.