Austin Animal Services’ recent creation of a Rescue Placement List — a monthly list of dogs the department says may pose public-safety risks and therefore require rescue-only placement — drew sustained criticism from volunteers and rescue partners at the Animal Advisory Commission meeting.

“Dogs are being labeled unsafe when they are not,” said Julie Oliver, a volunteer, who told the commission the RPL was developed without meaningful input from volunteers and rescues and that the department’s practice of batching and delaying records has reduced rescuers’ ability to evaluate animals. “We need clear definitions for what counts as a behavior concern, volunteer and rescue input included in the decision process, and marketing that shows who the dogs are — not just what they are feared to be.”

Chelsea Reisman, dog behavior director at Austin Pets Alive (APA), said rescues used to receive a nightly packet of records and a 10‑day evaluation window that allowed safe consideration of dogs at risk for euthanasia. Under the new RPL, she said, dogs are being batched by calendar days and rescues lose timely access to bite memos, rabies certificates and medical paperwork. “If these dogs are going to be removed from public view, slated to be euthanized and available to rescue only due to them being a safety risk, then I’m unsure why information that will help keep these dogs and our teams safe is simultaneously becoming less available,” Reisman said.

Volunteers and rescue partners described multiple cases they said illustrated the problem, including dogs moved from the Urgent Placement List (UPL) to the RPL with no new incidents and animals listed as public-safety risks after a single minor or accidental scratch.

Interim Director Rolando Fernandez defended the change as a clarification of how the shelter separates animals that need specialized placement from those the department regards as a public-safety concern. He told the commission the RPL was derived from the UPL and was intended to “provide more time” and transparency: the list is posted within the first five business days of each month, followed by a five-business‑day commitment period and then a 48‑hour euthanasia notification window if an animal is not rescued. Fernandez said decisions rely on a matrix that includes bite history, behavioral concerns and quality of life and that the department now uses a double-audit process and a multi‑person behavioral review rather than a single staff decision.

Fernandez also acknowledged confusion during the transition. “When you transition from one system to the next, there were those dogs in that list that already had a matrix and had a behavioral assessment that were already pretty high in the rank,” he said. “If we don’t do the RPL, those dogs would have probably been next in our review for humane euthanasia.” He added the department has increased behavioral-team participation in reviews and plans to convene a behavioral veterinarian to audit the process.

Rescue partners disputed the department’s characterization that all moves from UPL to RPL reflected new or worsening behavior. “Dogs who are not unsafe are going to be euthanized due to circumstance,” said Chelsea Reisman, who reported that APA took 10 behavior dogs last month (the TLAC agreement requires five monthly) and that 65% of rescued dogs previously placed on the rescue list were now in homes. Several public commenters urged that volunteer observations, on-site behavior notes and rescue expertise be formally incorporated into the review process.

Commissioners asked for clarifications on criteria and professional qualifications of those making behavior assessments. Fernandez said staff are working to add a supervisor in the behavioral division, include more behavioral team members in decisions and to provide follow-up to the commission about when rescues will receive fuller records.

The RPL pilot has not resulted in euthanasia of listed animals since the rescue-only process began, Fernandez told the commission; he said earlier postings were rescinded or pulled by partners as rescues engaged with the list.

What’s next: Fernandez said staff will continue to refine the matrix, pursue external behavioral review and report back to the commission on changes to information sharing with rescue partners.