 It's that time of year again when most of us are looking ahead to holiday shopping and most nonprofits are seeking donations to help them continue to help people, causes and animals. If your physical mailbox and email box are anything like mine, they are full of catalogs from companies trying to sell you what they market as great gifts and full of solicitations for donations. I thought it might help some folks for me to share my thoughts about private donations to help animals for the benefit of the public and share information about grant funding to help animals for the benefit of animal-oriented nonprofit organizations. Public Donations to Help Animals When it comes to holiday shopping, I am a huge fan of making a donation to the non-profit organization of your choice in honor of your gift recipient. Most of us have enough "stuff" and while the phrase says, "it's the thought that counts," what you thought your loved one or friend might like may have nothing to do with what they want or need. Donations are easy. They are a one-size-fits all way of telling someone in your life you love them or care about them while helping a worthy organization and avoiding giving a gift that may never be worn or used. The question then becomes to which organization you should donate. An easy answer is to help an organization that means something to the person in whose honor you are donating. Maybe it relates to helping veterans or helping people who are unhoused or have food insecurities or maybe it has to do with research to end a disease. There is no shortage of very worthy organizations where your donation makes a difference. The landscape is more complex when it comes to donations to help animals. It is no secret that I'm not a huge fan of what I call the alphabet soup of animal welfare. The ASPCA. HW (Humane World, which used to be called the Humane Society of the United States). BFAS (the Best Friends Animal Society). I know and respect some people who work for these organizations but you won't see me giving them my money. Why? Because they have millions of dollars already. They all do some good in some ways, of course. Just not enough for me to encourage anyone to donate their hard earned money. It is not difficult to find information on the finances of these and similar organizations. This includes copies of their most recent 990 forms that list contributions, assets and compensation of key members, all of which will likely dissuade you from adding your money to the millions those organizations already have. I believe that if these organizations really wanted to change the culture in our society regarding animals, specifically companion animals, they should stop spending such a large percentage of donations on salaries, advertising and marketing and start spending it, well, to actually help animals. I am reminded of a blog Nathan Winograd wrote years back called What Happens to the Dream Merchants When the Dream Becomes a Reality? It was written 15 years ago but is still relevant for one reason: if large national animal welfare organizations wanted to put themselves out of business - at least when it comes to the issue of animals being killed in our nation's "shelters," they could. In my opinion.  When I donate to animal related non-profits either on my own or as a gift to someone, I make one of three choices.
As a note of caution, there are animal related organizations that claim to be a 501(c)(3) nonprofit when they are not. I know of many rescuers who used a self-help legal platform to set up their organization which resulted in 1) using a name that is trademarked by the US Patent and Trademark Office which is asking to be sued; and 2) registering with the Secretary of State's office; 3) but stops short of them seeking legitimate non-profit status with the IRS. Any true nonprofit will appear in a nonprofit search using the IRS website and the organization will also be able to provide an EIN (Employer Identification Number). Grant Funding to Help Animals I have many contacts in the rescue world, most of whom lead organizations that are foster-based and forever struggling to get enough money to help more animals. None are compensated for their work, all have families and most have full-time jobs. How they find the time to help animals and keep some kind of life balance is a mystery to me and the sad truth is that many ultimately "flame out" and leave rescue work entirely because they lack life balance and the need is just so great. Finding fosters to house animals short-term is typically the biggest obstacle to the mission, but a close second is the issue of money to pay for food and veterinary care. Some of the rescuers I know do what I consider "hair on fire" rescue in which they take on way (way) more animals than they can possibly help with the resources they have and then beg for money they need immediately. Other organizations in my area do a great job of keeping the public engaged, asking for help when they need it (but not every day) and holding small fundraisers that range from yard sales to auctions to t-shirt sales. Even those groups can find themselves with huge vet bills and no immediate way to pay them. Which is why I want to talk about grants. Everyone is familiar with the subject of grants. There is grant funding available from numerous sources that are mostly subject-based (science, education, disease, veteran support, etc.) and mostly focused on businesses and people. Like the issue of donating to an animal nonprofit, the landscape is more complex when it comes to finding grants to help animals. An internet search for animal grants can produce some results, but trying to navigate through a tremendous amount of information is difficult for most in the rescue and animal welfare non-profit world if for no other reason than they simply lack the time. I asked a cat rescue contact of mine recently what she was doing to seek grant funding and her answer was pretty short. "Nothing. I don't have time to do my laundry and I can't remember the last time I took a vacation. Who has time?"  I think in order to help animals, nonprofit organizations have to make time not only to learn about the landscape of animal grants but how best to seek those grants . And luckily for us all, there is someone to help us named Stephanie Mathers. I first ran across Grants4Animals in my efforts to help a local rescue group for which I have done some small fundraisers. I know money is out there and I know it's a matter of knowing where to find it. The best way I can describe Stephanie's platform is that the grants are buried treasure and she provides the treasure map. You can visit her website yourself to learn more about the great work she is doing, but the two services I recommend most to my animal rescue and nonprofit contacts are the 1-hour consulting session and the Train Your Grant writer self-paced program. To be clear, neither of these services are free (although the monthly newsletter which highlights animal grants is available for the taking). In my opinion, the nominal amount of money spent for either service is well worth not only the cost - but the time - because of the potential that thousands of dollars in grant money can be obtained not just in the short-term but long-term as part of keeping the nonprofit organization afloat (ahoy matey...I could not resist the water reference). Stephanie shared this related to the cost, and I could not agree more: You cannot understate the 'value' of one good grant lead. Most grants in animal welfare start around $5,000 and range up to $50,000. So, there is real value in even one good grant lead. Potentially, learning how to find grant leads or paying for a consulting session that will generate many of them has a great return on investment, even if it's hard to pay upfront." If you lead or are associated with a nonprofit organization that helps animals, I hope you will sign up for Stephanie's newsletter and consider taking advantage of her services. Happy grant hunting! And tell Stephanie I sent you. 
0 Comments
I lost a friend today. I'm still processing the fact that he no longer walks this Earth. Having been told years ago that storytelling is good for the soul, I want to talk about my friend. Alan. But I need to start with Henry. Many people are familiar with Henry Bergh who is known as the founder of the animal protection movement in the United States although that was certainly not his only achievement. Bergh promoted the first animal protection law in 1867 which was essentially the first form of a CAPA (Companion Animal Protection Act) advocates promote today to codify the way tax-funded shelters operate. Bergh created not only the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but also created a society for protection of children - showing that compassion for animals and for people are not mutually exclusive. Bergh was was subjected to the same criticism and ridicule as advocates are today, but was determined to do what was right. He was also concerned about the corrupting influences of money, power and politics which we have seen play out in animal welfare circles in full force over the last decade. Bergh was known of as the The Great Meddler. Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center wrote this about Bergh's efforts: "Bergh fought for horses, dogs, cats, animals raised and killed for food, and more. Every time he was told he should stick to dogs or horses and was going too far, as when he attempted to ban the shooting of pigeons, the killing of rats, or to get a law passed banning vivisection (laboratory and medical school experiments on animals), Bergh was undeterred." There were many years when the No Kill Advocacy Center issued Henry Bergh Awards to leaders in the No Kill movement which seeks to end the killing of healthy and treatable animals in our tax-funded animal shelters. If the award process had continued, I'd like to think Alan would have received one. I knew Alan Rosenberg as one of my many contacts across the country in the trenches of animal advocacy, specifically advocating for reform of tax-funded animal shelters. Everyone has heard of the ASPCA (that has strayed light years away from Bergh's vision) and Humane World (that used to be the Humane Society of the United States), large organizations people think are helping animals when what they do best is spend your money. Alan was a key member of what I consider a band of brothers and sisters across the country working in the trenches to change our society and how we treat companion animals. He was just one guy. He worked a full-time job, had a family, didn't get paid for his advocacy and spoke out for animals because it was just the right thing to do. Like many of us who belong to social movements and interact with people not only in this country but around the globe, I never met Alan in person but that mattered little. He was my friend. We spoke by phone often, shared countless emails and spent hours upon hours participating in videos for the No Kill in Motion channel on Youtube including short videos we called No Kill Uncaged like this one. Alan was our "numbers guy" and I'm not ashamed to say he was the smartest person in our group. He wrote incredibly detailed blogs on his New Jersey Animal Observer website most of which were based on in-depth research of public records. It's hard to pick one article, but a great example is his blog from 2021 in which Alan ranked the top No Kill shelters in the country in which he concluded that the Lake County Animal Shelter in Florida was the example for other shelters to emulate. Davyd Smith of No Kill Colorado did a special No Kill in Motion segment with Alan about his research which is a personal favorite of mine. Looking back at it now, I smile at Alan's wavy hair with the backdrop of a treadmill and a cat tree. Alan lived in New Jersey but like many people active in the No Kill movement, the effects of his advocacy were felt across the nation. People looked to Alan not just for his affinity for numbers and analysis, but because of his breadth of knowledge of No Kill programs and services he had seen work in communities large and small, wealthy and poor, suburban and rural. He was an unapologetic proponent of the No Kill Equation as the solution to end the killing of healthy and treatable animals in our nation's shelters and did not hesitate to help anyone who sought his counsel. There were many times when people from other states contacted me for help and while I did all I could to guide them, I often referred them to Alan. He had a way of speaking with people that helped them understand the Equation clearly and was full of examples of how each element of the Equation could be implemented anywhere to affect change. I marveled at not just his communication skills but the way his brain worked. It was a marvel to behold. Alan was a modern renaissance man in all sense of the phrase. He worked at Pfizer and was proud of the work the company does to help people, particularly developing vaccines to save countless lives during the pandemic. Alan was a devoted husband to his wife Estrella and a devoted father to his son Gavin. I often wondered how he had the time to advocate for shelter reform at all considering how full his life was with so many activities with his family and his job. To say Alan led a purpose-filled life is a tremendous understatement. That we all should spend our time her with so much meaning. It was totally unrelated to our connection through advocacy, but I remember finding so much joy in Alan's posts on social media about his west coast baseball stadium tour with his family that include the Petco Park Stadium in home hometown of San Diego. I last spoke with Alan a few months ago to ask some question about stats and he told me he would be backing away from advocacy for a while due to some health issues. I didn't press him on the subject because it was none of my business. I just wished him well, told him I would pray for him and asked him to keep in touch. Little did I know we would never talk again. We all know time is short and none of us is guaranteed our next day on this Earth with the families we love and as we devote time to causes about which we are passionate. When Davyd Smith called me today to tell me Alan had died, I was shocked. I babbled. And then when I hung up the phone I cried. I will miss my friend. Alan and I never talked about religion or his beliefs, but I would like to think he has been rewarded for a life well lived and that maybe, just maybe, he and Henry will meet and engage in many spirited discussions about what we owe children, what we owe animals and what we owe companion animals specifically. I fully expect Alan would remember some stats and research off the top of his head so he could share with Henry how far the movement he started has come in all these years. That thought put a smile on my face today and I plan to hold onto it in the months and years to come. Gone too soon, my friend. May you now rest.  (this image was shared by Alan's wife, Estrella, and has been modified to suit my beliefs about him) If you would like to watch the No Kill in Motion tribute to Alan, it is on our No Kill in Motion Youtube channel at this link. Many people in Alan's life may not be aware of the full extent of his advocacy efforts to we wanted to not only honor our friend, but give people some insight into his advocacy which helped change how shelters operate across the country. Note: The Celebration of Life for Alan will be held on Sunday, October 12, 2025 at Herbal Roots Organics in Boonton, New Jersey. Donations in his honor may be made to the Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Research Foundation.  A new study by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, was released recently that contains some interesting (yet not surprising) information about access to veterinary care, pet acquisition and spay and neuter of pets. The report states the sample of more than 5,000 people in both English and Spanish “was largely representative of the US adult population in terms of age, race/ethnicity, household income, household size, percentage of households with children, marital status, urbanicity, and housing type.” My key takeaways from the study are as follows:  Younger households/respondents:
 Reasons for pets not being spayed or neutered.
 Why the No Kill Equation Remains the Go-To Solution The study authors recommend what are called “community-based interventions like affordable veterinary clinics, mobile services and local resource guides.” In my world, this means doubling down on the No Kill Equation not only related to access to veterinary care, but to help people so we can help animals. Access to high volume/low-cost spay neuter remains crucial to keeping pet populations in check. As we have always known, those least apt to have pets spayed and neutered are those who can least afford it. Municipalities that invest in programs to help low-income households have pets sterilized reap the rewards of that investment over time as shelter intake decreases. It’s a “pay me now v. pay me later” situation in which a nominal investment to prevent pet births reduces the costs in terms of both resources and spending to impound, house and then seek positive outcomes for those animals in progressive communities or destroy those animals in regressive communities. I am fully aware there are veterinary deserts in our country where implementation of this program of the No Kill Equation is a challenge. Rather than throw our hands in the air and say there is nothing to be done, I believe it is worth the effort to find solutions for those areas to either bring spay/neuter services to the public or provide a mechanism to transport animals to areas where spay/neuter services are available. The Alabama Spay/Neuter Clinic in Irondale, Alabama, transports animals to the clinic from 12 locations using a monthly schedule. The cost is $10 per pet. The spay/neuter costs are higher than at the North Alabama Spay and Neuter Clinic in Huntsville, but are still much lower than the fees charge by many veterinarians. The Bissell Pet Foundation has a program called Fix the Future that was “created to address the lack of access to veterinary care for both shelters and pet owners. . .[in which the foundation] pays contracted veterinarians directly and connects them with approved host organizations in regions where spay/neuter is needed.” I would like to see other national nonprofits like the ASPCA and Best Friends Animal Society provide similar services, perhaps by employing contract veterinarians who operate mobile veterinary clinics to take spay/neuter services to the people where they live and work.  The study also highlights the need for pet retention programs to help keep pets in existing homes through personal counseling to help people keep dogs contained, address resource issues or address behavior issues. When shelters are seen as places that help instead of places that judge, people are more apt to seek that help instead of trying to surrender a pet. The only limit to programs like this is the imagination of the people providing the help. Maybe a household needs help with pet food, paying for nominal veterinary costs (through grant funding) or referral to a rescue group or trainer related to some behavior issue. Maybe an animal really cannot stay in the existing home for some reason in which case the counseling can relate to re-homing the pet with a family member, friend, neighbor, co-worker, social contact (like someone from church or a sports team) or with the help of a veterinarian. In cases where the pet remains in the existing home that counseling should always include help developing a pet care plan in the event of the caregiver’s death, hospitalization, incarceration or some other life crisis so the animal goes directly to another home based on a plan and does not end up at any animal shelter. It also helps when animal nonprofits in a community help keep pets in existing homes through wellness clinics like the one hosted by the Greater Huntsville Humane Society once a month and helping households with dogs who live outside keep those dogs contained and well cared for. Comprehensive adoption programs are vital to placing animals in homes that otherwise would not consider acquiring an animal from a shelter. This includes family friendly hours in the evening and on weekends so people can get to the shelter outside of their work hours and even bring children with them as a family decision. Any shelter that is only open “banker’s hours” when most people are at work will always have lower adoption rates because those hours make it almost impossible for most people to get to the shelter unless they take vacation time from work (a luxury many working people don’t have). It also includes reduced adoption fees, fee waived adoptions or sponsored adoption fees as a marketing tool to make it easier for people to adopt. That does not mean there is no adoption screening. It does mean that focusing on the value of the animal’s life is more important than focusing on some arbitrary fee. All shelter animals are in competition for adoptive homes with other animals in the region. Waiving the fee or having some low fee can get the attention of potential adopters and make the difference to help a caregiver adopt and then be able to more easily afford pet basics like food, bowls, a bed, etc.  Based on the number of people who get dogs from breeders and pet stores, the importance of Public Relations and Community Involvement cannot be overstated. People don't adopt animals they don't know about. Increasing adoptions, maximizing donations, recruiting volunteers and partnering with community agencies comes down to one thing: increasing a shelter’s public exposure. Public relations and marketing are the foundation of any shelter’s activities and their success. To do all these things well, the shelter must be in the public eye. There are a lot of people don’t give much thought to the municipal animal shelter in their community. Some know it exists but could not tell you where it is located. Some have an idea of what takes place there and perhaps don’t want to think about it. The first hurdle any shelter has to overcome is making itself visible in the community; making itself relevant. When a shelter is viewed more as a place of hope and of rescue, it goes a long way toward both keeping animals out of the shelter and getting them out of the shelter. With regard to the animals themselves, this element is all about marketing shelter animals as a compassionate way to get a pet, the responsible thing to do to save a life, overcoming beliefs that shelter animals are somehow damaged and promoting animals based on their personalities to help adopters make informed choices. It is also about making it easy to adopt shelter animals by removing arbitrary barriers to adoption (the age of the adopter, how frequently the adopter travels, whether or not the adopter has a fully fenced yard, etc.). When we market animals consistently and the animals are very visible in the community through off-site adoption events and use of the media, we seek the help of the public in placing animals and we help them understand that shelter animals are just as worthy, loving and loyal as animals from other sources. It is a given in the animal sheltering industry that pet problems are people problems. If we want to reduce the number of animals entering shelters and move animals through the shelter system as fast as possible, we have to stop vilifying the public served, suspend the mantra about “the irresponsible public” and show people some support, compassion and grace.  Social media. Many of us use it. Many of us hate it. It can be a wonderful thing when it comes to keeping up with family and friends. It can be a terrible thing when it comes to the sharing and re-sharing of information that may be at best misleading or at worst plain wrong. I personally believe that social media has eroded people's critical thinking skills to the detriment of us all. It encourages short and often meaningless interactions with people we don't know and will never meet. And it is easier to go along with someone who presents themselves as an authority on a topic - or even some organization that does the same - than it is to educate ourselves and think for ourselves in forming our opinions. The topics of animal welfare, animal protection and animals shelters are affected as negatively by this follower mentality and lack of critical thinking as any other subject. This was made abundantly clear during the last legislative session in the state where I live as people (who no doubt mean well) supported bad legislation related to companion animals just because a well-known personality told them to and while knowing little to nothing about existing laws or how the bills would negatively affect those laws. People were clamoring for more laws without knowing what laws are already on the books and how efforts to change the laws may actually weaken those we have. Some held a protest on the steps of the state capitol in support of a bill they had not yet read and which ultimately would have weakened existing law. Many who supported the bills referred repeatedly to the state's "ranking" by a national nonprofit organization with the stated mission to, "protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system."  Ranking of states is nothing new. U.S. News ranks states every year and there are state rankings related to health and education. So what are these state rankings all about when it comes to animals? There was a time years ago when both the Humane Society of the United States (now known as Humane World for Animals) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund both published annual state rankings. HSUS last published a report years ago, leaving ALDF as the organization to which people are referring when they talk about state rankings regarding animal protection laws. After reading (or hearing) for the 200th time that Alabama is ranked 49 out of 50 states related to our animal protection laws, I decided I had had enough. To a person, the people talking about the rankings did so with an apparent belief that the ranking means Alabama essentially has no laws at all. Which is just not true. Is there room for improvement in Alabama? Absolutely. I grew up in Southern California and I sometimes joke that time travel really is possible depending on where you go in Alabama. There is no shortage of issues about which the state can improve, many of which are hindered by the fact that ours is an agricultural state (in which Big Ag = Big Money = Big Influence) and hindered by the culture of some resident regarding how animals should be treated. We have laws that are very strong, some of which do not exist in other states. We have laws that are optional when they should be mandatory. We have laws that are not enforced in some cases because law enforcement officers are not trained on animal laws or don't care about them. We have prosecutors who charge people using the wrong statute which sometimes leads to "evidence animals" being housed in shelters for months when a disposition hearing about them can and should be held within 20 days of them being seized. We have elected officials whose opinion is that companion animals should be given no more consideration than single celled organisms, some of whom reportedly participate in cock fighting (which is a felony offense in more than 42 states and the District of Columbia). My review of the 2024 ALDF rankings report was enlightening. It includes a rankings map (shown below) and information about the method used to rank states and territories based on 4 primary categories and 20 different categories. The rankings focus primarily on enacted animal protection laws and not on enforcement of those laws (which is perfectly understandable). The rankings also do not take into consideration administrative codes like exist in Alabama to regulate professions (from accountants to the Youth Services Department). The top 5 states in the 2024 report are Oregon (1), Massachusetts (2), Maine (3), Illinois (4) and Colorado (5). The bottom 5 states in the report are Mississippi (46), Kentucky (47), Idaho (48), Alabama (49) and North Dakota (50). The report includes data sheets for those 10 states. The ALDF website has an individual page for each state that includes a report for the state and information specific to the state.  (image from page 3 of the 2024 Animal Legal Defense Fund Ranking Report) When I began comparing the report details about Alabama, it became clear to me that the rankings are not what I thought at all. There are laws that are lacking in Alabama that are also lacking in the states ranked 2 through 5. There are laws in top ranked states that make some actions optional but not mandatory and yet Alabama is faulted for not having mandatory laws on the same subjects. My analysis of the data appears in the images below. You can see a pdf of my analysis by clicking on the first image.    A senior staff attorney with ALDF graciously took time out of her busy schedule to talk with me about the rankings and the effect of those rankings on legislative efforts in my state. She said ALDF uses a point system to rank states and has for many years. I spoke about the issue of equity in fairness in the rankings. She said the primary goal for ranking states is to help identify gaps in animal protection laws across the country, call attention to areas that can improve and to focus on strong laws in some states that could be implemented in other states. ALDF only looks at the state code. To the extent there are professional requirements in an administrative code (like in Alabama) they do not consider that at all. If something considered important is not codified, a state does not get credit for it. If something considered important is part of the ordinary enforcement of laws by a court, but is not explicitly required by state law, a state does not get credit for it. In the end, my impression is that it is not really possible to rank states equitably using the criteria on which ALDF relies which is understandably limited. There are certainly other states with stronger laws than mine, but since ALDF cannot speak to enforcement in any state, there is no way to determine if those laws are enforced and better than ours are enforced. I explained how the ALDF rankings negatively affect legislative efforts in the state and spoke specifically to the problems with two bills filed in the last legislative session that were promoted by a well known shelter director in the state for reasons I will not elaborate on here so I lessen the risk of being sued. I told the staff attorney the rankings make it seem like the lower ranked states have no laws at all which leads people not familiar with the laws to latch onto any bill thinking it must be a good thing. When it often is far from that. The attorney conceded the state rankings are not a zero-sum situation where states ranked high have thorough laws and states ranked low have no laws. I told her that is, unfortunately, what people think and that most people promote any animal bill they hear about, presuming it must be a good thing. She said she would speak to her director about messaging and to make the purpose of the rankings more clear. I asked that the messaging include encouraging people to learn about existing state laws and to educate themselves so they have a better understanding of the effect of proposed bills on existing laws. I appreciated her time and her offer to help in the future if there is a particular bill in my state viewed as problematic. The Animal Legal Defense Fund does a lot of good and helps a lot of people. It is supported by thousands of dedicated attorneys and hundreds of thousands of members and supporters. It is involved in filing lawsuits to stop animal abuse and expand the boundaries of animal law, it provides free legal help to prosecutors handling cruelty cases, it works to strengthen state anti-cruelty statutes, is encourages the federal government to enforce existing animal protection laws, it supports student chapters, has an animal law program and provides public education. Those are all wonderful contributions to society. From where I site, the state rankings are a terrible idea. I would much prefer that ALDF stop ranking states as if it is a competition in which those states ranked near the top are applauded and those who rank low must just not give a damn. ALDF could still provide information by state, as it does now, to focus on what good things are happening in the state and where there is room for improvement. Ranking a state 49th has real world consequences. We are fortunate neither of the bills filed this last legislative session passed. They will likely be back in some form in 2026 as people continue to talk about the state rankings while still not understanding what we have on the books, how to focus on elected people who will enforce the laws and how to seek local laws to help improve the quality of life of companion animals in their own back yard.  Before you use the rankings for your state either to support or to oppose legislation in your state - or to talk about how wonderful or terrible your state is - please educate yourself. Learn about existing laws and how they are enforced, if they are enforced. If they are not enforced, get active at the local level to try to change that. Most district attorneys and sheriffs are elected by the public. If existing laws are not enforced, there is no reason to believe new laws will be enforced. When bills are proposed, please take the time to read them and think for yourself. If you have trouble understanding the laws, reach out to advocates in your state who can help you.
What would I like to see in the short-term for Alabama that I think is realistic considering the culture here?
I would also like to see all certified law enforcement officers trained on the animal laws in the state code (there is currently no training) and a mandatory training curriculum for animal control officers who assist certified officers. Dare to dream. Animal problems are people problems.
I make these points because I was reminded again this week of the level of hatred displayed by some in the animal shelter and animal rescue communities toward the public. Some attitudes rise to a level I consider toxic. People who lead or work in shelters where the lives of healthy and treatable animals are ended as a population control measure do not want to be called killers and they should not. Applying the act to the actor is inflammatory and counterproductive. Yet those same people who do not want to be faulted for destroying animals (needlessly, I would argue) do not hesitate to blame the public for the fact that animals die at their facilities. Most of them remain ignorant of (or refuse to acknowledge) proven programs that have been available for the taking for 2 decades and which can and should be used to keep more animals alive. This is what I read and hear weekly if not daily.
But here's the problem with that us v. them attitude. It does not serve shelters and rescue groups well and it certainly does not serve the public well toward resolving the very issues that cause animals to be in need. Animal sheltering and rescue is not what the public thinks. Or even understands. I blame that in part to television shows and documentary films that have highlighted animal control/shelter operations and on rescue groups that have led the public to have entirely unrealistic expectations of those animal care agencies. Add to this the fact that we all live within the bubble of our own reality and we focus on what is in front of us, what affects us and what we value no matter the subject. Politics. Money. Our troops. Disease. Animals.  Whether people in the shelter and rescue community want to acknowledge it or not, most of the public has no clue of the challenges faced by shelters and rescues related to companion animals because it's just not on their personal radar. Should the public know more about what is happening when it comes to how their personal behavior affects shelters and rescue groups? Probably. But. They. Don't. I once spoke to this in a podcast for which I was interviewed years ago and referred to the divide between the public and animal agencies as like a gorge. On one side of the gorge are the animal loving public. Most of them mean well. They think they are doing all they can but they do make bad choices, they sometimes wait too long for pets to be spayed/neutered and accidents happen that cause dogs to get loose. Most of those people on the public side of the gorge believe animal shelters keep all healthy and treatable animals alive. They also have developed an unreasonable belief that rescue groups are prepared to drop what they are doing and absolve them of responsibility for their pets, a belief that is bolstered by the fact that many in rescue will do just that. On the other side of the gorge is the animal shelter and rescue community that have such loathing for the public they can hardly function. They are certain the public is entirely to blame for the fact that animals die because people are irresponsible and don't care enough. I'm not sure who all these irresponsible people are. Apparently everyone other than the people who work at or volunteer for the shelter. I firmly believe that the culture in our communities toward companion animals changes when the shelter leads the way and invites the public they serve to be part of something bigger than themselves. In places where the culture related to shelter animals has changed and more lives are saved, the "irresponsible public" did not move out only to be replaced by more responsible people. Unless and until those in the animal shelter and rescue community stop vilifying the public they expect to behave differently, nothing will change. It is totally counterproductive to say, "it is your fault animals die, but oh, by the way. Can you adopt, volunteer, donate and foster?" You cannot slap someone across the face with your words and expect adoration or cooperation in return. If you want to modify public behavior, please suspend your judgment and check your attitude at the door. Instead try helping people so they make better choices and so there are fewer animals entering shelters or in need of rescue.
 And some suggestions for everyone involved that are a reality check. For animal shelters:
 This week I have been called insane, clueless, delusional and told to "F off" multiple times. Name calling and profanity by those who refuse to acknowledge that animal problems are people problems are tactics of desperation. One woman told me to "hush." Alrighty then. I have also been told I am not allowed to have an opinion about tax-funded animal shelter operations if I have never done that job myself. I simply do not agree. I have plenty of contacts across the country who do run animal shelters and with whom I have interacted for years. And I think we can all agree I am not expected to fill potholes, mow city parks or stand in the street and direct traffic to have an opinion about how tax dollars are spent by other municipal departments that do not make life and death decisions daily.
 People who are passionate about helping companion animals mean well and that includes some (but certainly not all) of the people we elect to represent us at the state level, senators and representatives alike. Every state is governed by laws that cover subjects ranging from agriculture to aviation to banks to corporations to counties to courts to education to elections to eminent domain to housing to insurance to professions and public works. You get the idea. Each state also has laws about animals some of which relate to animals generally (containment, livestock, rabies vaccination, dangerous dogs, sterilization) and some of which relate to crimes against companion animals specifically like torture, cruelty and neglect of dogs and cats. Each state has its own process for how laws get enacted but the process is similar: a bill is filed by a state elected official - a senator or a representative - and it is assigned to a committee for consideration. It can either die in committee (meaning no action is taken) or get a favorable vote (with or without changes being made) and then it is considered by the chamber in which it was introduced (house or senate). If it makes it through that chamber, the process repeats itself in the other chamber where it the bill may die or move forward. If the bill gets through the second chamber, it goes to the governor to sign or veto. The process is more detailed than that and involves more steps, but that’s the general sequence. If you are not familiar with the process in your state, please learn about it. This is the information for my state that is published by the American Civil Liberties Union. In my experience, very few people who want animals treated better know the laws in their own state. Some are written more clearly than others and all laws are open to some degree of interpretation which is why courts sometimes get involved. This lack of knowledge often extends to the very elected officials who promote bills they think will help animals. A contact of mine at a state attorney general’s office told me that state elected officials often do not know the existing laws, often do not write the bills they file and may not understand the effect their proposed bill may have on existing laws, often weakening laws that have been on the books for decades. So, how do we animal advocates or concerned citizens know if a bill is a good bill or a bad bill? We need to examine the following things:
A Good Bill  Like many states, Colorado sells license plates to the public for causes the public supports. One of those license plates is the “Adopt a Shelter Pet” plate. Funds collected from the sale of the plates goes into the “pet overpopulation fund” to be used by animal shelters to have animals spayed/neutered and to support education programs. Prior to the promotion of House Bill HB25-1137, shelters seeking money from the fund had to agree to not use the phrase “No Kill” related to their shelter operation or marketing. The Humane Society of Fremont County - which holds 7 municipal contracts - has proudly upheld the highest open-admission save rate in Colorado for 10 consecutive years and is considered a leading animal shelter in the country. Because it refused to comply with the requirement to ditch the “No Kill” label, it was prevented from receiving crucial funding. The primary purpose of the bill was to prevent funds being withheld from shelters that support the No Kill model of animal sheltering. A portion of the bill language states: (c) The adopt a shelter pet account in the pet overpopulation fund receives money donated through the sale of the adopt a shelter pet license plate to be used for spaying and neutering animals in animal shelters and rescues and to support overpopulation education programs; An incredible amount of work was done by the primary supporters of the bill: No Kill Colorado, the MaxFund No Kill Animal Shelter and Adoption Center, and the Humane Society of Fremont County, This bill represents a long-overdue correction to an unfair funding restriction that has penalized shelters like ours for standing by our no-kill values,” said Doug Rae, the Director of the Humane Society of Fremont County. “We are proud to lead this fight for fairness and transparency, but we need the public’s help to get this across the finish line.” Proponents of the bill fought hard for its passage after it was introduced in the house in late January. It passed the house in February and passed the senate in March after gaining support from the Colorado Department of Agriculture. The bill was being signed into law by Governor Jared Polis on April 17, 2025. This is an example of a good bill. It sought to remove obstacles to receipt of funds by animal shelters that were based not on helping animals, but were grounded in the personal opinions of the members of the Colorado Pet Overpopulation Authority, some of whom are hostile toward No Kill philosophies. The law as enacted states, “the Colorado Pet Overpopulation Authority must not favor a particular shelter model when allocating money from the Adopt A Shelter Pet Account.” A Bad Bill  Most states have laws about animal cruelty that are part of the criminal code. Such is the case in Alabama. The laws were enacted at different times in the history of the state and law enforcement officers are not trained in animal laws in the academy instruction they received to be certified. Laws about cruelty to animals (generally) and aggravated cruelty were enacted in 1977 and 2013, respectively. Laws about cruelty to dogs and cats (specifically) were enacted in 2000 as part of the Pet Protection Act. There were two problematic animal bills filed in the 2025 legislative session which has now ended without either bill making it out of the chamber of origin. Both bills were promoted by the CEO of nonprofit organization based in Birmingham that holds numerous municipal contracts (and continues to seek more) despite the fact that it has a dismal live release rate for dogs and a less than stellar rate for cats. House Bill 149 was originally filed on February 4, 2025, and a substitute bill took its place on April 2, 2025 without the public having an opportunity to review the substitute. The bill did not seek to amend existing laws (which should have been the case) but was a stand-alone bill called the Alabama Dog Tethering and Outdoor Shelter Act. The original version of the bill would have reduced what was a Class A misdemeanor to a Class B misdemeanor. It includes provisions regarding food, water, shelter, collar size, enclosure size, enclosure height that are unenforceable as written. Here are some examples: (1) ADEQUATE FOOD. Food that is sufficient in amount and is appropriate for the particular type of dog to prevent starvation or a significant risk to the dog's health from lack of food. The term includes palatable, uncontaminated, and nutritionally appropriate food that is fed according to species requirements or is fed as directed by a veterinarian. This is an example of a bad bill. It sought to achieve too many things at once, many of which would have been unenforceable. It would not have outlawed chaining of dogs as many people thought; it would have allowed dogs to be chained using a chain designed for dogs which are sold widely on the internet and at pet supply stores. The provisions in the bill related to "shelter" might have been of some value, but the state has a history with that one word. There have been multiple attempts over a period of many years to define the single word shelter in the criminal code (three of which were brought by a former state representative who is now the state auditor). All failed. The senate chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee told me years ago that as long as a dog can get under a mobile home, that's shelter. His personal views aside, I'm not sure why proponents of the bill thought that having a new bill to define that one word combined with numerous other things would make it through the legislative gauntlet. It would be like a tenant asking a landlord to fix a window, being told no, and then asking the landlord to fix the window, renovate all the rooms in the house and pay for landscaping. Not. Gonna. Happen. In addition to issues with provisions of the bill being unenforceable, perhaps the more concerning issue is that the bill would have given authority to animal control officers to perform duties typically performed by certified law enforcement officers. The requirements to be an animal control officer in Alabama typically consist of having a high school diploma or GED and a driver's license. Most animal control officers are not trained in their animal control duties, much less trained in animal laws, investigative techniques, de-escalation techniques or probable cause determinations. Giving untrained civilians authority to seize animals could be dangerous – someone is apt to be shot and people in the vicinity of the property could also be endangered. Giving ACOs authority to seize animals could also result in unwarranted taking of animals in violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because they do not know the laws of the state and this could lead to litigation. As my husband said very clearly when we were taking about the bill: “if you come on my property to take my dog, you better have really good health insurance.” I am relieved this bill did not make it out of the house of origin, a fact that has put me at odds with some of my contacts in Alabama who mistakenly believe the bill would have done amazing things to help animals in our state. I understand they mean well but their failure to learn about existing laws and to think for themselves was a recipe for disappointment. Many people supporting the bill took their cue from the CEO of a nonprofit organization I mentioned above. She has an huge following in the state and speaks with the voice of authority regarding animal issues - including proposed legislation - even thought some of her comments were inaccurate. She has a lot of support by members of the business community in her area and is favored by the founder of a large nonprofit organization with national reach. All of this is despite the fact that more than half the dogs impounded by her organization in 2024 did not survive the process. I'm not sure that anyone with a record that poor should be considered a voice of authority on any issues related to companion animals. Including new laws. I would like to think there will be lessons learned from the fact that the bills she promoted did not leave the chamber of origin. I'm not so sure that will happen. It is easier for people to take the default position that state legislators don't care than it is to examine why the bills failed to better promote effective bills in the future.  For those in my state who are upset that House Bill 149 (and House Bill 249) did not survive this legislative session, here are a few things to consider.
 Do you think you know about the history of animal sheltering in the United States and what the No Kill movement represents? Let's see how you do. Pop quiz (the answer key is found at the end of this blog). 1. Who was the founder of the modern animal protection movement? a. Richard Avanzino. b. Nathan Winograd c. Henry Bergh. d. George Angell. 2. True or false. The same person founded the first Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals AND the New York Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. a. True. b. False. 3. How many animals were being destroyed in American animal shelters each year in the 1960s and 1970s? a. 30-35 million b. 20-25 million. c. 16-17 million. d. 10-12 million. 4. Where was the location of the first No Kill animal shelter in America? a. San Francisco, California. b. Austin, Texas. c. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania d. Tompkins County, New York. 5. What does the phrase "No Kill" mean? a. No animals die in the animal shelter under any circumstances. b. The shelter saves the lives of all healthy and treatable animals who enter the shelter. c. The shelter saves 90% of the animals who enter the shelter. d. The shelter only ends the lives of animals when it is overcrowded and to make space. 6. True or false. The No Kill movement promotes warehousing animals for long periods of time and leads to abuse and neglect of animals. a. True. b. False. I tend to blog not to read my own words or make a name for myself, but when I have something to say. Today is one of those days and is perhaps long overdue. As we head into Spring of a new year, I am seeing more and more toxic rhetoric against the No Kill Movement as people (and organizations) seek to make this social movement into something it is not or find other ways to describe ending the lives of healthy and treatable animals in our nation's shelters using tax dollars ("low kill," "community pet heroes" or "Saving More Animals Responsibly Together.") The first thing about these voices that surprises me - and which is different than years past - is people (and organizations) declaring the No Kill movement outdated, as if it served its purpose for a while but is no longer effective. Hardly. The No Kill movement has been a fast moving vehicle of change that has drastically shifted not only how many shelters operate but has also served to educate the public on how their tax dollars are spent so they can seek better. That was true decades ago and is still true today. The second thing about these voices - that does not surprise me at all - is there is no indication most of the voices behind these positions have done anything to educate themselves on the history of animal sheltering in the United States or the history of the No Kill Movement other than a few Google searches. It can be hard to take these people seriously because they profess to know something about a subject they genuinely know nothing about. But we ignore them at our own peril because many of these voices are heard the loudest 1) because the positions are put forth by a huge organization that rakes in millions of dollars from people who think their donation will help animals; 2) because of the identity of the speaker who has some form of notoriety; or 3) because of the self-validating nature of social media where people share and comment and share and comment and share and comment on posts about animal sheltering and the No Kill movement that support their current world view without doing any fact checking or better yet - thinking for themselves. I typically try to engage directly with the people who oppose the No Kill Movement in an effort to educate them if I think there may be a conversation to be had. I spent an hour on the phone a few weeks ago with a prominent figure whose family rose to prominence at the time of Henry Bergh (and who now leads a well known nonprofit organization) after she wrote a blog critical of the movement. I spent the same amount of time on the phone last week with an individual who engages with animal shelters and animal control personnel nationally because he is on the speaker circuit for conferences and he provides consultant-based training. Sometimes these calls achieve little, but I tell myself I tried. There are other times I don't even try to engage with the person if the hatred for the movement is so obvious there is no conversation to be had. I pick my battles. I have long said that an educated advocate is an informed advocate and I believe there is no shortcut to avoid doing our homework. How can we possible speak to the validity of a philosophy like the No Kill movement if we know nothing about the history that created the movement and about the challenges we face today? We cannot. This blog is intended to help two groups of people. The first group is people who genuinely want to learn about the history of animal sheltering in our country and the No Kill movement but don't know where to start. There is so much information on the Internet it can be easy to get lost. The second group is people who chose to parrot an opinion as a follower of someone else without taking any time to develop an informed opinion. Consider this a challenge issued. You cannot possibly say you know that you are talking about (or commenting about) unless you have invested time to learn, learn and then learn some more. If I was teaching a class called No Kill 101 for Everyone (Not Just Dummies), the first semester would start with the following assignments. Class is in session. Let me know if you have any questions.  Lesson 1. Read "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" (time - approximately 10 hours) Redemption was first published by Nathan Winograd, the founder of the No Kill Advocacy Center, in 2007. A second edition was published in 2008. The title of the book took many people by surprise when it was published, including many with decades of experience advocating for shelter animals. Why? Prior to having bubbles burst, almost everyone was certain animals died in shelters due to "pet overpopulation." We had been told that same thing over and over for so long that we believed it had to be true (when it is not). The book is almost 20 years old but the content stands the test of time. It is part history book and how "how to" book as it introduces us to the No Kill Equation which I consider to be a DIY solution for any shelter or any community seeking to balance public safety with saving the lives of shelter animals. Reading this book changed my life and put me on a different life path. To use a word from my legal career, it is a treatise. I refer to it often. I consider it the foundation to any education about animal sheltering in America and the No Kill movement.  Lesson 2: Watch "Redemption: The No Kill Revolution in America" (time - 56 minutes) This 2014 documentary film is based on the book Redemption and is described as follows: "This is the story of animal sheltering, which was born of compassion and then lost its way. It is the story of the No Kill movement, which says we can and must stop the killing. It is about heroes and villains, betrayal and redemption. And it is about a social movement as noble and just as those that have come before. But most of all, it is a story about believing in the community and trusting in the power of compassion." The film is still available on DVD if you want a personal copy but can be viewed on Youtube for free. It contains no graphic images.  Lesson 3: Watch "The Myth of Pet Overpopulation" (time - 21 minutes) This short film was published by the No Kill Advocacy Center in July 2019. It explains logically why it is a myth that "pet overpopulation" is the reason why animals die in American shelters (as opposed to shelter overpopulation). This is one of two short films I share most often with rescuers, fellow advocates and elected officials to explain that what people think is happening in animal shelters is, well, not true. In any given year, many millions more people will bring an animal into their home than the number of animals killed in shelters. This is not an overpopulation issue. It is an issue of market share.  Lesson 4: Watch "No Kill 101" (time 28 minutes) This film was published by the No Kill Advocacy Center in 2020. It is probably the most succinct explanation of the No Kill Equation in visual form. It takes us through each element of the Equation to explain how using that program serves to reduce intake, shorten length of stay and get animals out of the shelter faster. I share it with elected officials and shelter leadership often because it is short, logical and engaging. It also sets the stage for me to explain to those officials how the elements of the Equation can be implemented in their own community, often using existing resources and no (or very little) additional spending.  Lesson 5: Read "Not Rocket Science: A Story of No Kill Shelter Advocacy in Huntsville, Alabama (time - approximately 5 hours) This is my book published in April 2019. It is part my story and part the story of the political advocacy of No Kill Huntsville which formed in January 2012 to promote the City of Huntsville, Alabama, ending the outdated practice of killing healthy and treatable animals for space. I wrote it primarily to help the public learn about animal sheltering and programs and also to help people outside our area learn about our path, including what we did right and what we did wrong. It explains the No Kill Equation and how we used the Equation to help take an animal shelter than was destroying most of the animals who entered the building to a shelter that now saves the lives of most of the animals, while still focusing on public safety. The book is available on Amazon for just over 5 bucks if you want a book you can hold in your hand, but you can also read the pdf if you want it for free.  Lesson 6: Listen to the Winograd's Substack Series entitled, "Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Animal Sheltering in the United States" (time - approximately 9 hours total) In late December 2021, the Winograds began sharing a 5-part series of Substack podcasts about the history of animal sheltering and current challenges in response to what they considered significant backsliding by organizations and individuals associated with the No Kill movement which is damaging the movement as a whole. I blogged about the series in September 2022 using the word "gobsmacked" because it was the only word I could find to explain my reaction to the series. Because I shared my thoughts about the series in my blog, they are not restated here. I have included a 6th podcast that is not part of the original series but which I feel is important related to the other podcasts. The series is nothing short of amazing; I learned more from this series than I had in a very long time and I now consider if as important to the education of anyone interested in animal sheltering or animal shelter reform as is Redemption. Some of the episodes are long but I found them captivating. They are conversational between Nathan and Jennifer (who does not get enough credit for your advocacy with Nathan) and easy to listen to. I recommend listening while traveling, driving, exercising or some other task. I listened to most of them while doing other tasks and had a pen and pad of paper handy to take notes. I have encouraged the Winograds to put the series in book form and I hope that will be possible at some point in the future. Part 1: Regarding Henry. The birth and betrayal of the humane movement in America (51 minutes) Part 2: A House of Cards Divided: The fight for the heart and soul of America’s animal shelters (1 hour, 52 minutes) Part 3: All of Them: No Kill moves from the theoretical to the real (2 hours, 5 minutes) Part 4: A glass half full and half empty: we’ve made tremendous progress but we still have a long way to go. (1 hour, 52 minutes) Part 5: What’s Past is Prologue: To best serve animals, humane societies must recapture their roots (1 hour, 9 minutes) Winter is Coming: The movement faces dangers that threaten to erase the gains of the last three decades and increase animal homelessness, abandonment, neglect, abuse, and killing (1 hour, 12 minutes) My advocacy is in honor of our dog, Snake, who left us on Earth Day 2006. Pop Quiz Answers. 1c, 2a, 3c, 4d, 5b, 6b. *The dummies reference relates to a very popular series of books to help people which is a Wiley brand.
I first learned about the killing of healthy and treatable animals in our nation's "shelters" in the summer of 2006 when I had an unwelcome epiphany, thanks to the veterinarian who was the director of the tax-funded animal shelter in the city where I work. I was like most people back then. I though the only animals who died in shelters where those who were too sick or injured to save and the other animals were all reunited with their families, adopted into new homes or helped by rescue groups. I was wrong. The killing of healthy and treatable animals in our nation's shelters has continued for decades while the people doing the killing blame the deaths on "the irresponsible public" and on "pet overpopulation" while acting as though there is no other way to function. This awakening angered me so much that I began learning more about animal sheltering in America from those advocating for change and those leading the best performing shelters in the country. My education put me on a path I never expected and changed my life. I continue to learn new things to this day. Despite what some of my critics think, I am capable of admitting when I am wrong and I am capable of engaging in civil discourse with people who do not share all of my values. The cure for the disease that is shelter killing has been known for almost 2 decades and is there for the taking: the No Kill Equation. I am a member of the No Kill movement and I am an unapologetic supporter of the No Kill Equation for one simple reason: it works. Shelters that have stopped killing healthy and treatable animals for space or convenience have not done that because all the irresponsible people moved away and were replaced by people who care more. The shift from ending lives to saving them is the result of a change in the culture at the shelter which embraces proven programs that reduce shelter intake, shorten the amount of time animals are in the shelter, help the public make better choices and still protect public safety. I am bombarded every week by content from people who oppose the No Kill movement, promote the idea that shelters have no choice but to end the lives of animals and are more focused on how words are used than they are on the unnecessary deaths of animals that either were, or could have been, someone's beloved companion. Blogs. Social media posts. Media articles. I have historically spent a lot of time trying to reach out to these people, trying to start a conversation, only to find there was no conversation to be had in most cases. Some of these people are household names in our country (at least within animal welfare circles) and some are people who promote dangerous ideas online (like the photographer who administers a Facebook page called "Kill Shelters Care Too"). The reality is that large national animal welfare organizations - and people with lots of money or lots of followers - are heard the loudest. Folks like me in the trenches of animal welfare will never have the same reach and trying to connect with opponents individually is often of little value. This blog is about what I believe. If you are open to the idea that shelter animals don't have to die, would not want your own healthy and treatable animal to be killed in a shelter, support reform of our nation's animal shelters or just want your tax dollars spent consistent with public values, I hope you will share my blog. I am happy to engage on these topics with anyone who is interested.  What I Believe
So. That is what I believe based not on something I saw shared a dozen times on Facebook or because I have heard it so many times that I believe it to be true. These are some of my beliefs based on 2 decades of education and networking for the benefit of companion animals in my own community and across the country and for the benefit of people I believe want to do right by those animals. You are welcome to contact me if you have questions about this blog or want to learn more to advance your own education. People just never cease to amaze me. People who defend the killing of healthy and treatable animals in municipal animal shelters never cease to infuriate me. I was tagged on a social media platform recently related to a new page that openly and repeatedly defends the killing of healthy and treatable animals in tax-funded shelters. At first I thought I read the name of the page wrong. After my initial reaction of shock, I was reminded yet again that time travel really is possible depending on where you go in America and about which subject you are speaking. The views of this person may have been more easily understood had she stood on a wooden crate in the town square during the days of Henry Bergh. But this is 2025 and not 1875 so her insistence that municipal shelters have no choice but to end the lives of animals for space - and her stories about having personally participated in this process - made me both sick and angry. I have chosen not to share the name of her page here because I don't want to promote it. For me it is the social media written equivalent of a "stuff film." It is a "pro kill" page.  But back to the social media page. I tried commenting on a couple of the posts to see if I could get the attention of the page administrator and did not have much luck. I messaged her instead and implored her to learn more about the difference between "pet overpopulation" and "shelter overpopulation" which are not the same thing. She agreed to watch the 27-minute No Kill 101 video from the No Kill Advocacy Center and I offered her a free copy of my book so she could read about how the Equation was used in my area to take the municipal shelter from one that kills the vast majority of animals to one that saves the vast majority of animals. So much for that idea. She watched 3 minutes of the video, reached the point where Nathan Winograd talks about the concept of pet overpopulation being a myth, stopped watching and declared that I am wrong and have no idea what I am talking about. She continues to this day to post on an ongoing basis about shelter killing treating it as a fait accompli when it is not. I tried. I understand there are plenty of shelters that kill healthy and treatable animals while remaining either willfully ignorant or catastrophically uninformed despite the progress achieved by the No Kill movement to prevent that from happening. I also understand there are people that really believe that animals die in shelters due to "pet overpopulation" and "the irresponsible public." They have heard these excuses so many times for so many years that they hold tight to their beliefs with no allowance whatsoever for the fact that they may be wrong. When the Winograds first posited almost 20 years ago that pet overpopulation was a myth, people just could not believe it. They had heard so many times over so many years that animals die in shelters because there are just too many of them that the fact that animals were being killed seemed to confirm that belief. But pet overpopulation is a myth and is not the reason healthy and treatable animals die in shelters. In any given year about 30 million people are looking to bring a new companion animal into their homes and in any given year less than a million animals die in shelters. This is not an issue of too many animals and not enough homes. It is a marketing issue because people get animals from sources other than shelters. Shelter overpopulation is a separate concept and it does lead to the deaths of animals. When a shelter does not take steps to help reduce intake and move animals out faster, it becomes overpopulated. This leads to the antiquate practice of ending lives as a population control measure. If more animals enter the shelter than leave the shelter, the "excess" are destroyed. That may not matter to many people when looking at statistics on a form. But every one of those animals belonged to someone and you would not want that dog or cat killed if he or she belonged to you. As I have written about for years, the cure for the disease that is shelter killing is known and has been know for decades. It is found in the programs and services of the No Kill Equation which provide a DIY solution for any shelter to: 1) reduce shelter intake; 3) shorten length of stay (the phrase used to refer to the amount of time animals stay in the shelter); 3) help the public make better choices which affect how the shelter functions; and 4) focus on public safety so that dogs that are cognitively impaired and genuinely dangerous do not leave the shelter. This is not just something I read about and said, "hey, that sounds like it would work so that is what I believe and will promote." I know the No Kill Equation works because I have personally seen it work from Colorado to Texas to Alabama to Florida and and so very many places in between.  I have written about the concept of cognitive dissonance and shelter apologists related to shelter killing of healthy and treatable animals before so I won't restate the whole explanation here. The short version is this. Cognitive dissonance theory states that we routinely resolve the conflict in one of four ways: 1) we change one of the thoughts to alleviate the conflict; 2) we change our behavior to alleviate the conflict; 3) we add new thoughts to rationalize our behavior; or 4) we trivialize the inconsistency. As it applies to people who defend the destruction of healthy and treatable animals in shelters, an example of how cognitive dissonance works goes like this: Belief: healthy and treatable animals should not be destroyed in shelters is in conflict with Behavior: I support a shelter that destroys healthy and treatable animals Method 1 Change a belief - the shelter I support has no choice but to destroy healthy and treatable animals Method 2 Change behavior - I will not support the shelter because it destroys healthy and treatable animals Method 3 - Add new thoughts to rationalize - the shelter I support destroys healthy and treatable animals because the public will not spay/neuter, there are too many breeders and the public is irresponsible AND I know that the people who work at the shelter I support are good people who don’t want to destroy animals and are doing the best they can Method 4 - Trivialize the inconsistency - this happens across the country and there really isn’t any way to change it The methods I see used most often to alleviate dissonance are adding new thoughts and trivializing the inconsistency. Such is the case with the administrator of the pro kill page. She is not the only voice to defend the killing and she will not be the last or the loudest. While I was typing this I learned about a blog written by the founder of a nationally respected "pet foundation" who claims the "kill" label is killing our nation's pets. Uh, no. They are being killed at shelters that could stop that process by municipal officials and shelter leaders learning there are other ways to function instead of defending a process that is nothing short of an utter betrayal of the public trust. 2025. Not 1875. There are just no excuses since the ways to save lives are known and have been for a very long time.  I recently listened to a lengthy podcast on Youtube in which the former director of an animal shelter in Texas was interviewed on a variety of subjects related to animal sheltering. This person has a demonstrated history of hostility toward the No Kill Equation I have long promoted as the cure for the disease that is the killing of healthy and treatable animals in our nation’s shelters while the public is blamed for that process. I did not agree with much of the discussion which included the typical opposition to the No Kill movement. Two topics discussed bear clarification because the information stated in the podcast was false. I think it is important for people to know correct information and not continue to parrot things they have heard in the past as if they are true because they are repeated over and over and over again. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.  The Source of the 90% Reference There are organizations (and people) that profess that once a shelter saves the lives of 90% of animals, it is a No Kill Shelter. This is false. A No Kill shelter is one that does not kill healthy and treatable animals and which euthanizes animals who are suffering or who are irremediably ill. A No Kill community is one in which the lives of all healthy and treatable animals in all shelters are saved. So, where did the 90% reference come from anyway? The people participating in the podcast jokingly said it “came out of nowhere” and challenged the listening audience to share the source of the 90% reference. Challenge accepted. The 90% reference came from Nathan and Jennifer Winograd almost 20 years ago at a time when there were no metrics of success put forth by national animal welfare organizations – many of which firmly opposed No Kill programs that are now considered commonplace. The Winograds were saving more than 95% of animals in Tompkins County, New York and the few No Kill shelters that existed at that time were saving about 92% of the animals. Nathan said they “rounded down” to say that 90% was an ordinary byproduct of saving all healthy and treatable animals at that time. It was never intended to be a rule or a goal, after which the lives of the other animals did not matter. The Winograds have since called the 90% reference their "Frankenstein’s Monster" because it has been used in ways they never intended. National organizations use the 90% figure to raise millions as they tell the public a certain area (like Los Angeles) will be No Kill by __________ (fill in the year) as they continue to kick the can down the road year after year. People want animals to be saved so they donate (and donate and donate) thinking they are doing good when very little of that money actually changes anything at local levels and the stated goal is never reached. Other organizations fixate on the number and modify their statistics to make it look like they are saving 90% of animals when they are not. There is a shelter in my state that claims to be a No Kill facility and says it saves 90% of animals by not counting animals it deems unadoptable in a self-fulfilling use of language. If an animal is not adopted, that means the animal was unadoptable. It is as if they never existed. Yet other shelters and organizations claim to have reached the 90% level to gain public favor while warehousing and neglecting animals, leading people to claim the No Kill movement is a bad thing. In other places, use of the 90% figure has led to what some call a "killing budget." Development of progressive shelter programs and advances in veterinary medicine have led to live release rates as high as 99% in some places in municipal animal shelters. The current model shelters to watch are in Lake County, Florida; Williamson County Texas; and Fremont County, Colorado. You can learn more about the source of the 90% reference by listing to a portion of episode 4 of the Winograd’s 5-part Substack series called “called “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Animal Sheltering in the United States.” The part of the discussion about the 90% reference starts at about 16:03 goes to about 38:30 in the link provided above. You don’t need a subscription to listen.You can also listen to an excerpt from episode 4 which is the sound file below. I highly recommend the whole series about which I blogged before. I am hoping the Winograds put it in book form as a follow-up to Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America. excerpt from episode 4 of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow  The Asilomar Accords The person interviewed in this podcast erroneously stated that the Asilmoar Accords are the source of the 90% reference and went on to speak about the Accords as if he is fully familiar with them. The Accords do not refer to a percentage at all. I have long referred to them as a cop-out that have done more harm than good to shelter animals, providing political cover to end lives while making it seem like there was no alternative. So, what are the Accords? In 2004, the Humane Society of the United States, the American Humane Association, the ASPCA, Maddie’s Fund, some original members of the Best Friends Animal Society and others met in Asilomar, California with the stated goal of finding “solutions” to the killing of dogs and cats in shelters. What they came up with instead was a document the title of which includes the phrase, “saving lives and not pointing fingers” which pretty much sums up the tone of the Accords. It was a meeting of self-proclaimed shelter industry leaders not to truly focus on saving animals but to instead focus on not offending people, including the very people killing animals while refusing to acknowledge the validity of the No Kill programs already working successfully to save lives. Once you get past the self-congratulatory language about why the Accords were convened (and the fact that they are not regulatory in nature) what people focus on the most are a series of definitions that have been used for decades not to save the lives of animals but to end them. If you have ever seen a shelter report that includes categories of “healthy,” “ treatable-rehabilitatible,” “treatable-manageable” and “unhealthy and untreatable” that report is based on the definitions of the Accords. The problem with using the Accords definitions are many. Just like a shelter can say an animal who was killed and not adopted was “unadoptable,” it is easy to use the definitions to end the lives of animals by labeling them anything other than “healthy.” Using the Accords shelters can end the lives of neo-natal animals, community cats and animals with minor injuries or conditions. Even if the definitions were universally understood and used ethically at the time they were magically created, they were developed 20 years ago so they have not kept pace with advances in veterinary medicine and shelter veterinary medicine. A condition that may have been considered untreatable decades ago is now entirely treatable. To learn about what conditions really are treatable and not treatable based on modern veterinary medicine, this Animal Evaluation Matrix published by the No Kill Advocacy Center in cooperation with veterinarians is the key. Nathan Winograd wrote this about the Accords in Redemption: “Sanctioning or allowing for local practices that permit killing to continue is no way to bring an end to the killing. As a result, the No Kill paradigm and the Asimolar Accords are irreconcilable. When two philosophies are mutually exclusive, as No Kill and the voices of the status quo are, agreement can only come about when No Kill’s hegemony is firmly established and the old philosophies and practices are abandoned. In the end, this is not a war of ‘ideas.” It is a life-and-death struggle for saving shelter animals. Either they live or they do not. No Kill demand that they do.” Nathan covers the Accords in detail at pages 146 to 155 of Redemption which I consider compulsory reading for anyone who cares about the lives of animals. The Accords themselves, including the list of “signatories” to the Accords, is found at this link.  About that Podcast If you are wondering why I watched the almost 2 hour podcast in the first place, the answer is that one of the participants was chosen to be the new executive director for Huntsville Animal Services in Alabama following what I can best describe as a troubled tenure at a shelter in Texas. I, and the members of No Kill Huntsville, were very concerned about the selection. Much of his employment history is outside the animal shelter industry working with primates and wildlife, having first become an animal control officer in 2018, six years after our advocacy group formed in Huntsville. He had openly opposed the No Kill Equation, opposed free speech by the public about how shelters function and was in direct conflict with the public at his last shelter. We were told by members of the city council to give him a chance and we have. Since the time this blog was first published, the new director has proven us wrong. He has shown to be open to communication with the public and with advocates like us. He is using creative and innovative ideas to reach the public served and perhaps most important, he has filled a leadership void which existed for many years when the shelter director was a veterinarian who seemed to lack many of the core competencies needed to run the shelter for the largest city in the state. We are in talks with the new director about the the new version of the HAPA we have promoted since October 2022 and which we hope he will support. We look forward to what the future holds for Huntsville for the first time in many years. We would like nothing more than for the HAPA to be codified and for us to move past our advocacy, having left the operation of the shelter in the capable hands of the mayor, city council, city administrator and shelter director. Dare to dream.  |
AuthorI am an animal welfare advocate. My goal is to help people understand some basic issues related to companion animals in America. Awareness leads to education leads to action leads to change. Categories
All
image courtesy of Terrah Johnson
|
RSS Feed