 I was recently invited to participate in a round table discussion about animal issues in Alabama next month for an Emmy-winning public television series created and hosted by naturalist-educator Doug Phillips called "Discovering Alabama." It will be the third part in a series he first created in 2022 called Animal Friends. The scope of part 1 and part 2 of the series covers a variety of topics that include animal intelligence, values in Alabama related to animals, animal laws, lack of enforcement and prosecution of those laws, lack of humane education, lack of services in different parts of Alabama (shelters and animal control), puppy mills, spay/neuter, stray animals and challenges to keeping pets. Doug covered a lot. There are a many problems in our state when it comes to companion animals, but I know Doug wants to talk not so much about what is wrong and more about solutions to the issues we face. The other participants in the roundtable have almost 200 years of experience between them in a variety of capacities that include animal shelter leadership, animal control leadership, cruelty investigation, law enforcement training, legislative expertise and veterinary medicine. I'm sure ours will be an interesting discussion. Most of us interact on a pretty regular basis already and we're a pretty lively group. I started thinking about what I will bring to the table when we talk about solutions. I suspect the other participants will talk about things like having our certified law enforcement officers trained on the state laws (animal crimes, dangerous dogs, dog fighting), having animal control officers receive some level of mandatory training on those same subjects, state funding of the legal mandate that every county have an animal shelter, and perhaps making the state dog confinement law mandatory instead of optional. My experience is that of an advocate with a focus on political advocacy based on the foundation of my decades in the legal field. As I ponder what I hope to contribute to the discussion, I am sharing some thoughts here in the "for what it's worth" category with a mindset toward solutions as we try to be the change we seek.
 Seek change locally first. People talk all the time about stronger state laws to protect animals. Laws and enforcement of those laws are two different things. A strong state law is of no value if it is not enforced. I genuinely believe that change begins locally and is based on the values of the people who live in each community. If you want the animal shelter in your community to do a better job of saving lives, learn about programs that help that happen and engage with the shelter leadership and elected officials to seek support for some changes. If you want better conditions for dogs who live outside in your community, consider promoting a local law that sets standards that will be enforced by local law enforcement as a priority of the elected officials in charge. In any given state, the more communities that embrace progressive ways of functioning, the more that culture may spread and then make enacting meaningful state laws more likely. In seeking local change, keep in mind that your values may not represent those of your community and you may be in the minority. If the predominant culture in your community is that animals are disposable, are easily replaced, and are not worth spending tax dollars to help them, there is little you can do to change that. It is worth trying, but realize that magical thinking will not help bring about the change you seek. I am proud of the positive changes made in Huntsville, Alabama (where I worked), regarding how the animal shelter operates which was made possible through political advocacy. Despite 2 years of effort, I failed to convince the county commission where I live to modify a shelter SOP that says all shelter animals will be destroyed after 60 days. I tried. And I will try again if and when the culture changes or new people are elected who may be more willing to listen.
0 Comments
Honorable Mayor Mike Johnston City Council Member Amanda P. Sandoval City Council Member Kevin Flynn City Council Member Jamie Torres City Council Member Diana Romero Campbell City Council Member Amanda Sawyer City Council Member Paul Kashmann City Council Member Flor Alvidrez City Council Member Shontel M. Lewis City Council Member Darrell Watson City Council Member Chris Hinds City Council Member Stacie Gilmore City Council Member Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez City Council Member Sarah Parody City of Denver Honorable Mayor and Council Members of the City of Denver: Cities sometimes get an opportunity to do the right thing, for the right reason, to help keep the public safe while also saving the life of an animal in keeping with the values of the constituents they serve. You are currently presented with such an opportunity. I write today to implore you to use your influence to spare the life of a dog named "Thunder" currently housed in your animal shelter. The facts of this case are vast and no doubt known to you, but appear to be summarized as follows from my perspective:
My name is Aubrie Kavanaugh. I am an Army veteran and a retired defense litigation paralegal/investigator. I spent more than 30 years of my life defending cities like yours in addition to decades of animal welfare/animal shelter reform advocacy. I am surprised the City of Denver code does not contain provisions like those in the city where I worked to prevent dogs like Thunder from being kenneled for months through use of due process and a disposition hearing. I would argue that housing a dog in these conditions constitutes a form of cruelty - regardless of good intent - because it is entirely preventable through a process in which the dog's disposition can and should be determined not within months but within 30 days. I was not surprised to learn that shelter staff previously gave testimony in an adjacent case (People v. Monica R. Lopez) that the shelter is a "stressful environment for any dog. . .[and is] not a normal environment. That's not a healthy, you know, dogs did not evolve to live in a box and be secluded from, you know, other animals and people." The National Canine Research Council would agree: Shelters are noisy, alien environments [for dogs], filled with strange smells, unfamiliar people, and dogs they may hear, but not see. We should not be surprised that some dogs may. . . behave differently when confined in a shelter, with its barrage of stressors that the dog cannot control, than they will in the safe, secure, predictable environment of a home, cared for by people with whom they are able to form positive attachments. I fully understand that you have a public safety mandate to keep people safe and that the safety of humans will always take priority over saving the lives of animals. One of the worst cases I ever worked related to dog bite related fatality of WWII Veteran Donald Thomas in the City of Leeds, Alabama, when Mr. Thomas went to check his mail and was attacked and killed by two dogs inside city limits. The law firm from which I retired defended the city in a wrongful death case based on negligence; it was essentially a failure to protect case. Jim Crosby, who has offered his expert opinion here, worked with the prosecution in examination of what led to the attack. The dogs in our case were shot and killed on site, having killed a man. Your case involves not a death, but an encounter in which Thunder may have caused minor injuries. I simply do not see any risk at all to public safety by allowing Thunder to be spared and sent to Basecamp Eden where he can live out the rest of his days in Calhan, Colorado, while not living in a small kennel inside a closed building. The mission of Basecamp Eden is perfectly suited to dogs like Thunder: to save animals from high risk situations and provide them with a safe, structured environment. The fact that Base Camp works with veterans suffering from PTSD to help them create meaningful connections with animals is an absolute plus. Should Basecamp Eden be allowed to take ownership of Thunder (following execution of a hold harmless contract), I would not be surprised to learn at some point in the future that Thunder has not only returned to his happy, balanced behavior, but that he has also helped a veteran (to whom we owe a debt of gratitude) find some peace in an otherwise very challenging world. We hear all the time from people in the animal shelter industry that "nobody wants to kill animals." After a couple of decades of advocacy for shelter animals generally, and for dogs unfairly labeled as "aggressive" or a risk to public safety and then destroyed, I'm not so sure I believe those claims. Actions speak louder than words. Denver is seen as one of the most progressive cities in the country. It seems wholly antithetical for the City of Denver to end the life of a dog against advice of an expert and when there is placement available that will help you fulfill your public safety goals. Please take action to safe the life of this dog while also reconsidering your city code. The dog whose life is at risk today is Thunder. But tomorrow it could be a dog who is a beloved member of your family or the family of someone you know. Thank you for your time and your compassion towards animals. Aubrie E. Kavanaugh, Paws4Change
 (image courtesy of Base Camp Eden)
In my June 7, 2026, blog I invited followers to send me questions on a variety of topics. I was surprised at the range of subjects people wanted to know about. Thank you to all who submitted questions and the time you took to participate. If you don't see your exact question here, it is because someone else submitted a similar question or I answered your question directly. You are welcome to contact me any time to ask questions about animal welfare advocacy and the topics I cover on my website as long as you are not seeking my help to take or place specific animals; I lack the ability to do that. Q: The city where I live just made a new law that makes people pay a $250 penalty to reclaim a lost dog and also charges a daily fee. The reclaim penalty goes up to $500 for a second offense. How are people supposed to afford to pay that much money? M.G. in Alabama A: Fees like this are often put in place by elected officials whose focus is more on punishing the public than helping the public. The theory is that if fines are high enough, people will work harder to keep their pets from getting loose. The problem with this approach is that not every dog we see running loose is the result of people who do not care. Accidents happen. Gates get left open by contractors, children leave doors open, dogs flee their property when scared (by fireworks or other loud noises), dogs dig out from under and climb over fencing and the batteries in dogs’ electronic fence collars wear out. A lot of people simply cannot pay what amounts to ransom to reclaim a lost dog because they cannot afford it. It doesn't matter how much they love their animals - when making decisions about what may be limited resources, paying rent, feeding children and keeping the power on will always take priority over paying hundreds of dollars to reclaim a lost pet. This means the city in which you live will no doubt end up spending lots of money to impound, house and care for an animal before ending the life of that animal which is absurd. Every instance of a lost pet should be addressed on a case by case basis to determine what happened and how to keep it from happening again, even if that means setting up a fund (perhaps using donations) to give people resources like run lines and pavers (to reinforce fencing) to keep dogs from getting loose. Cities like yours should also create a fee waiver policy so that people who genuinely cannot afford to pay reclaim fees and penalties can get their dog back when the alternative is the city spending money to end the life of that dog. Any city that treats the public like the enemy will never gain the cooperation of the public and be able to encourage them to make better choices or accept help to prevent animals from entering the shelter. I encourage you to band together with other residents of the city and engage respectfully with members of the city council to get this new policy reversed. It is not uncommon for a city to charge a nominal reclaim fee, but these amounts are so punitive that it will affect not just citizens but the shelter operation.  Q: I know there are rescue groups who go to dog auctions to buy dogs and I know you don't approve of that. Don't you think the lives of those dogs are worth saving? P.C. in Florida A: I think the lives of all dogs have value. In my opinion, the problem with your question relates to use of the word "save." There was a time when dog auctions were attended by two groups of people: the breeders selling dogs and the brokers buying dogs. There were people in rescue circles who acquired unsold "stock" after auctions ended based on relationships they had curated with breeders and with no money changing hands. It was a quiet exchange out of the pubic eye that put a dog or puppy in the hands of a rescuer while doing the breeder the favor of taking a dog who may be sick or lacking certain breed traits while keeping the breeder from using a bullet, a shovel or a bucket to end the life of the dog. All that changed years ago when people in the rescue community began attending auctions to buy dogs and calling it rescue. As Kim Kavin explored in depth in her Washington Post article, the presence of rescuers in the auction tent forever changed the commercial dog breeding industry for the worse. Much worse. There was nothing quiet or curated about this new relationship as rescuers made not only their presence at auctions known but also their willingness to pay whatever it took to buy dogs from the auction block. Rather than giving unsold dogs to rescue groups after the auction and as part of a quiet exchange, breeders began to see rescuers as a potential revenue source, sometimes breeding dogs specifically for the rescue community to make huge sums of money. According to Kavin's April 2018 article, one particular Alabama-based breed specific rescue paid more than $400,000 to buy 172 dogs over a period of four years for, "an average price of $2,365 per dog. Last year, more than half the dogs the nonprofit group says it saved were bought at auction." The article goes on to recount an event in which an Alabama rescuer offered to pay $24,000 for two dogs a breeder named Will Yoder had just bought for a little over 8k. And she did. Sounds crazy, right? Since the article was published in April of 2018 with who knows how much money being spent to buy dogs in the last 7 years. I shudder to think how that money was used to expand breeding operations to be able to breed more and more dogs. I don't see this as "saving" dogs at all. I see this as enriching the very industry rescuers claim to abhor, making it more profitable than ever and leading to the breeding of more and more puppies while the breeder "stock" potentially suffers out of view of the auction tent. It may not be popular to say so, but I will: I think it is the height of human arrogance to focus solely on purchasing a specific dog (or dogs) at an auction to be able to say that dog was "saved" or "rescued while remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that the money used to buy that one dog will be used to breed or purchase many more dogs in its place, thereby perpetuating the industry. Rescuers can and should focus on saving animals most in need of rescue in their own areas and without going to auctions at all.  Q: Why are you against mandatory spay neuter since there are states in the northeast where it is mandatory? P.B. in Wisconsin. A: Despite what you may have been told, there are no states in the northeastern part of the United States where spay/neuter is mandatory for owned animals. The reason more pets are sterilized in those places is because promotion of spay/neuter has been a priority for years and it is more easily accessible than it is in other parts of the country. There are some areas of the country where there are veterinary deserts and there is no veterinarian to which people can take a pet to be spayed or neutered. That is not the case in the northeast. There are also places where veterinarians charge hundreds of dollars for a procedure which can be done for much less at a non-profit clinic that focuses on just spay/neuter. Most states mandate spay/neuter of animals adopted from shelters and rescues as a means of controlling animal populations and to avoid having the offspring of adopted animals enter the shelter, leading to more spending. Even though spay/neuter of adopted animals is the law in most places, there are numerous animal shelters that adopt out intact animals using "the promise method" (in which people promise to have the surgery performed but never do). There are also numerous rescue groups that fault the public for "pet overpopulation" but allow unsterilized animals to be adopted and then lament the number of animals they are asked to help. To learn more about opposition to spay/neuter which extends far beyond my website, please take a few minutes to read about it here. If we are prepared to punish people who can least afford to have their pets "fixed," we do better to just help those people instead and create relationships with them that extend beyond a single surgery. Q: What is the biggest mistake you've made when it comes to your advocacy to try to help animals? J.S. in North Carolina A: I've certainly made a lot of mistakes along the way as I've advocated for animals and systemic change. The mistake that bothers me the most was more of a calculation than anything. I totally underestimated the former shelter director of Huntsville Animal Services in Alabama which was the focus of much of my advocacy for more than 2 decades. Like most people, I presumed that her status as a licensed veterinarian meant she would would be open to ideas on how to save the lives of more animals; there were years when more than 7 thousand animals died in her facility under her leadership. Yes, you read that correctly. I failed to appreciate how fiercely she would fight to maintain the status quo for what was likely the sake of her own mental health. It must be incredibly difficult to realize that so many animals died when they could have been saved. Had I known how hard it would be to get her to embrace a new culture for her city department, the approach used by No Kill Huntsville to try to affect change might have shifted somewhat. We still would have focused on municipal accountability, but could have used different methods to try to gain her cooperation with more sensitivity to her struggle between her past actions and the potential future of Huntsville as a No Kill community. I am proud of what was achieved in Huntsville which is now one of the safest places for animals in the state and even in the country. Did we do the hard work? No. But we changed the history of the city by banding together, speaking out, harnessing the compassion of the public and pushing the city to create a new culture which made it possible for a newe director to be hired whose values are in keeping with those of the public he serves. Q: I'm worried about the number of puppy mills in the state where I live. It's not obvious where they are located. What's the best place to get information to learn more about mills in my state? A.M. in Wisconsin A: This is an easy one. Bailing Out Benji, led by Mindi Callison from Iowa. I first learned of Mindi a few years ago through a mutual contact who was saving mill dogs (not by purchasing them) and then when she appeared in a film executive produced by another contact of mine called Dog by Dog which I blogged about before and I recommend everyone watch. The film is just as relevant today as it was when it was released and has national implications. You can watch the film on Google play, Pluto TV or Youtube. Bailing Out Benji has become one of the most reliable sources of information about the commercial dog breeding industry (as is Harley's Dream) and provides a national map that tracks USDA licensed breeders and brokers by state. Each brown circle on the map represents a broker and each blue circle represents a breeder. You can see details about the licensee by clicking on the circle. For example, the Fairmont Acre Kennel in Ephrata, Pennsyvania, has 154 adult dogs and a history of compliance issues. If you know of a breeding operation that is not on the map, that means it is not licensed by the USDA (although having a license is not indicator of how well the dogs or their offspring are cared for). Humane World (formerly the Humane Society of the United States) tracks the 100 worst dog breeding operations annually.  (capture of interactive map courtesy of Bailing Out Benji) Q: I see a lot of negativity on social media about the No Kill movement, some of it by very prominent people. they have called the movement a scam that has led to animal suffering. Why is this happening? J.F. in Texas A: Let's get to the scam part first. The No Kill movement is a social movement for which we should all be grateful. We have the movement to thank for the fact that our country no longer kills 16 to 17 million animals in animal shelters every year and that number is now less than 1 million. That is still too many, but we've come a very long way. In my opinion, the negativity about the movement is led by people who have not learned the history of animal sheltering in our country to better understand how we got to this point in history and the obstacles overcome to get here. There are opponents of the movement who associate it with a specific organization or platform like the Best Friends Animal Society or Human Animal Support Services. The movement does not belong to those organizations no matter how much money they have or how large their platform may be. They do not own it. The movement is made up of people like you and me. People in the trenches of advocacy seeking change in their own communities because they view saving the lives of shelter animals as a moral imperative. Focusing on specific organizations and then faulting the movement takes the focus off of our core values in which there are no excuses for killing healthy and treatable animals and the focus is not on math (the 90% reference) but on method. Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center addressed in a recent Substack article in which he wrote: I am hearing rescuers and advocates regurgitating excuses for killing we debunked in the 1990s and 2000s: pet overpopulation, irresponsible public, need for a 'no birth' and not No Kill nation. . .When we call for a No Kill nation, we are specifically referring to the promise and success of open-admission No Kill Equation sheltering. We are referring to a shelter in the dictionary sense of the word: “an establishment providing food, protection from danger, and temporary housing for stray or unwanted animals.” The door is always open and animals find a new beginning, instead of the end of the line. We are NOT referring to the fundraising scam where “managed intake,” “community sheltering,” and “Human Animal Support Services” are euphemisms for “no entry” and increases in placement rates are dependent on animals being turned away, abandoned, and left to suffer.  Q: I've heard there are countries where having a pet spayed or neutered is considered barbaric. Why does the U.S. focus so much on that?
A: You are correct. Some German and Scandinavian countries (including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) have restrictive policies on neutering. In Germany, the Animal Welfare Act prohibits neutering, except for health reasons or to control populations. In Norway, neutering is illegal unless strictly necessary. The removal of ovaries and testicles is considered to be mutilation, no different from cropping ears and docking tails. The focus on spaying and neutering in the United States is based on our history. There was a time when 16 to 17 millions animals died in animal shelters every year, regardless of age or health. Focusing on spay and neuter as a positive way to keep pet populations from growing while potentially extending the life of the sterilized pet has become a cultural norm while still allowing pet owners to make choices for themselves. Q: You say that every place is capable of becoming a No Kill community but not every place is ready for that. What does that mean? C.V. in Georgia A: Every community has limited resources and every community has collective values that represent the priorities of the people that live there. I believe every community in which the lives of companion animals are valued has the capacity to save all healthy and treatable animals - regardless of resources - by inviting the public to create a new culture that balances public safety with saving lives. Many of the programs that save the lives of shelter animals cost nothing and even those that do require some cost can be addressed using the "pay me now v. pay me later" approach. An example is investing funding into making spay/neuter of pets accessible and affordable (or free) for low income residents. Communities that invest in population control pay up front for surgeries, but pay less long-term because fewer animals enter tax-funded shelter. Not every place is ready to be a No Kill community because there are many places where the lives of dogs and cats are not valued. If animals are treated as expendable, and the public supports that, there is no incentive elected officials to ensure the tax-funded shelter is managed differently. If a shelter even exists. People who live in those places who do value the lives of animals can focus on getting people elected to represent their values and do what they can in the present to help animals in need. But sometimes we have to follow the advice in the book Twelve by Twelve to see, be, do as we wait for a time when change is possible. Animal shelter reform cannot always be forced through logic, respectful dialogue and political advocacy no matter how much we want it. I am sometimes contacted by followers of my website asking why I focus so much on No Kill animal shelter philosophies and animal welfare advocacy. The answer is two-fold: 1) because those subjects are important to me; and 2) because I hope to educate others from things I have learned in the last couple of decades. I became an animal welfare advocate following the passing of our dog, Snake, and had the very unwelcome epiphany about how most animal shelters in our country operate and it changed my life in ways I never expected. I've learned a lot along the way; I was wrong about many things and oblivious to others. I firmly believe that the best way we can all help companion animals is to educate ourselves on issues that affect them. I also believe the best way we help reform our animal shelter system is to learn the history of that system so we don't repeat mistakes from the past and we don't get fooled by people who claim to seek better for animals when they are actually engaged in virtue signaling or focused on self-promotion. My website includes content related to puppy mills, breed bans, aggression in dogs, chaining, adoption, spay and neuter and animal politics because all of those subjects are all related in some way to the subject of what takes place in our animal shelters using our money. Which often bears no relation to what people think happens at their local shelter. Unless you live in what is called a No Kill community (a place where tax dollars are not used to destroy healthy and treatable animals), your shelter is likely destroying the vast majority of animals entrusted to its care and is blaming you for those deaths because you are part of "the irresponsible public." Animals enter the building, some are adopted out and the rest are destroyed, having been given no individual consideration at all. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Unlike many other bloggers, I do not use AI to write. I confess that I sometimes use AI generated images because I lack any graphic design skills and it can be fun to use something other than a traditional photograph - like the image you see here that looks a lot like our dog who obviously cannot type. I realize AI is here and is not going away; I chose to share content I write and research myself so I know it is accurate and is based on facts and real-world experiences. Call me old school, I guess. Like my book, I make no money from my website and I seek only to share with those interested in reading and perhaps learning something new. When the time comes that I am no longer helping people, I will stop writing and will go on about my life, knowing that I made a difference in many ways and that I left things better than I found them. I am taking questions from followers to share in a future "ask me anything" blog including (but not limited to) these general subject areas.
 Please submit one question per person no later than Friday, June 26, 2026 using the form below. I plan to answer 10 questions depending on the complexity of the questions. I plan to share questions and answers using your initials (unless you allow use of your full name), organization (if applicable) and your city and state. NOTE: Please keep in mind that I am not a veterinarian or attorney (although I worked as a litigation paralegal for more than 30 years) and I cannot address questions about individual animal placements, behavior or health challenges.  In late March of 2026, authorities from Lauderdale County, Alabama seized 191 dogs from a rural property owned by an elderly couple. The couple (and their son) were arrested more than 6 weeks later for 4 charges of animal cruelty as a Class A misdemeanor. People are outraged. They demand that more charges be brought for the sake of the dogs. Many of these same people promoted a new law that goes into effect on October 1, 2026, called Beau’s Law. Under this new law first offenses will be charged as a Class C misdemeanor, two levels below the current punishment of Class A? So, what happened? We must start with the history. In 2023, authorities from the Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office began interacting with a family breeding dogs in a rural part of the county. There were numerous dogs housed two to a kennel and there were multiple people providing them with care. There were a lot of dogs but nothing illegal was taking place. Most of dogs were large breeds with several being identified as “Doodles.” Fast forward to 2025. Authorities began working with the owners and reached an agreement for them to reduce overcrowding of dogs on the property. This led to the owners surrendering 74 dogs to the Florence Lauderdale Animal Shelter over a period of months. It is unclear how many dogs were left behind or if dogs continued to be bred and sold. Fast forward to 2026. Investigators with the Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office executed a search warrant (which was issued by a judge based on a search warrant affidavit) on the property where dogs were confined around the property, in a detached garage and in a basement. Many dogs were kept in crates with limited access to food and water and they were surrounded by feces. Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office Lieutenant James Distefano told the media, “I'd be lying if I didn't say I was overwhelmed not only by the number of dogs but by the smell.” He noted it was the largest number of dogs he remembered being seized from a single resident in more than twenty years. The dogs were taken to the Florence Lauderdale animal shelter after they were seized. They were cared for and later transferred to rescue groups after the owners surrendered them weeks after they were seized. Little about this whole process is known beyond what has been reported by the media.  What should have happened? A plan should have been developed to execute the search warrant following the same evidence protocols that are used in other criminal cases while still providing for the needs of the dogs. Yes, this evidence is alive but the evidence in support of a case becomes the backbone of the prosecution. It is typical for large seizures like this to be set up as an assembly line operation using veterinarians, vet techs, investigators, deputies and shelter staff, sometimes working in concert with the District Attorney’s Office. The process requires meticulous documentation, secure evidence collection, and strict adherence to a continuous chain of custody to ensure the evidence is admissible in court. Every dog should have been examined by a veterinarian on site with a record created of that examination and multiple photographs taken of each dog. Because dogs were seized, whether it was 5 dogs or 191 dogs, the owners should have been arrested and charged with animal cruelty at that time. To the extent some dogs require any type of veterinary care following the initial examination - emergency care or otherwise - that should have been fully documented to be used in making prosecution determinations. In this case, only 4 charges were brought related to 191 dogs. Only the district attorney’s office knows why. It is reasonable to presume either that 1) evidence was not handled property (which may mean it was not collected at all or there was a delay in collecting evidence until weeks later when the dogs were in better condition) or 2) most of the dogs were not in particularly bad shape when they were seized. The defendants were arrested more than six weeks after the dogs were seized were charged with 4 counts of cruelty to animals which is a Class A misdemeanor. This is an older law that applies to animals generally and is not specific to dogs and cats. It could be argued the defendants should have been charged with cruelty to animals under the Pet Protection Act which is a newer series of laws specific to dogs and cats. Using this law which would have put in motion due process provisions of the law that call for a disposition hearing regarding the dogs to be held within 20 days of them being seized (but could have been held much sooner) and has built-in provisions to recoup costs to care for the dogs. It is unknown if any of the dogs required some type of emergency treatment to save their lives. If that was the case, that could be considered aggravated cruelty and cases regarding those dogs could be brought not just as a Class A misdemeanor but as a Class C felony. After local media reported only 4 charges had been brought, people took to social media to express their outrage. They wrote about how people had worked so hard to help the dogs by grooming them, caring for them and helping the shelter get them to rescue groups. A local city council member posted on Facebook that, “Countless people worked tirelessly, without compensation, to help these animals begin to heal.” Another person started a petition called Justice for the 191 Dogs of Lauderdale County which states: We are calling on District Attorney Angie Hamilton to aggressively prosecute animal abuse cases and pursue the strongest charges possible when nearly 200 animals are found suffering in horrific conditions. And the community is also demanding FULL RESTITUTION for the THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS spent by Lauderdale County, local shelters, rescues, and taxpayers as a direct result of the accused individuals’ actions. The people of this community should not be forced to carry the financial burden of this cruelty. 🐾 We are demanding accountability. 🐾 We are demanding stronger action. 🐾 We are demanding justice for these dogs.” I was curious about the number of criminal charges and the laws used so I reached out to the district attorney’s office. I was provided with limited information as I expected because the cases are in their early stages and it would not be appropriate for authorities to share investigative information with me or information about prosecution strategy. I was told that the defendants were charged with the law about animals generally because it was decided that the law in the Pet Protection Act that would have covered these circumstances (Code of Alabama Section 13A-11-241(b)) calls for intent and it was decided intent on the part of the owners was lacking. They were overwhelmed and had too many dogs. The ADA and I agreed to disagree on that interpretation of the statute. The law about torture of a dog or cat uses the word “intentionally.” The law regarding cruelty to a dog or cat does not use that same word even though it could easily have been included by the legislature. (The explanation I was given helps me understand why a woman from whom more than 100 dogs were seized last year was charged using the older law, leading to the dogs being housed in the shelter for many months.) I hope two things for the future. Regarding the 191 dogs resulting in 4 cases, I hope the cases will not be dismissed simply because the dogs were surrendered and that the DA will seek mandatory mental health counseling for the defendants in addition to having the court order a pet ban or limit for any probationary period. Regarding interpretation of the law, I hope the DA’s office will interact with other prosecutors in the state to compare notes on interpretation of the law regarding intent. No one wants another large seizure of animals who sit in a shelter for months because they are living evidence, causing terrible overcrowding, staff burnout and who knows how much spending.  If you see a situation regarding companion animals you think rises to the level of animal neglect or cruelty, report it. You may be asked to submit a written complaint and testify in court. When animals are neglected - whether it is because of intent, the owners becoming overwhelmed or the owners having a mental health issue – those situations seldom get better on their own. You can be the change you seek by owning your outrage and making sure authorities know what is happening and why you are concerned. It may be that what you see is not at all criminal even if it doesn’t meet your standards for how you treat your own pets. I live in an area where lots of dogs live outside all the time no matter how hot it is, how cold it is or how hard it rains. One lives right across the street from us in a fenced area with a wooden doghouse. He gets little, if any, attention, is not walked and while I wish the family would surrender the dog to a rescue group, they see nothing wrong with how the dog is treated and cared for. I have to remind myself almost daily, “that is not our dog.”  If a large animal seizure by law enforcement happens in the area where you live and you are not satisfied with the results of that process, you can reach out and to authorities and ask questions, but you will never know all the details. That is not owed to you. I know of no prosecutors who respond to demands, let alone petitions. These are criminal cases in which legal decisions are made based on laws and evidence. Prosecutors and defense attorneys present information to the court. No one owes you answers. If you want to help animals taken to a shelter as a result of some legal action, please volunteer. But don’t expect anyone to give you a medal for that. Helping shelter animals in need should be its own reward and is likely to be met with only a “thank you.” Back to the new law. Beau’s Law goes into effect in Alabama on October 1, 2026. The law only pertains to dogs and covers many of the same subjects already in the Pet Protection Act that has been in effect for more than a quarter of a century. If these arrests had happened after October of this year instead of the end of March, the defendants could have been charged not with Class A misdemeanors (punishable by up to a year in county jail and a $6,000 fine) but with Class C misdemeanors (punishable only by up to 3 months in jail and a 500 fine). I wonder what the outrage will be when cases are brought 5 months from now and offenders get what amounts to a slap on the wrist. Or are not charged at all because enforcement and prosecution resources are limited and will always be used to enforce crimes against people before crimes against animals.  (image of dogs at top of blog courtesy of WHNT)
The Alabama 30-day legislative session ended on April 9, 2026. It was exhausting even though I never set foot inside the Montgomery State Capitol. As I process what happened in the last couple of weeks, I wanted to write about those events to help myself decompress and to also share for the benefit of others so they can consider state laws being promoted, modified or passed where they live. I am working on a local ordinance in the city where I live and will write about that process in a later blog. The short story is that this session was filled with passion on the part of animal welfare advocates, much bad behavior toward people by those same advocates, lessons about the legislative process and lessons about unintended consequences when seeking new laws. Since my goal is to help others, I'll cover lessons learned first and will then share about what happened here. But a little background first.  Law LevelsThere are three levels of animal laws, all of which are separate (much like other legal issues related to people).
How Laws Get EnactedI feel pretty confident that a lot of people aren't familiar how most laws are enacted at state level, including laws that may be important to them on a variety of subjects: animals, children, voting, education, criminal laws, driving and transportation, business and commerce, public health and safety, etc. We all vote and we all see ballot measures when we vote, but the vast majority of laws are not put to a vote and are handled by those we elect to represent us. Many laws are enacted without people knowing about them at all and they may only learn about them if the see or read a story on the news or they end up on the wrong side of a new law they knew nothing about. The process by which a bill becomes law varies by state but is pretty similar for the most part: 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 using a mirror image bill which must be the same. The bill then dies or advances. 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. Some bills seek creation of new laws. Many bills seek to amend - or change - existing laws. Learning about the laws in your state can take time. Time many people lack. I have issues with the state rankings issued by the ALDF each year, but I applaud the research done by ALDF to make the laws readily available to anyone interested in reading them. When laws are handled by the state legislature and not put to a vote, it can be easy to go along with something you see on social media or are told by another person, even if that information is wrong. Our bonds with our animals are emotional. It stands to reason that the subject of laws about how animals are treated is equally emotional and it doesn't take much for people to lose sight of the goals of some laws. Most people with whom I interact believe that any law about animals must be a good law. As I wrote about last May, some bills are good and some bills are bad. Some bills have both good and bad and when that happens we have to weigh the risks of changing laws we have which is not always for the better. Lessons LearnedIf you are interested in new laws (or changes to existing laws) in your state related to companion animals, I encourage you to consider the following. No one expects you to be an attorney. I do hope you will learn and speak for yourself if you want to be taken seriously and you want to help companion animals in your state.
My Issues with Beau's Law (SB 361) Alabama enacted a law called Beau's Law which was named after a dog named Beau who was found outside in the snow in Jefferson County, Alabama, with only cardboard for shelter. The law sets standards of care for dogs who are outside, conditions for tethering dogs, provides exemptions to the law and provides punishments. The process that led to this new law was complicated and I won't try to explain the whole thing here because it's not important for the sake of trying to help others. The following summary may be of some value to you. Through the end of 2025, Alabama had criminal laws regarding livestock, regarding cockfighting, regarding animals generally and regarding dogs and cats specifically. Crimes against dogs and cats were punishable by a Class A Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in county jail [or hard labor] and a maximum fine of $6,000) at least and Class C Felony (punishable by 1 year and 1 day to 10 years in prison and fines up to $15,000) at worst. The Pet Protection Act (PPA) which is specific to dogs and cats was enacted in 2000. It took 12 years to get the PPA passed. The law regarding cruelty to “animals” which is not specific to dogs and cats was first enacted in 1977 and was later amended in 2013 to bring the penalty level in line with the PPA. Representatives Phil Ensler and Neil Rafferty brought House Bill 446 that set certain standards of care for dogs outside, required certain methods be used when confining or tethering a dog and would require criminal penalties for violations. The bill did not seek to amend the PPA. Senator Garlan Gudger brought Senate Bill 361 almost 20 days later. It covered the same subjects but still not seek to amend the PPA. The Senate bill made it through committee and the Senate in 3 days, crossed over to the house and became the leading bill. The bill was amended in the House committee before being brought to the House floor on the 29th day of the session. Eleven amendment to the bill were proposed, 6 were adopted, the bill crossed back over to the Senate and was signed by Governor Ivey as Beau's Law. People were told this was the first time an animal law had made it through the legislative gauntlet in 26 years (which is not accurate) and began making plans for it to be enforced when it goes into effect on October 1, 2026. People celebrated. People cheered. I was not one of those people. Each time a bill was filed or substituted, I read it thoroughly, compared it to existing state laws and communicated my concerns about each bill (both HB 446 and SB 361) to bill sponsors and my own legislators based on my knowledge of statutory law from more than 30 years in the legal field. I felt the bills could weaken existing laws, may have provisions that were unenforceable, may be confusing and may be ignored in some places. To be clear, I fully support adequate care of dogs. That should go without saying. I wrote and promoted an ordinance in the city where I live about a decade ago that covers many of the same topics as these bills which has been in effect a long time and is working well. There is, however, a world of difference between a state law and a local law that has been considered by the city council and adopted as setting forth the standards inside the city that will be enforced by the police department. I expressed concerns about the following topics in the bills:
Simply put - my concerns with the legislation outweighed even the love I have for dogs. I’m worried most issues with animal cruelty is lack of enforcement of current laws. That’s not a criticism of law enforcement, it’s just the reality. Most law enforcement agencies prioritize human crime that they deem is the most important to address with their limited resources. Most counties and cities cannot afford to increase their animal control staff. I was worried this bill could be an unfunded mandate on cities and counties. I also feel like some of the awful stories I heard about dogs not having proper shelter and tethering should fall under our existing cruelty laws. I’m not sure adding more regulations would fix the issue. In fact I was worried about people just abandoning their dogs to avoid dealing with the new laws. And animal abandonment is an issue you and I communicated about before and tried to solve because we both know it’s an issue. Like with the animal abandonment bill, I noticed animal rights advocates not fully agreeing if SB 361 was good or bad. I also just had practical application concerns about private property, probable cause, etc that lead me to eventually vote no. "  Despite rumors to the contrary, I never tried to "kill" a bill. The fact that people accused me of that, as if I have that type of influence, is comical. I communicated with elected officials about bills (which is an exercise of my Free Speech under the First Amendment) just as I have in past years. Sometimes I received responses, sometimes I did not. The officials to whom I wrote no doubt shared my messages with primary supporters of the bill. I would expect no less. What I did not expect was to be subject to cyber libel on social media. Allison Black Cornelius (the CEO of the Greater Birmingham Humane Society, an organization that does not have a good track record keeping dogs alive) accused me of being a negative, ignorant, jealous, bitter extremist, causing our state to be stuck and helping special interest groups in their opposition to new animal laws. Wendy Michelle Montealegre (a rescuer who does tremendous work saving animals in Blount County) accused me of going on a secret campaign to kill and sabotage the bill by calling shelters (which I did not). Chapel King (who was recently elected to the City of Florence City Council) wrote that if I was not willing to support the bill that I should not take actions to harm the bill. My requests to her to remove defamatory comments about me on a social media page she admins have gone unanswered. A woman who goes by Patricia N TheMutts wrote that I was creating dissension, chaos and bad feelings, defeating the cause of helping animals. Deanna Nicholas (who works with Rock Creek Rescue in Madison County) called me selfish, saying I was upset because I did not get anything done when I was in animal rights advocacy so I was standing in the way of forward momentum. When I reached out to Ms. Nicholas to ask her to remove her social media comment about me, she went further, calling me an attention seeking, washed up, non-effective person who was blocking a bill that could save lives and accusing me of wanting dogs to die on chains. She also claimed that because this is America, she can say anything she wants about me. Uh, wrong. I have long believed that personal attacks are desperate attempts by people who would rather result to defamation than to address the actual issues at hand. I really am allowed to have my own opinions about proposed laws that are not in lockstep with the opinions of others and as they misrepresent - intentional or not - existing laws. Enforcement Issues With Beau's LawThe laws in Alabama regarding companion animals are quite strong no matter how the state is ranked compared to other states. Our dog fighting law is considered the third most strict law in the country. What is lacking is enforcement of existing laws. There are different cultures in Alabama regarding dogs as pets compared to dogs who perform a service function or protect livestock. One state representative who spoke on the House floor about the bill said, "no one should go to jail for a damn dog." I was hopeful the bill sponsor would point out that people already go to jail for animal crimes that have been punishable as a Class A Misdemeanor for not less than a quarter of a century. He did not. In areas of Alabama where existing laws are not enforced, it seems illogical that more or newer laws would be enforced more. Certified officers currently receive no mandatory training on the state's animal laws (even though they are part of the criminal code) and most animal control officers receive no training at all. It is typical for an ACO to only be required to have a driver's license and a high school diploma or GED before being handed a catch pole and told to go to work. There are certainly certified officers and ACOs who have sought out training for themselves but there is no standard training curriculum for either position. As is the case in every state, every law enforcement agency has a finite number of certified personnel on duty at any given time and calls are prioritized. Responses to crimes against people will always be handled before crimes against animals and laws viewed as "lesser" laws will always receive less attention than crimes considered more serious. The same goes for prosecution. There are finite resources to make and bring cases before courts and decisions on those cases are prioritized based on the culture in the jurisdiction. A former city fire captain is facing trial in Madison County for killing a puppy and was charged with a Class C felony under 13A-11-14.1 which applies to animals generally. The ADA told me he used that statute because the dog was dead and he wanted to be able to use the Habitual Felony Offender Act. Would the same crime be charged at all in Washington County? Perhaps not. Add to all of this that of the 67 counties in Alabama, 39 counties have not adopted the state dog confinement law. This means dogs essentially run loose, even in counties where there have been human deaths in dog attacks. Of the 67 counties in Alabama, 29 counties have no animal control services and no pound as required by state law. A 30th county has animal control services but no pound. Where do dogs seized under the new law in those places go and what happens to them? I have long believed a bad bill is worse than no bill. If we can all agree that animal problems are people problems and that we want the best possible care for animals, it is worth our time to develop laws that do not compromise those we already have, that are enforceable and that actually help animals. Beau's Law already reduced the criminal penalty. Will it prove to be enforceable and help animals not just in some counties but across the state without leading to the death of more dogs in animal shelters? Time will tell.  (image courtesy of Kristin Yarbrough of Alabama Animal Advocates)
 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 about half the animals 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. 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