|
We all face crossroads in our lives. Events which create what we consider a "before" and an "after." Life milestones. The loss of someone we love. A choice we make that puts us on a different path. I encountered one of my many crossroads almost 20 years ago when I learned that the animal shelter in the city where I worked - Huntsville, Alabama - was ending the lives of the majority of the animals entering the building for what amounted to the status quo. It had always been done and so the destruction of animals continued despite the shelter being located in one of the most progressive cities in the country. Huntsville, Alabama, is located in the northern part of the state and is the largest city in the state. It is home to the Army's Redstone Arsenal, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and Cummings Research Park with an economy internationally recognized for research and technological innovation. The city is considered as a great place for families due to its strong school systems, affordable cost of living, and a thriving job market. All these great things about Huntsville admittedly make it atypical of the state and the region. I sometimes joke that time travel is possible; it just depends on where you go in Alabama and who you interact with. Like many places in the state, however, it was once home to a tax-funded animal shelter that killed thousands of animals a year not far from the shadow of the Saturn V replica on the west side of the interstate. I first lived in Huntsville in 1982 when I was assigned as an Army Spec 4 to what was then called "the school house" on the Arsenal, used to train "special" weapons and EOD troops. It was not until 16 years later that I returned to Huntsville to work at a civil law firm from which I retired just over a year ago. And it was not until 2006 that my heart was broken after I learned the terrible truth about the operation of the animal shelter that serves what is often called The Rocket City.
The live release rate (the number of shelter animals leaving the building alive) at Huntsville Animal Services in 2008 (the first year for which I have data) was 33% for dogs and 13% for cats. The lives of healthy and treatable animals were ended along with animals who were suffering and the irremediably ill as the process was blamed on the "irresponsible public" and the shelter director dismissed the killing of healthy animals with no more regard than the destruction of a paper plate or a broken shoelace. Both actions were called euthanasia as the shelter functioned with a first in, first out mindset in which the building was less a shelter and more of a disposal facility. The shelter director at the time was a city department head who earned a 6-figure salary and was afforded an assumption akin to "do no harm" because she was a veterinarian. "Surely," said city leaders, "the lives of animals would not be ended unless there were no other options." This level of death was not uncommon in Alabama and not uncommon at many shelters across the country due to a calcified and archaic mindset which promoted the idea that killing was kindness and that there were fates worse than death. Why were so many animals dying in this proud and progressive community? For no good reason at all. Fast forward to 2025 when the live release rate at Huntsville Animal Services was 93% for both dogs and cats. So, what changed? Did the irresponsible public move away to be replaced by more responsible people? No. Did the shelter director or city officials examine how the shelter operated and decide to make saving lives of animals a priority? No. What happened was the functional equivalent to a slap across the face of city officials (because there is no polite way to say, "please stop killing animals needlessly) and it came in the literal form of political advocacy. A few like-minded people who were fed up with the killing got angry and then got smart and then banded together to speak with one voice to say, "we are better than this. If we can support the space program and our troops, we can keep animals alive." I formed No Kill Huntsville in January 2012, inviting dozens of people to form a coalition to seek change. It ultimately became a small group of animal advocates who worked hard to make sure the public knew what was happening using their money (through events, billboards and with the help of the media) and who had the audacity to fight city hall to change behavior that was inconsistent with public values. It wasn't easy, it wasn't pretty, it wasn't perfect and for many years it was a 7-day a week effort to promote shelter reform in the face of opposition not only from city officials, city employees and shelter volunteers but from an unlikely source: people in the animal rescue community. But our advocacy worked because we spoke publicly with one voice, we stayed on subject, we focused on municipal accountability (as opposed to specific people) and we never wavered from promotion of the programs and services of the No Kill Equation as the cure for the disease of shelter killing. I firmly believe that any community has the capacity to become a No Kill community - a place where the lives of all healthy and treatable shelter animals are saved. Saving lives is not about the shelter building or even about spending. There are beautiful shelters across the country that cost millions of dollars to build and where most animals entering the building do not survive the experience. Saving lives is about a culture in which there are no excuses for killing healthy and treatable animals which can and should be saved and where every animal is treated as having been or being capable of being someone's beloved companion (with the exception of dog who are cognitively impaired and present a genuine public safety risk). Having said that, I understand that not every community is ready to become a No Kill community and political advocacy on behalf of shelter animals doesn't always work. It only succeeds on the foundation of public support in places where the lives of companion animals are valued. No amount of advocacy will force change through magical thinking in places where the mindset is that animals are disposable and not worth saving even if that means no additional spending. In more progressive places like Huntsville, however, advocacy can often be the difference between maintenance of the status quo and a future in which a city or county make the highest and best use of tax dollars not just for the sake of public safety but for the sake of the people served and the animal companions with which they share their lives.  I, and the other members of No Kill Huntsville, always said we sought not to be recognized but to be made irrelevant and we have for the most part. It was never about us and it was always about the animals. Always. As Shirley Marsh so aptly wrote in her March 2011 Yes Biscuit blog about what it takes to reform a community to save animals: “In reality, [animal shelter reform] takes a group of dedicated animal advocates willing to stir things up in their own community by challenging the status quo and refusing to accept killing as a means of population control. There are consequences to such actions: old friendships may be broken, egos may be bruised, glass houses may be shattered. This ain’t no fairy tale. It’s hard work, which will be met with resistance by some. You will no longer be able to ride the I Love Everybody and Everybody Loves Me bus. You will not be nominated for homecoming queen. No soup for you. Like all things in life, working to end the killing in your community is a choice you must make for yourself. You can choose to carry on with the ‘save a few and kill the rest’ status quo. You’ll get to keep all your Facebook friends and play Farmville with them in between posting pets from kill lists. Or you can choose to reject the idea of needless killing as justifiable in any way. You’ll make some people feel uncomfortable, and they will resent you for it. But you’ll have the opportunity to educate and learn from others who are on the same path. No longer will you feel an awkward compulsion to defend those who kill friendly pets in shelters while simultaneously advocating to save shelter pets. You will have the clarity of mind that comes from knowing where you stand.” The members of No Kill Huntsville have absolute clarity of mind. We stand behind our advocacy despite underestimating the length to which people would go to defend ending lives, despite making some people feel uncomfortable, despite having been compared to terrorists and despite having lost some people along the way we though were friends. We've made peace with that. I've made peace with that. Huntsville is now one of the safest cities for companion animals not just in Alabama and not just in the region, but in the country. We see this as the result of advocacy which led to public awareness which led to public pressure on municipal officials which led to a realization that something had to change. It was our "slap across the face" that began the process, as unwelcome as that action may have been. The city first began making progress by the end of 2014 when city officials declared healthy and treatable animals were no longer being destroyed in the shelter. The process was sustained through the first couple years of the pandemic before some decline related to "dangerous dogs" that begin in the Spring of 2022 and continued until late 2024 when the current shelter director was selected to fulfill the commitment of city leaders to make life-saving a priority in partnership with public safety. We were worried when the current shelter director was hired; we were told by contacts in Texas he opposed No Kill philosophies and we found some content online that supported that. What we learned instead was he believed the phrase No Kill had been weaponized, but he agreed with the programs and services of the No Kill Equation we had promoted with city officials for more than a decade. The new director called 2025 a "triage year." He has done an incredible job as the leader of Huntsville Animal Services and we look forward to him not only holding the line but helping other shelters in the region become more progressive.  As we come to the end of an era of advocacy and I look back at the hard times, the lost sleep and the self-doubt, I'm proud of what we accomplished. I proud of our audacity and our commitment to the cause. Huntsville, Alabama, will never be the same and I consider our advocacy part of my personal legacy. I wrote about the advocacy of No Kill Huntsville in my book first published in 2019 on the anniversary of the passing of our dog, Snake. I uploaded a new version recently with some post-pandemic notes and a new cover just because I wanted it to have a fresh look. The book is available on Amazon if you like to hold a book in your hand (both paperback and hardcover), but is also available as a pdf you can download. No money is made on the book so it makes sense to just give it away. I consider it an easy read. Because it was originally published before the pandemic, I am sometimes asked if anything changed as a result of the pandemic. The answer is no as it relates to the solutions we promoted. The value of the No Kill Equation which was the focus of our advocacy not only remains relevant today but we were reminded during the pandemic that the programs and services of the Equation were more important than ever to help both people and animals to keep pets in existing homes, get them home quickly if lost and get them into new homes or placed with rescues quickly. Animal problems are, and have always, been people problems. It makes perfect sense to engage in positive ways with the people who live and work in the community by providing help, providing answers and treating all people with dignity and respect. If you oversee, lead or manage a tax-funded animal shelter where most of the animals entering the building do not survive the experience, I implore you to try something new. The public expects no less. You can spend money on a new building, but that changes little if you do not change your culture. The methods available to any community to end the needless killing of healthy and treatable animals have been known for almost 2 decades and there are just no excuses for doing the same thing over and over while blaming the public for the loss of life. Even if you implement the programs and services of the No Kill Equation over time, that is better than doing nothing. As the saying goes, nothing changes - - if nothing changes. If you live or work in a community where most of the shelter animals are destroyed while that process is called euthanasia, please educate yourself about the No Kill Equation and consider banding together with like-minded people for the sake of your community and the animals with whom you share your lives. Every healthy and treatable animal destroyed in an animal shelter belonged to someone. That someone could be a neighbor, co-worker, your dentist or even you. The deaths are just numbers on a page until they become personal and people put their outrage into action.  We suspended our Facebook page last year and have unpublished our website (which costs money to host) but you can find it using The Wayback Machine which archives web content. The archive goes from January 14, 2013 through October 13, 2025. You get bonus points if you know the name of this internet archive is based on the characters Mr. Peabody (a dog) and Sherman (a boy) who originally appeared in a 1960s cartoon series and later in an animated film in which Sherman was Mr. Peabody's adopted son.
0 Comments
Author’s Note: As an animal welfare advocate, particularly a No Kill animal sheltering advocate, I’ve written about a number of topics I consider “difficult.” Talking about issues related to race and discrimination makes me feel like an impostor; my goal is to be an ally. I am not a member of the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) community. It would be totally inappropriate for me to behave as if I fully understand members of that community or their experiences. I have not walked in their shoes and I simply cannot. Writing this blog has been a challenge for me as I search for words to articulate how I feel. I will do my best and hope you will focus less on me finding the perfect words and more on what I hope to share with you.  I recently had the privilege of viewing the advanced version of an upcoming documentary about the animal shelter, animal welfare and animal rescue industry called "Brown & Bonded," a production of CARE (Companions and Animals for Reform and Equity). CARE CEO James Evans (who directed the film) shared the following about the film on the CARE website: Being anything other than 'white' within the United States adds an unnecessary burden to life. Seeking pet companionship doesn’t prevent people of color from experiencing this hardship, as many assume it would. Despite the exhaustive challenges we face, including repeating historic injustices presently, we remain bonded with our communities, friends, and families. . .including our pets. . .Our film follows people of color who have formed deep bonds with their pets despite the challenges and obstacles they face in the pet adoption process and within Animal Welfare more broadly. Viewers will witness the struggles faced by marginalized Black and Brown communities, from remote Indigenous communities to under resourced urban Atlanta. Despite limited resources and safety nets individual pet parents face, the film highlights the power of these Brown & Bonded relationships that transcend for love’s sake. Amen to that. As I told James in a recent call, this is one of the most consequential films I have seen in my entire life. Let me say that again for emphasis. Brown & Bonded is one of the most consequential films I have seen in my entire life. It is brilliant. It is shocking. It is joyful. It is uplifting. It is hard to watch. And it should be a game changer in our society. It is my genuine hope that millions of people will be exposed to the film and that elected officials, community stakeholders, animal shelter leadership and those in the animal rescue community examine what is happening in their own communities and take a long, hard look at their own behavior related to helping and serving the BIPOC community. It is no secret that many in the animal sheltering industry and animal rescue community assert they want to help animals while making their loathing for people painfully obvious, something about which I have blogged many times. This comes as no surprise when we consider the decades during which most shelters have blamed “the irresponsible public” for the fact that the lives of shelter animals are ended as a population control measure while completely ignoring the fact that that the same public is vital to reducing shelter intake, getting animals adopted, fostering animals, volunteering and donating. In communities that no longer end the lives of healthy and treatable shelter animals that is not because all the irresponsible people moved away and were replaced by “better” or “more responsible people.” It is because the tax-funded animal shelter changed the culture from one of killing animals to saving animals while inviting the public - all of the public - to be part of something bigger than themselves.  It is also no secret that discrimination runs rampant in our country. We like to think we have evolved as a society. But have we really? The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal, but no one would claim all people are treated equally. We need only make a modest effort to keep up with national and local news to know that much progress made in the last few decades for which people struggled and died has been lost; we now live in a time when people who once hid their racism and bias have been empowered to put it on full display while claiming they support some patriotic cause or movement. It is our public shame. This is why films like Brown & Bonded are so very, very important. Animal problems are people problems. When we help people, we help animals. When we help animals, we help people. As former animal control officer Beunca Gainor said so eloquently in the film: Animal rescue in my eyes is different to me because there’s so much more than just the animal. It includes the person. The community. The family. . . So when you’re rescuing in our community you’re rescuing not only pets but we’re rescuing people at the same time.” There was a time a few decades ago when 16 to 17 million animals died in our nation’s animal shelters. That number is now less than 1 million animals a year. So consider these facts:
Jo-Ann Zoll, the CEO of the Providence Animal Center and Francis Vale Home for Smaller Animals, shared these thoughts in the film: In thinking about racial disparities and the challenges people have in being welcomed to adopt pets I think it’s’ really imperative that we ask ourselves the questions about why not, We should always get to the yes. The yes is this person deserves the same experience that anyone else wants to have and may need more and difference support, but that’s what we’re here for. It’s how we treat people. It’s the care they receive while they’re here." There are many issues in our society related to discrimination we may never fully come to terms with. Racism is deeply rooted in our society and the disparities we see in our country are not going away any time soon. The issue of inclusion and equity in interacting with the BIPOC community to save animals (while helping people) is something we all can and should focus on not next month or next year but right now. Today. We all benefit from animal companionship and we all want the lives of shelter animals saved no matter what we look like, where we live, what we do for a living, how much money we make or what kind of car we drive, if we even have a car. We can and should chose to break away from the racism that plagues our society for the sake of ourselves, the sake of our neighbors and the sake of the animals with whom we share our lives. This means having a focus on getting to "yes". How? We can start this way.
I will share more information about public release of the film when it becomes available. (images and film trailer courtesy of CARE)
Your values are expressed through the choices you make. This is the tagline I chose for my website almost 20 years ago when I decided to shift the focus of my animal welfare advocacy from creating videos to help nonprofit groups to creating a platform to try to help other people like me - people who care about companion animals but may not be well versed in issues that affect them. That tagline guides my decisions to this day as I ask myself what I value. It is in the spirit of this self-reflection that I have chosen to leave Facebook despite the following I developed there over many years. Social media can be a great thing. Social media can be a terrible thing. I originally created a presence on Facebook as a way to reach a larger audience and lead people to my website. Some of my posts reached hundreds of thousands of people and I would like to believe I at least caused them to think and at best encouraged them to become advocates themselves related to what is happening regarding companion animals where the live, work and play. Facebook was It was a great tool for many years. Until it wasn't. With the passage of time and changes to algorithms and advertising by Meta, I no longer reached the same audience I once did. Like most people, my news feed was full of reels, ads and recommendations. I was tagged dozens of times a day about animals in need and was often called upon to defend my support of the No Kill movement which has changed our society to save the lives of millions of shelter animals each year, but which is painted in a negative light by those who have not taken the time to educate themselves about history. There were times I could reach people and help them learn something new. There were more times I could not. I ultimately was on the receiving end of profanity-filled rants, name calling and veiled threats. Which meant it was time to go. I have left Facebook completely. If you find yourself with mixed feelings about that platform, I encourage you to consider what value it brings to your life compared to how much it affects you negatively. If you find yourself checking Facebook not only daily but multiple times a day, the addictive nature of the platform is likely not good for your mental health and that can ultimately affect your physical health over time. When I made my decision, I was reminded of the iconic line spoken by Morgan Freeman in the movie The Shawshank Redemption: "it's time to get busy livin' or get busy dying." I choose to get busy livin'.  You are welcome to subscribe to my Paws4Change blog if you don't already. I blog not to make myself relevant, but when I feel I have something valuable to share. I do not use AI when I write like some do to create "clickbait" or create controversy. I make no money off of my advocacy and my focus is on awareness and education. If I learn something I think may be of value to others, or I feel the need to reinforce information I have shared before, I blog. I can also be found on Instagram as Paws4Change Official (since I hold a trademark on the name). I realize Instagram is also a Meta product. Most of my family is active there so it allows me to keep up with their lives and adventures. It also allows me to continue my Paws4Change outreach beyond my website but using a platform I find easier to control and navigate. If you have a topic about which you would like me to blog, reach out so we can chat. I am also open to creating short videos to promote organizations that function consistent with my values. That was how my advocacy began and I still have access to copyright cleared music that comes in handy. As we head into the holiday season, I wish all of you the best and thank you for your years of support. The hardest lesson we learn from losing those we love is that what we value most - or regret most - at the end of our lives is time. Time spent. Time not spent. Time wasted. I hope as you look to the new year you will focus on being more present in your life with your family, with your friends and with your animal companions as you focus on your choices reflecting your values. Let go of things that bring you down and get busy livin'.  "Surrender" courtesy of Fisher from their album "The Lovely Years"
 It's that time of year again when most of us are looking ahead to holiday shopping and most nonprofits are seeking donations to help them continue to help people, causes and animals. If your physical mailbox and email box are anything like mine, they are full of catalogs from companies trying to sell you what they market as great gifts and full of solicitations for donations. I thought it might help some folks for me to share my thoughts about private donations to help animals for the benefit of the public and share information about grant funding to help animals for the benefit of animal-oriented nonprofit organizations. Public Donations to Help Animals When it comes to holiday shopping, I am a huge fan of making a donation to the non-profit organization of your choice in honor of your gift recipient. Most of us have enough "stuff" and while the phrase says, "it's the thought that counts," what you thought your loved one or friend might like may have nothing to do with what they want or need. Donations are easy. They are a one-size-fits all way of telling someone in your life you love them or care about them while helping a worthy organization and avoiding giving a gift that may never be worn or used. The question then becomes to which organization you should donate. An easy answer is to help an organization that means something to the person in whose honor you are donating. Maybe it relates to helping veterans or helping people who are unhoused or have food insecurities or maybe it has to do with research to end a disease. There is no shortage of very worthy organizations where your donation makes a difference. The landscape is more complex when it comes to donations to help animals. It is no secret that I'm not a huge fan of what I call the alphabet soup of animal welfare. The ASPCA. HW (Humane World, which used to be called the Humane Society of the United States). BFAS (the Best Friends Animal Society). I know and respect some people who work for these organizations but you won't see me giving them my money. Why? Because they have millions of dollars already. They all do some good in some ways, of course. Just not enough for me to encourage anyone to donate their hard earned money. It is not difficult to find information on the finances of these and similar organizations. This includes copies of their most recent 990 forms that list contributions, assets and compensation of key members, all of which will likely dissuade you from adding your money to the millions those organizations already have. I believe that if these organizations really wanted to change the culture in our society regarding animals, specifically companion animals, they should stop spending such a large percentage of donations on salaries, advertising and marketing and start spending it, well, to actually help animals. I am reminded of a blog Nathan Winograd wrote years back called What Happens to the Dream Merchants When the Dream Becomes a Reality? It was written 15 years ago but is still relevant for one reason: if large national animal welfare organizations wanted to put themselves out of business - at least when it comes to the issue of animals being killed in our nation's "shelters," they could. In my opinion.  When I donate to animal related non-profits either on my own or as a gift to someone, I make one of three choices.
As a note of caution, there are animal related organizations that claim to be a 501(c)(3) nonprofit when they are not. I know of many rescuers who used a self-help legal platform to set up their organization which resulted in 1) using a name that is trademarked by the US Patent and Trademark Office which is asking to be sued; and 2) registering with the Secretary of State's office; 3) but stops short of them seeking legitimate non-profit status with the IRS. Any true nonprofit will appear in a nonprofit search using the IRS website and the organization will also be able to provide an EIN (Employer Identification Number). Grant Funding to Help Animals I have many contacts in the rescue world, most of whom lead organizations that are foster-based and forever struggling to get enough money to help more animals. None are compensated for their work, all have families and most have full-time jobs. How they find the time to help animals and keep some kind of life balance is a mystery to me and the sad truth is that many ultimately "flame out" and leave rescue work entirely because they lack life balance and the need is just so great. Finding fosters to house animals short-term is typically the biggest obstacle to the mission, but a close second is the issue of money to pay for food and veterinary care. Some of the rescuers I know do what I consider "hair on fire" rescue in which they take on way (way) more animals than they can possibly help with the resources they have and then beg for money they need immediately. Other organizations in my area do a great job of keeping the public engaged, asking for help when they need it (but not every day) and holding small fundraisers that range from yard sales to auctions to t-shirt sales. Even those groups can find themselves with huge vet bills and no immediate way to pay them. Which is why I want to talk about grants. Everyone is familiar with the subject of grants. There is grant funding available from numerous sources that are mostly subject-based (science, education, disease, veteran support, etc.) and mostly focused on businesses and people. Like the issue of donating to an animal nonprofit, the landscape is more complex when it comes to finding grants to help animals. An internet search for animal grants can produce some results, but trying to navigate through a tremendous amount of information is difficult for most in the rescue and animal welfare non-profit world if for no other reason than they simply lack the time. I asked a cat rescue contact of mine recently what she was doing to seek grant funding and her answer was pretty short. "Nothing. I don't have time to do my laundry and I can't remember the last time I took a vacation. Who has time?"  I think in order to help animals, nonprofit organizations have to make time not only to learn about the landscape of animal grants but how best to seek those grants . And luckily for us all, there is someone to help us named Stephanie Mathers. I first ran across Grants4Animals in my efforts to help a local rescue group for which I have done some small fundraisers. I know money is out there and I know it's a matter of knowing where to find it. The best way I can describe Stephanie's platform is that the grants are buried treasure and she provides the treasure map. You can visit her website yourself to learn more about the great work she is doing, but the two services I recommend most to my animal rescue and nonprofit contacts are the 1-hour consulting session and the Train Your Grant writer self-paced program. To be clear, neither of these services are free (although the monthly newsletter which highlights animal grants is available for the taking). In my opinion, the nominal amount of money spent for either service is well worth not only the cost - but the time - because of the potential that thousands of dollars in grant money can be obtained not just in the short-term but long-term as part of keeping the nonprofit organization afloat (ahoy matey...I could not resist the water reference). Stephanie shared this related to the cost, and I could not agree more: You cannot understate the 'value' of one good grant lead. Most grants in animal welfare start around $5,000 and range up to $50,000. So, there is real value in even one good grant lead. Potentially, learning how to find grant leads or paying for a consulting session that will generate many of them has a great return on investment, even if it's hard to pay upfront." If you lead or are associated with a nonprofit organization that helps animals, I hope you will sign up for Stephanie's newsletter and consider taking advantage of her services. Happy grant hunting! And tell Stephanie I sent you.  I lost a friend today. I'm still processing the fact that he no longer walks this Earth. Having been told years ago that storytelling is good for the soul, I want to talk about my friend. Alan. But I need to start with Henry. Many people are familiar with Henry Bergh who is known as the founder of the animal protection movement in the United States although that was certainly not his only achievement. Bergh promoted the first animal protection law in 1867 which was essentially the first form of a CAPA (Companion Animal Protection Act) advocates promote today to codify the way tax-funded shelters operate. Bergh created not only the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but also created a society for protection of children - showing that compassion for animals and for people are not mutually exclusive. Bergh was was subjected to the same criticism and ridicule as advocates are today, but was determined to do what was right. He was also concerned about the corrupting influences of money, power and politics which we have seen play out in animal welfare circles in full force over the last decade. Bergh was known of as the The Great Meddler. Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center wrote this about Bergh's efforts: "Bergh fought for horses, dogs, cats, animals raised and killed for food, and more. Every time he was told he should stick to dogs or horses and was going too far, as when he attempted to ban the shooting of pigeons, the killing of rats, or to get a law passed banning vivisection (laboratory and medical school experiments on animals), Bergh was undeterred." There were many years when the No Kill Advocacy Center issued Henry Bergh Awards to leaders in the No Kill movement which seeks to end the killing of healthy and treatable animals in our tax-funded animal shelters. If the award process had continued, I'd like to think Alan would have received one. I knew Alan Rosenberg as one of my many contacts across the country in the trenches of animal advocacy, specifically advocating for reform of tax-funded animal shelters. Everyone has heard of the ASPCA (that has strayed light years away from Bergh's vision) and Humane World (that used to be the Humane Society of the United States), large organizations people think are helping animals when what they do best is spend your money. Alan was a key member of what I consider a band of brothers and sisters across the country working in the trenches to change our society and how we treat companion animals. He was just one guy. He worked a full-time job, had a family, didn't get paid for his advocacy and spoke out for animals because it was just the right thing to do. Like many of us who belong to social movements and interact with people not only in this country but around the globe, I never met Alan in person but that mattered little. He was my friend. We spoke by phone often, shared countless emails and spent hours upon hours participating in videos for the No Kill in Motion channel on Youtube including short videos we called No Kill Uncaged like this one. Alan was our "numbers guy" and I'm not ashamed to say he was the smartest person in our group. He wrote incredibly detailed blogs on his New Jersey Animal Observer website most of which were based on in-depth research of public records. It's hard to pick one article, but a great example is his blog from 2021 in which Alan ranked the top No Kill shelters in the country in which he concluded that the Lake County Animal Shelter in Florida was the example for other shelters to emulate. Davyd Smith of No Kill Colorado did a special No Kill in Motion segment with Alan about his research which is a personal favorite of mine. Looking back at it now, I smile at Alan's wavy hair with the backdrop of a treadmill and a cat tree. Alan lived in New Jersey but like many people active in the No Kill movement, the effects of his advocacy were felt across the nation. People looked to Alan not just for his affinity for numbers and analysis, but because of his breadth of knowledge of No Kill programs and services he had seen work in communities large and small, wealthy and poor, suburban and rural. He was an unapologetic proponent of the No Kill Equation as the solution to end the killing of healthy and treatable animals in our nation's shelters and did not hesitate to help anyone who sought his counsel. There were many times when people from other states contacted me for help and while I did all I could to guide them, I often referred them to Alan. He had a way of speaking with people that helped them understand the Equation clearly and was full of examples of how each element of the Equation could be implemented anywhere to affect change. I marveled at not just his communication skills but the way his brain worked. It was a marvel to behold. Alan was a modern renaissance man in all sense of the phrase. He worked at Pfizer and was proud of the work the company does to help people, particularly developing vaccines to save countless lives during the pandemic. Alan was a devoted husband to his wife Estrella and a devoted father to his son Gavin. I often wondered how he had the time to advocate for shelter reform at all considering how full his life was with so many activities with his family and his job. To say Alan led a purpose-filled life is a tremendous understatement. That we all should spend our time her with so much meaning. It was totally unrelated to our connection through advocacy, but I remember finding so much joy in Alan's posts on social media about his west coast baseball stadium tour with his family that include the Petco Park Stadium in home hometown of San Diego. I last spoke with Alan a few months ago to ask some question about stats and he told me he would be backing away from advocacy for a while due to some health issues. I didn't press him on the subject because it was none of my business. I just wished him well, told him I would pray for him and asked him to keep in touch. Little did I know we would never talk again. We all know time is short and none of us is guaranteed our next day on this Earth with the families we love and as we devote time to causes about which we are passionate. When Davyd Smith called me today to tell me Alan had died, I was shocked. I babbled. And then when I hung up the phone I cried. I will miss my friend. Alan and I never talked about religion or his beliefs, but I would like to think he has been rewarded for a life well lived and that maybe, just maybe, he and Henry will meet and engage in many spirited discussions about what we owe children, what we owe animals and what we owe companion animals specifically. I fully expect Alan would remember some stats and research off the top of his head so he could share with Henry how far the movement he started has come in all these years. That thought put a smile on my face today and I plan to hold onto it in the months and years to come. Gone too soon, my friend. May you now rest.  (this image was shared by Alan's wife, Estrella, and has been modified to suit my beliefs about him) If you would like to watch the No Kill in Motion tribute to Alan, it is on our No Kill in Motion Youtube channel at this link. Many people in Alan's life may not be aware of the full extent of his advocacy efforts to we wanted to not only honor our friend, but give people some insight into his advocacy which helped change how shelters operate across the country. Note: The Celebration of Life for Alan will be held on Sunday, October 12, 2025 at Herbal Roots Organics in Boonton, New Jersey. Donations in his honor may be made to the Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Research Foundation.  A new study by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, was released recently that contains some interesting (yet not surprising) information about access to veterinary care, pet acquisition and spay and neuter of pets. The report states the sample of more than 5,000 people in both English and Spanish “was largely representative of the US adult population in terms of age, race/ethnicity, household income, household size, percentage of households with children, marital status, urbanicity, and housing type.” My key takeaways from the study are as follows:  Younger households/respondents:
 Reasons for pets not being spayed or neutered.
 Why the No Kill Equation Remains the Go-To Solution The study authors recommend what are called “community-based interventions like affordable veterinary clinics, mobile services and local resource guides.” In my world, this means doubling down on the No Kill Equation not only related to access to veterinary care, but to help people so we can help animals. Access to high volume/low-cost spay neuter remains crucial to keeping pet populations in check. As we have always known, those least apt to have pets spayed and neutered are those who can least afford it. Municipalities that invest in programs to help low-income households have pets sterilized reap the rewards of that investment over time as shelter intake decreases. It’s a “pay me now v. pay me later” situation in which a nominal investment to prevent pet births reduces the costs in terms of both resources and spending to impound, house and then seek positive outcomes for those animals in progressive communities or destroy those animals in regressive communities. I am fully aware there are veterinary deserts in our country where implementation of this program of the No Kill Equation is a challenge. Rather than throw our hands in the air and say there is nothing to be done, I believe it is worth the effort to find solutions for those areas to either bring spay/neuter services to the public or provide a mechanism to transport animals to areas where spay/neuter services are available. The Alabama Spay/Neuter Clinic in Irondale, Alabama, transports animals to the clinic from 12 locations using a monthly schedule. The cost is $10 per pet. The spay/neuter costs are higher than at the North Alabama Spay and Neuter Clinic in Huntsville, but are still much lower than the fees charge by many veterinarians. The Bissell Pet Foundation has a program called Fix the Future that was “created to address the lack of access to veterinary care for both shelters and pet owners. . .[in which the foundation] pays contracted veterinarians directly and connects them with approved host organizations in regions where spay/neuter is needed.” I would like to see other national nonprofits like the ASPCA and Best Friends Animal Society provide similar services, perhaps by employing contract veterinarians who operate mobile veterinary clinics to take spay/neuter services to the people where they live and work.  The study also highlights the need for pet retention programs to help keep pets in existing homes through personal counseling to help people keep dogs contained, address resource issues or address behavior issues. When shelters are seen as places that help instead of places that judge, people are more apt to seek that help instead of trying to surrender a pet. The only limit to programs like this is the imagination of the people providing the help. Maybe a household needs help with pet food, paying for nominal veterinary costs (through grant funding) or referral to a rescue group or trainer related to some behavior issue. Maybe an animal really cannot stay in the existing home for some reason in which case the counseling can relate to re-homing the pet with a family member, friend, neighbor, co-worker, social contact (like someone from church or a sports team) or with the help of a veterinarian. In cases where the pet remains in the existing home that counseling should always include help developing a pet care plan in the event of the caregiver’s death, hospitalization, incarceration or some other life crisis so the animal goes directly to another home based on a plan and does not end up at any animal shelter. It also helps when animal nonprofits in a community help keep pets in existing homes through wellness clinics like the one hosted by the Greater Huntsville Humane Society once a month and helping households with dogs who live outside keep those dogs contained and well cared for. Comprehensive adoption programs are vital to placing animals in homes that otherwise would not consider acquiring an animal from a shelter. This includes family friendly hours in the evening and on weekends so people can get to the shelter outside of their work hours and even bring children with them as a family decision. Any shelter that is only open “banker’s hours” when most people are at work will always have lower adoption rates because those hours make it almost impossible for most people to get to the shelter unless they take vacation time from work (a luxury many working people don’t have). It also includes reduced adoption fees, fee waived adoptions or sponsored adoption fees as a marketing tool to make it easier for people to adopt. That does not mean there is no adoption screening. It does mean that focusing on the value of the animal’s life is more important than focusing on some arbitrary fee. All shelter animals are in competition for adoptive homes with other animals in the region. Waiving the fee or having some low fee can get the attention of potential adopters and make the difference to help a caregiver adopt and then be able to more easily afford pet basics like food, bowls, a bed, etc.  Based on the number of people who get dogs from breeders and pet stores, the importance of Public Relations and Community Involvement cannot be overstated. People don't adopt animals they don't know about. Increasing adoptions, maximizing donations, recruiting volunteers and partnering with community agencies comes down to one thing: increasing a shelter’s public exposure. Public relations and marketing are the foundation of any shelter’s activities and their success. To do all these things well, the shelter must be in the public eye. There are a lot of people don’t give much thought to the municipal animal shelter in their community. Some know it exists but could not tell you where it is located. Some have an idea of what takes place there and perhaps don’t want to think about it. The first hurdle any shelter has to overcome is making itself visible in the community; making itself relevant. When a shelter is viewed more as a place of hope and of rescue, it goes a long way toward both keeping animals out of the shelter and getting them out of the shelter. With regard to the animals themselves, this element is all about marketing shelter animals as a compassionate way to get a pet, the responsible thing to do to save a life, overcoming beliefs that shelter animals are somehow damaged and promoting animals based on their personalities to help adopters make informed choices. It is also about making it easy to adopt shelter animals by removing arbitrary barriers to adoption (the age of the adopter, how frequently the adopter travels, whether or not the adopter has a fully fenced yard, etc.). When we market animals consistently and the animals are very visible in the community through off-site adoption events and use of the media, we seek the help of the public in placing animals and we help them understand that shelter animals are just as worthy, loving and loyal as animals from other sources. It is a given in the animal sheltering industry that pet problems are people problems. If we want to reduce the number of animals entering shelters and move animals through the shelter system as fast as possible, we have to stop vilifying the public served, suspend the mantra about “the irresponsible public” and show people some support, compassion and grace.  Social media. Many of us use it. Many of us hate it. It can be a wonderful thing when it comes to keeping up with family and friends. It can be a terrible thing when it comes to the sharing and re-sharing of information that may be at best misleading or at worst plain wrong. I personally believe that social media has eroded people's critical thinking skills to the detriment of us all. It encourages short and often meaningless interactions with people we don't know and will never meet. And it is easier to go along with someone who presents themselves as an authority on a topic - or even some organization that does the same - than it is to educate ourselves and think for ourselves in forming our opinions. The topics of animal welfare, animal protection and animals shelters are affected as negatively by this follower mentality and lack of critical thinking as any other subject. This was made abundantly clear during the last legislative session in the state where I live as people (who no doubt mean well) supported bad legislation related to companion animals just because a well-known personality told them to and while knowing little to nothing about existing laws or how the bills would negatively affect those laws. People were clamoring for more laws without knowing what laws are already on the books and how efforts to change the laws may actually weaken those we have. Some held a protest on the steps of the state capitol in support of a bill they had not yet read and which ultimately would have weakened existing law. Many who supported the bills referred repeatedly to the state's "ranking" by a national nonprofit organization with the stated mission to, "protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system."  Ranking of states is nothing new. U.S. News ranks states every year and there are state rankings related to health and education. So what are these state rankings all about when it comes to animals? There was a time years ago when both the Humane Society of the United States (now known as Humane World for Animals) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund both published annual state rankings. HSUS last published a report years ago, leaving ALDF as the organization to which people are referring when they talk about state rankings regarding animal protection laws. After reading (or hearing) for the 200th time that Alabama is ranked 49 out of 50 states related to our animal protection laws, I decided I had had enough. To a person, the people talking about the rankings did so with an apparent belief that the ranking means Alabama essentially has no laws at all. Which is just not true. Is there room for improvement in Alabama? Absolutely. I grew up in Southern California and I sometimes joke that time travel really is possible depending on where you go in Alabama. There is no shortage of issues about which the state can improve, many of which are hindered by the fact that ours is an agricultural state (in which Big Ag = Big Money = Big Influence) and hindered by the culture of some resident regarding how animals should be treated. We have laws that are very strong, some of which do not exist in other states. We have laws that are optional when they should be mandatory. We have laws that are not enforced in some cases because law enforcement officers are not trained on animal laws or don't care about them. We have prosecutors who charge people using the wrong statute which sometimes leads to "evidence animals" being housed in shelters for months when a disposition hearing about them can and should be held within 20 days of them being seized. We have elected officials whose opinion is that companion animals should be given no more consideration than single celled organisms, some of whom reportedly participate in cock fighting (which is a felony offense in more than 42 states and the District of Columbia). My review of the 2024 ALDF rankings report was enlightening. It includes a rankings map (shown below) and information about the method used to rank states and territories based on 4 primary categories and 20 different categories. The rankings focus primarily on enacted animal protection laws and not on enforcement of those laws (which is perfectly understandable). The rankings also do not take into consideration administrative codes like exist in Alabama to regulate professions (from accountants to the Youth Services Department). The top 5 states in the 2024 report are Oregon (1), Massachusetts (2), Maine (3), Illinois (4) and Colorado (5). The bottom 5 states in the report are Mississippi (46), Kentucky (47), Idaho (48), Alabama (49) and North Dakota (50). The report includes data sheets for those 10 states. The ALDF website has an individual page for each state that includes a report for the state and information specific to the state.  (image from page 3 of the 2024 Animal Legal Defense Fund Ranking Report) When I began comparing the report details about Alabama, it became clear to me that the rankings are not what I thought at all. There are laws that are lacking in Alabama that are also lacking in the states ranked 2 through 5. There are laws in top ranked states that make some actions optional but not mandatory and yet Alabama is faulted for not having mandatory laws on the same subjects. My analysis of the data appears in the images below. You can see a pdf of my analysis by clicking on the first image.    A senior staff attorney with ALDF graciously took time out of her busy schedule to talk with me about the rankings and the effect of those rankings on legislative efforts in my state. She said ALDF uses a point system to rank states and has for many years. I spoke about the issue of equity in fairness in the rankings. She said the primary goal for ranking states is to help identify gaps in animal protection laws across the country, call attention to areas that can improve and to focus on strong laws in some states that could be implemented in other states. ALDF only looks at the state code. To the extent there are professional requirements in an administrative code (like in Alabama) they do not consider that at all. If something considered important is not codified, a state does not get credit for it. If something considered important is part of the ordinary enforcement of laws by a court, but is not explicitly required by state law, a state does not get credit for it. In the end, my impression is that it is not really possible to rank states equitably using the criteria on which ALDF relies which is understandably limited. There are certainly other states with stronger laws than mine, but since ALDF cannot speak to enforcement in any state, there is no way to determine if those laws are enforced and better than ours are enforced. I explained how the ALDF rankings negatively affect legislative efforts in the state and spoke specifically to the problems with two bills filed in the last legislative session that were promoted by a well known shelter director in the state for reasons I will not elaborate on here so I lessen the risk of being sued. I told the staff attorney the rankings make it seem like the lower ranked states have no laws at all which leads people not familiar with the laws to latch onto any bill thinking it must be a good thing. When it often is far from that. The attorney conceded the state rankings are not a zero-sum situation where states ranked high have thorough laws and states ranked low have no laws. I told her that is, unfortunately, what people think and that most people promote any animal bill they hear about, presuming it must be a good thing. She said she would speak to her director about messaging and to make the purpose of the rankings more clear. I asked that the messaging include encouraging people to learn about existing state laws and to educate themselves so they have a better understanding of the effect of proposed bills on existing laws. I appreciated her time and her offer to help in the future if there is a particular bill in my state viewed as problematic. The Animal Legal Defense Fund does a lot of good and helps a lot of people. It is supported by thousands of dedicated attorneys and hundreds of thousands of members and supporters. It is involved in filing lawsuits to stop animal abuse and expand the boundaries of animal law, it provides free legal help to prosecutors handling cruelty cases, it works to strengthen state anti-cruelty statutes, is encourages the federal government to enforce existing animal protection laws, it supports student chapters, has an animal law program and provides public education. Those are all wonderful contributions to society. From where I site, the state rankings are a terrible idea. I would much prefer that ALDF stop ranking states as if it is a competition in which those states ranked near the top are applauded and those who rank low must just not give a damn. ALDF could still provide information by state, as it does now, to focus on what good things are happening in the state and where there is room for improvement. Ranking a state 49th has real world consequences. We are fortunate neither of the bills filed this last legislative session passed. They will likely be back in some form in 2026 as people continue to talk about the state rankings while still not understanding what we have on the books, how to focus on elected people who will enforce the laws and how to seek local laws to help improve the quality of life of companion animals in their own back yard.  Before you use the rankings for your state either to support or to oppose legislation in your state - or to talk about how wonderful or terrible your state is - please educate yourself. Learn about existing laws and how they are enforced, if they are enforced. If they are not enforced, get active at the local level to try to change that. Most district attorneys and sheriffs are elected by the public. If existing laws are not enforced, there is no reason to believe new laws will be enforced. When bills are proposed, please take the time to read them and think for yourself. If you have trouble understanding the laws, reach out to advocates in your state who can help you.
What would I like to see in the short-term for Alabama that I think is realistic considering the culture here?
I would also like to see all certified law enforcement officers trained on the animal laws in the state code (there is currently no training) and a mandatory training curriculum for animal control officers who assist certified officers. Dare to dream. Animal problems are people problems.
I make these points because I was reminded again this week of the level of hatred displayed by some in the animal shelter and animal rescue communities toward the public. Some attitudes rise to a level I consider toxic. People who lead or work in shelters where the lives of healthy and treatable animals are ended as a population control measure do not want to be called killers and they should not. Applying the act to the actor is inflammatory and counterproductive. Yet those same people who do not want to be faulted for destroying animals (needlessly, I would argue) do not hesitate to blame the public for the fact that animals die at their facilities. Most of them remain ignorant of (or refuse to acknowledge) proven programs that have been available for the taking for 2 decades and which can and should be used to keep more animals alive. This is what I read and hear weekly if not daily.
But here's the problem with that us v. them attitude. It does not serve shelters and rescue groups well and it certainly does not serve the public well toward resolving the very issues that cause animals to be in need. Animal sheltering and rescue is not what the public thinks. Or even understands. I blame that in part to television shows and documentary films that have highlighted animal control/shelter operations and on rescue groups that have led the public to have entirely unrealistic expectations of those animal care agencies. Add to this the fact that we all live within the bubble of our own reality and we focus on what is in front of us, what affects us and what we value no matter the subject. Politics. Money. Our troops. Disease. Animals.  Whether people in the shelter and rescue community want to acknowledge it or not, most of the public has no clue of the challenges faced by shelters and rescues related to companion animals because it's just not on their personal radar. Should the public know more about what is happening when it comes to how their personal behavior affects shelters and rescue groups? Probably. But. They. Don't. I once spoke to this in a podcast for which I was interviewed years ago and referred to the divide between the public and animal agencies as like a gorge. On one side of the gorge are the animal loving public. Most of them mean well. They think they are doing all they can but they do make bad choices, they sometimes wait too long for pets to be spayed/neutered and accidents happen that cause dogs to get loose. Most of those people on the public side of the gorge believe animal shelters keep all healthy and treatable animals alive. They also have developed an unreasonable belief that rescue groups are prepared to drop what they are doing and absolve them of responsibility for their pets, a belief that is bolstered by the fact that many in rescue will do just that. On the other side of the gorge is the animal shelter and rescue community that have such loathing for the public they can hardly function. They are certain the public is entirely to blame for the fact that animals die because people are irresponsible and don't care enough. I'm not sure who all these irresponsible people are. Apparently everyone other than the people who work at or volunteer for the shelter. I firmly believe that the culture in our communities toward companion animals changes when the shelter leads the way and invites the public they serve to be part of something bigger than themselves. In places where the culture related to shelter animals has changed and more lives are saved, the "irresponsible public" did not move out only to be replaced by more responsible people. Unless and until those in the animal shelter and rescue community stop vilifying the public they expect to behave differently, nothing will change. It is totally counterproductive to say, "it is your fault animals die, but oh, by the way. Can you adopt, volunteer, donate and foster?" You cannot slap someone across the face with your words and expect adoration or cooperation in return. If you want to modify public behavior, please suspend your judgment and check your attitude at the door. Instead try helping people so they make better choices and so there are fewer animals entering shelters or in need of rescue.
 And some suggestions for everyone involved that are a reality check. For animal shelters:
 This week I have been called insane, clueless, delusional and told to "F off" multiple times. Name calling and profanity by those who refuse to acknowledge that animal problems are people problems are tactics of desperation. One woman told me to "hush." Alrighty then. I have also been told I am not allowed to have an opinion about tax-funded animal shelter operations if I have never done that job myself. I simply do not agree. I have plenty of contacts across the country who do run animal shelters and with whom I have interacted for years. And I think we can all agree I am not expected to fill potholes, mow city parks or stand in the street and direct traffic to have an opinion about how tax dollars are spent by other municipal departments that do not make life and death decisions daily.
 People who are passionate about helping companion animals mean well and that includes some (but certainly not all) of the people we elect to represent us at the state level, senators and representatives alike. Every state is governed by laws that cover subjects ranging from agriculture to aviation to banks to corporations to counties to courts to education to elections to eminent domain to housing to insurance to professions and public works. You get the idea. Each state also has laws about animals some of which relate to animals generally (containment, livestock, rabies vaccination, dangerous dogs, sterilization) and some of which relate to crimes against companion animals specifically like torture, cruelty and neglect of dogs and cats. Each state has its own process for how laws get enacted but the process is similar: a bill is filed by a state elected official - a senator or a representative - and it is assigned to a committee for consideration. It can either die in committee (meaning no action is taken) or get a favorable vote (with or without changes being made) and then it is considered by the chamber in which it was introduced (house or senate). If it makes it through that chamber, the process repeats itself in the other chamber where it the bill may die or move forward. If the bill gets through the second chamber, it goes to the governor to sign or veto. The process is more detailed than that and involves more steps, but that’s the general sequence. If you are not familiar with the process in your state, please learn about it. This is the information for my state that is published by the American Civil Liberties Union. In my experience, very few people who want animals treated better know the laws in their own state. Some are written more clearly than others and all laws are open to some degree of interpretation which is why courts sometimes get involved. This lack of knowledge often extends to the very elected officials who promote bills they think will help animals. A contact of mine at a state attorney general’s office told me that state elected officials often do not know the existing laws, often do not write the bills they file and may not understand the effect their proposed bill may have on existing laws, often weakening laws that have been on the books for decades. So, how do we animal advocates or concerned citizens know if a bill is a good bill or a bad bill? We need to examine the following things:
A Good Bill  Like many states, Colorado sells license plates to the public for causes the public supports. One of those license plates is the “Adopt a Shelter Pet” plate. Funds collected from the sale of the plates goes into the “pet overpopulation fund” to be used by animal shelters to have animals spayed/neutered and to support education programs. Prior to the promotion of House Bill HB25-1137, shelters seeking money from the fund had to agree to not use the phrase “No Kill” related to their shelter operation or marketing. The Humane Society of Fremont County - which holds 7 municipal contracts - has proudly upheld the highest open-admission save rate in Colorado for 10 consecutive years and is considered a leading animal shelter in the country. Because it refused to comply with the requirement to ditch the “No Kill” label, it was prevented from receiving crucial funding. The primary purpose of the bill was to prevent funds being withheld from shelters that support the No Kill model of animal sheltering. A portion of the bill language states: (c) The adopt a shelter pet account in the pet overpopulation fund receives money donated through the sale of the adopt a shelter pet license plate to be used for spaying and neutering animals in animal shelters and rescues and to support overpopulation education programs; An incredible amount of work was done by the primary supporters of the bill: No Kill Colorado, the MaxFund No Kill Animal Shelter and Adoption Center, and the Humane Society of Fremont County, This bill represents a long-overdue correction to an unfair funding restriction that has penalized shelters like ours for standing by our no-kill values,” said Doug Rae, the Director of the Humane Society of Fremont County. “We are proud to lead this fight for fairness and transparency, but we need the public’s help to get this across the finish line.” Proponents of the bill fought hard for its passage after it was introduced in the house in late January. It passed the house in February and passed the senate in March after gaining support from the Colorado Department of Agriculture. The bill was being signed into law by Governor Jared Polis on April 17, 2025. This is an example of a good bill. It sought to remove obstacles to receipt of funds by animal shelters that were based not on helping animals, but were grounded in the personal opinions of the members of the Colorado Pet Overpopulation Authority, some of whom are hostile toward No Kill philosophies. The law as enacted states, “the Colorado Pet Overpopulation Authority must not favor a particular shelter model when allocating money from the Adopt A Shelter Pet Account.” A Bad Bill  Most states have laws about animal cruelty that are part of the criminal code. Such is the case in Alabama. The laws were enacted at different times in the history of the state and law enforcement officers are not trained in animal laws in the academy instruction they received to be certified. Laws about cruelty to animals (generally) and aggravated cruelty were enacted in 1977 and 2013, respectively. Laws about cruelty to dogs and cats (specifically) were enacted in 2000 as part of the Pet Protection Act. There were two problematic animal bills filed in the 2025 legislative session which has now ended without either bill making it out of the chamber of origin. Both bills were promoted by the CEO of nonprofit organization based in Birmingham that holds numerous municipal contracts (and continues to seek more) despite the fact that it has a dismal live release rate for dogs and a less than stellar rate for cats. House Bill 149 was originally filed on February 4, 2025, and a substitute bill took its place on April 2, 2025 without the public having an opportunity to review the substitute. The bill did not seek to amend existing laws (which should have been the case) but was a stand-alone bill called the Alabama Dog Tethering and Outdoor Shelter Act. The original version of the bill would have reduced what was a Class A misdemeanor to a Class B misdemeanor. It includes provisions regarding food, water, shelter, collar size, enclosure size, enclosure height that are unenforceable as written. Here are some examples: (1) ADEQUATE FOOD. Food that is sufficient in amount and is appropriate for the particular type of dog to prevent starvation or a significant risk to the dog's health from lack of food. The term includes palatable, uncontaminated, and nutritionally appropriate food that is fed according to species requirements or is fed as directed by a veterinarian. This is an example of a bad bill. It sought to achieve too many things at once, many of which would have been unenforceable. It would not have outlawed chaining of dogs as many people thought; it would have allowed dogs to be chained using a chain designed for dogs which are sold widely on the internet and at pet supply stores. The provisions in the bill related to "shelter" might have been of some value, but the state has a history with that one word. There have been multiple attempts over a period of many years to define the single word shelter in the criminal code (three of which were brought by a former state representative who is now the state auditor). All failed. The senate chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee told me years ago that as long as a dog can get under a mobile home, that's shelter. His personal views aside, I'm not sure why proponents of the bill thought that having a new bill to define that one word combined with numerous other things would make it through the legislative gauntlet. It would be like a tenant asking a landlord to fix a window, being told no, and then asking the landlord to fix the window, renovate all the rooms in the house and pay for landscaping. Not. Gonna. Happen. In addition to issues with provisions of the bill being unenforceable, perhaps the more concerning issue is that the bill would have given authority to animal control officers to perform duties typically performed by certified law enforcement officers. The requirements to be an animal control officer in Alabama typically consist of having a high school diploma or GED and a driver's license. Most animal control officers are not trained in their animal control duties, much less trained in animal laws, investigative techniques, de-escalation techniques or probable cause determinations. Giving untrained civilians authority to seize animals could be dangerous – someone is apt to be shot and people in the vicinity of the property could also be endangered. Giving ACOs authority to seize animals could also result in unwarranted taking of animals in violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because they do not know the laws of the state and this could lead to litigation. As my husband said very clearly when we were taking about the bill: “if you come on my property to take my dog, you better have really good health insurance.” I am relieved this bill did not make it out of the house of origin, a fact that has put me at odds with some of my contacts in Alabama who mistakenly believe the bill would have done amazing things to help animals in our state. I understand they mean well but their failure to learn about existing laws and to think for themselves was a recipe for disappointment. Many people supporting the bill took their cue from the CEO of a nonprofit organization I mentioned above. She has an huge following in the state and speaks with the voice of authority regarding animal issues - including proposed legislation - even thought some of her comments were inaccurate. She has a lot of support by members of the business community in her area and is favored by the founder of a large nonprofit organization with national reach. All of this is despite the fact that more than half the dogs impounded by her organization in 2024 did not survive the process. I'm not sure that anyone with a record that poor should be considered a voice of authority on any issues related to companion animals. Including new laws. I would like to think there will be lessons learned from the fact that the bills she promoted did not leave the chamber of origin. I'm not so sure that will happen. It is easier for people to take the default position that state legislators don't care than it is to examine why the bills failed to better promote effective bills in the future.  For those in my state who are upset that House Bill 149 (and House Bill 249) did not survive this legislative session, here are a few things to consider.
 Do you think you know about the history of animal sheltering in the United States and what the No Kill movement represents? Let's see how you do. Pop quiz (the answer key is found at the end of this blog). 1. Who was the founder of the modern animal protection movement? a. Richard Avanzino. b. Nathan Winograd c. Henry Bergh. d. George Angell. 2. True or false. The same person founded the first Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals AND the New York Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. a. True. b. False. 3. How many animals were being destroyed in American animal shelters each year in the 1960s and 1970s? a. 30-35 million b. 20-25 million. c. 16-17 million. d. 10-12 million. 4. Where was the location of the first No Kill animal shelter in America? a. San Francisco, California. b. Austin, Texas. c. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania d. Tompkins County, New York. 5. What does the phrase "No Kill" mean? a. No animals die in the animal shelter under any circumstances. b. The shelter saves the lives of all healthy and treatable animals who enter the shelter. c. The shelter saves 90% of the animals who enter the shelter. d. The shelter only ends the lives of animals when it is overcrowded and to make space. 6. True or false. The No Kill movement promotes warehousing animals for long periods of time and leads to abuse and neglect of animals. a. True. b. False. I tend to blog not to read my own words or make a name for myself, but when I have something to say. Today is one of those days and is perhaps long overdue. As we head into Spring of a new year, I am seeing more and more toxic rhetoric against the No Kill Movement as people (and organizations) seek to make this social movement into something it is not or find other ways to describe ending the lives of healthy and treatable animals in our nation's shelters using tax dollars ("low kill," "community pet heroes" or "Saving More Animals Responsibly Together.") The first thing about these voices that surprises me - and which is different than years past - is people (and organizations) declaring the No Kill movement outdated, as if it served its purpose for a while but is no longer effective. Hardly. The No Kill movement has been a fast moving vehicle of change that has drastically shifted not only how many shelters operate but has also served to educate the public on how their tax dollars are spent so they can seek better. That was true decades ago and is still true today. The second thing about these voices - that does not surprise me at all - is there is no indication most of the voices behind these positions have done anything to educate themselves on the history of animal sheltering in the United States or the history of the No Kill Movement other than a few Google searches. It can be hard to take these people seriously because they profess to know something about a subject they genuinely know nothing about. But we ignore them at our own peril because many of these voices are heard the loudest 1) because the positions are put forth by a huge organization that rakes in millions of dollars from people who think their donation will help animals; 2) because of the identity of the speaker who has some form of notoriety; or 3) because of the self-validating nature of social media where people share and comment and share and comment and share and comment on posts about animal sheltering and the No Kill movement that support their current world view without doing any fact checking or better yet - thinking for themselves. I typically try to engage directly with the people who oppose the No Kill Movement in an effort to educate them if I think there may be a conversation to be had. I spent an hour on the phone a few weeks ago with a prominent figure whose family rose to prominence at the time of Henry Bergh (and who now leads a well known nonprofit organization) after she wrote a blog critical of the movement. I spent the same amount of time on the phone last week with an individual who engages with animal shelters and animal control personnel nationally because he is on the speaker circuit for conferences and he provides consultant-based training. Sometimes these calls achieve little, but I tell myself I tried. There are other times I don't even try to engage with the person if the hatred for the movement is so obvious there is no conversation to be had. I pick my battles. I have long said that an educated advocate is an informed advocate and I believe there is no shortcut to avoid doing our homework. How can we possible speak to the validity of a philosophy like the No Kill movement if we know nothing about the history that created the movement and about the challenges we face today? We cannot. This blog is intended to help two groups of people. The first group is people who genuinely want to learn about the history of animal sheltering in our country and the No Kill movement but don't know where to start. There is so much information on the Internet it can be easy to get lost. The second group is people who chose to parrot an opinion as a follower of someone else without taking any time to develop an informed opinion. Consider this a challenge issued. You cannot possibly say you know that you are talking about (or commenting about) unless you have invested time to learn, learn and then learn some more. If I was teaching a class called No Kill 101 for Everyone (Not Just Dummies), the first semester would start with the following assignments. Class is in session. Let me know if you have any questions.  Lesson 1. Read "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" (time - approximately 10 hours) Redemption was first published by Nathan Winograd, the founder of the No Kill Advocacy Center, in 2007. A second edition was published in 2008. The title of the book took many people by surprise when it was published, including many with decades of experience advocating for shelter animals. Why? Prior to having bubbles burst, almost everyone was certain animals died in shelters due to "pet overpopulation." We had been told that same thing over and over for so long that we believed it had to be true (when it is not). The book is almost 20 years old but the content stands the test of time. It is part history book and how "how to" book as it introduces us to the No Kill Equation which I consider to be a DIY solution for any shelter or any community seeking to balance public safety with saving the lives of shelter animals. Reading this book changed my life and put me on a different life path. To use a word from my legal career, it is a treatise. I refer to it often. I consider it the foundation to any education about animal sheltering in America and the No Kill movement.  Lesson 2: Watch "Redemption: The No Kill Revolution in America" (time - 56 minutes) This 2014 documentary film is based on the book Redemption and is described as follows: "This is the story of animal sheltering, which was born of compassion and then lost its way. It is the story of the No Kill movement, which says we can and must stop the killing. It is about heroes and villains, betrayal and redemption. And it is about a social movement as noble and just as those that have come before. But most of all, it is a story about believing in the community and trusting in the power of compassion." The film is still available on DVD if you want a personal copy but can be viewed on Youtube for free. It contains no graphic images.  Lesson 3: Watch "The Myth of Pet Overpopulation" (time - 21 minutes) This short film was published by the No Kill Advocacy Center in July 2019. It explains logically why it is a myth that "pet overpopulation" is the reason why animals die in American shelters (as opposed to shelter overpopulation). This is one of two short films I share most often with rescuers, fellow advocates and elected officials to explain that what people think is happening in animal shelters is, well, not true. In any given year, many millions more people will bring an animal into their home than the number of animals killed in shelters. This is not an overpopulation issue. It is an issue of market share.  Lesson 4: Watch "No Kill 101" (time 28 minutes) This film was published by the No Kill Advocacy Center in 2020. It is probably the most succinct explanation of the No Kill Equation in visual form. It takes us through each element of the Equation to explain how using that program serves to reduce intake, shorten length of stay and get animals out of the shelter faster. I share it with elected officials and shelter leadership often because it is short, logical and engaging. It also sets the stage for me to explain to those officials how the elements of the Equation can be implemented in their own community, often using existing resources and no (or very little) additional spending.  Lesson 5: Read "Not Rocket Science: A Story of No Kill Shelter Advocacy in Huntsville, Alabama (time - approximately 5 hours) This is my book published in April 2019. It is part my story and part the story of the political advocacy of No Kill Huntsville which formed in January 2012 to promote the City of Huntsville, Alabama, ending the outdated practice of killing healthy and treatable animals for space. I wrote it primarily to help the public learn about animal sheltering and programs and also to help people outside our area learn about our path, including what we did right and what we did wrong. It explains the No Kill Equation and how we used the Equation to help take an animal shelter than was destroying most of the animals who entered the building to a shelter that now saves the lives of most of the animals, while still focusing on public safety. The book is available on Amazon for just over 5 bucks if you want a book you can hold in your hand, but you can also read the pdf if you want it for free.  Lesson 6: Listen to the Winograd's Substack Series entitled, "Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Animal Sheltering in the United States" (time - approximately 9 hours total) In late December 2021, the Winograds began sharing a 5-part series of Substack podcasts about the history of animal sheltering and current challenges in response to what they considered significant backsliding by organizations and individuals associated with the No Kill movement which is damaging the movement as a whole. I blogged about the series in September 2022 using the word "gobsmacked" because it was the only word I could find to explain my reaction to the series. Because I shared my thoughts about the series in my blog, they are not restated here. I have included a 6th podcast that is not part of the original series but which I feel is important related to the other podcasts. The series is nothing short of amazing; I learned more from this series than I had in a very long time and I now consider if as important to the education of anyone interested in animal sheltering or animal shelter reform as is Redemption. Some of the episodes are long but I found them captivating. They are conversational between Nathan and Jennifer (who does not get enough credit for your advocacy with Nathan) and easy to listen to. I recommend listening while traveling, driving, exercising or some other task. I listened to most of them while doing other tasks and had a pen and pad of paper handy to take notes. I have encouraged the Winograds to put the series in book form and I hope that will be possible at some point in the future. Part 1: Regarding Henry. The birth and betrayal of the humane movement in America (51 minutes) Part 2: A House of Cards Divided: The fight for the heart and soul of America’s animal shelters (1 hour, 52 minutes) Part 3: All of Them: No Kill moves from the theoretical to the real (2 hours, 5 minutes) Part 4: A glass half full and half empty: we’ve made tremendous progress but we still have a long way to go. (1 hour, 52 minutes) Part 5: What’s Past is Prologue: To best serve animals, humane societies must recapture their roots (1 hour, 9 minutes) Winter is Coming: The movement faces dangers that threaten to erase the gains of the last three decades and increase animal homelessness, abandonment, neglect, abuse, and killing (1 hour, 12 minutes) My advocacy is in honor of our dog, Snake, who left us on Earth Day 2006. Pop Quiz Answers. 1c, 2a, 3c, 4d, 5b, 6b. *The dummies reference relates to a very popular series of books to help people which is a Wiley brand.
|
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