 Donors BewareI have long believed that when it comes to making charitable donations to animal-oriented nonprofits, your money is best gifted in support of either small, local organizations in your own backyard or in support of organizations led with full transparency and with a clearly defined mission. Some recent drama in my state reinforced my beliefs related to a large, well-respected organization that enjoys a stellar public reputation for reasons I have never understood. More on that later. The only national organization I support financially related to companion animals is the No Kill Advocacy Center founded by Nathan and Jennifer Winograd. Reading Nathan’s book about the myth of pet overpopulation (as an excuse for the killing of healthy and treatable shelter animals) and how to save the lives of shelter animals using the No Kill Equation was a game changer for me. I also donate to small nonprofit organizations led by people I know personally and those supported by my family members. You are welcome to give your money to any organization you choose. I implore you, however, to not rely solely on the reputation of an organization as a litmus test for it being worthy of your support. Just because an organization has been around a long time does not mean it is efficiently operated. It is a betrayal of the public trust for animal-oriented nonprofits to put themselves forth as being champions for animals when they are not. This is a national issue. So, what’s a donor to do? I encourage you to do a little homework first to learn more about the organization and how your money may be used before using logging into your Paypal account or opening your checkbook. You can search on the IRS website to determine if the organization you wish to support is actually a nonprofit; many are not. Registering with the Secretary of State alone does not a nonprofit make. You can also perform a search on Propublica to learn more about the financials of the organization. You may decide that an organization has so much money already that your donation may be better used elsewhere. I also recommend you take a look at the website for the organization, do a basic internet search about the organization to look for any red flags and ask other people you know about the organization. The Greater Birmingham Humane Society, Inc.I have taken great pains over the many years of my advocacy to avoid engaging in behavior that may lead to litigation and to focus on facts as they are known to me. For a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit that person must be able to prove what is called “actual malice” through publication of false statements that damage reputation. Truth is a defense against litigation but that doesn’t mean you won’t get sued. I have written indirectly about the Greater Birmingham Humane Society in Alabama in the past but have not taken on the topic directly because the CEO has a reputation for threatening litigation and it just was not worth the risk. I would argue the time has come to be more direct because any damage to the reputation of the organization is the result of its own behavior and not the result of any facts I share. I hold no malice toward GBHS; I would refer to it more as profound disappointment for lost opportunities and lost lives. I am writing about GBHS to provide some facts so people in my region can make their own decisions about this organization and so people in other regions will think twice before supporting organizations that may not conduct themselves in ways of which they approve. More information about GBHS can be found on the Alabama Animal Advocates website.  GBHS first came on my radar back in 2017 when it was promoting a bill to create a state dog and cat breeders commission. The organization promoting the bill called itself the Alabama Puppy Mill Project but the website for APMP used email and physical addresses for the GBHS and people were encouraged to donate to GBHS in support of the bill. I did not support the bill. I felt it was too ambitious, would be almost impossible to enforce and many breeders would just ignore it. It was my opinion then, and now, that a standards-based bill would mean more because violations would be a crime. After the bill failed, those supporting it engaged in a campaign against the senators who did not advance the bill out of committee. I found the behavior embarrassing and potentially damaging to the causes of animal welfare and told the senators as much. When a bill fails, it makes little sense to go on a public campaign to vilify and shame the very elected officials with whom you likely will need positive relationships in the future. One senator told me the behavior of bill supporters had “poisoned the well for any animal legislation for the foreseeable future.” After the bill failed, GBHS - through the APMP - began electioneering to replace senators; this is prohibited conduct about which I reported GBHS to both the IRS and the Alabama Attorney General. More information about the GBHS came to light in 2018 as the result of reporting by No Kill Movement about statistics that were misrepresented, threats of litigation, marketing off of animals prior to ending their lives, growing animal control contracts, alleged misuse of funds and disaster profiteering. Donald Watkins wrote about the GBHS ties to a rescue group that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for dogs at auctions and then sued people for comments made on social media, political campaign activity, gaslighting, financial improprieties and being a killing zone for animals. I'm not sure if Mr. Watkins was ever threatened with litigation. Mike Fry of No Kill Movement told me he received a cease and desist request by a GBHS attorney to which he essentially replied, "bring it on." These are facts: History, Reputation and Resources
 Animal Census Reports
My Opinions My focus on the GBHS so far in this blog has been on the facts. I am allowed to have my own opinions based on my knowledge and experience even when they are not in lockstep with others.
 Supporters Beware I started this blog with a warning for donors. I will end it with a warning for supporters of animal welfare organizations. I think most people presume the best of organizations that profess to care about and provide support for companion animals. Most organizations do wonderful work, and most small organizations are led by people who are not compensated and often lack life-balance because they are trying to hard to help. Not all organizations are what we believe them to be. We need look no further than to recent news coverage about the animal sanctuary in California where bodies of more than 100 dogs were found in two primary dig sites following execution of two search warrants. People are horrified that animals they sent to a sanctuary ended up in a mass grave. In my state, we need look no further than the Greater Birmingham Humane Society as an example of an organization that enjoys a stellar pubic reputation when that reputation may not be deserved. The GBHS does not have mass graves, but it has "euthanized" thousands of animals for many years (sometimes over 1,000 in a single month) with very few people calling that conduct into question. Which is nothing short of a tragedy for the animals and people who place their trust in the organization.
2 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 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 last couple years have been difficult years for the animal shelter reform advocacy. There were many voices speaking out against the No Kill movement (some more well known than others), as if working to balance public safety with saving the lives of shelter animals is somehow a bad thing. I cannot count the number of times I was tagged on social media to defend No Kill philosophies only to be told I was uninformed, clueless, naïve or just wrong. I know it can be really hard for some people to believe that change is possible and that the lives of shelter animals can be saved. So many animals have died for so long that many people have, unfortunately, become reconciled to that. But here’s the thing: you can’t say it’s not possible to save the lives of animals in a responsible way if it happens across the country. It is. Having resources helps for sure. But I believe even shelters with resource challenges can make small changes over time – with the help of an engaged public – to save lives. I also believe a time will come, perhaps years from now, when all shelters are No Kill shelters whether they use those specific words or not; the lives of healthy and treatable animals will be saved because that is what the public wants and expects. There are certainly many progressive shelters across the country to which we can look for inspiration as we learn about the magic they perform each day for the sake of the people they serve and the animals entrusted to their care. I have chosen to highlight four municipal shelter operations located in Colorado, Texas, Alabama and Florida led by people I know and respect. I encourage anyone interested in leading their shelter in a more progressive way (or encouraging their local shelter to do better) to learn about the kinds of programs that make that possible. I don’t care what words you use to label or describe the shelter. What matters is the power of compassionate leadership driving the programs that matter. Examine the current shelter operation to learn what’s working and what isn’t. Learn about the No Kill Equation. Reach out to people who are doing great things. Change takes courage, but every life saved is a victory and a step toward a new future.  Humane Society of Fremont County; Canon City, Colorado  The Humane Society of Fremont County holds several municipal contracts. It serves the people and pets of Fremont and Custer Cuonties; roughly 56,000 neighbors across Canon city, Florence, Coal Creek, Westcliffe and Silver Cliff (7 separate counties). The median household income is approximately 63k and approximately 15% of the population lives in poverty. The current shelter director is Doug Rae. I consider HSFC to be one of the most progressive, if not the most, animal shelters in the country. The shelter became a No Kill facility overnight under the leadership of Doug Rae who “planted a flag” in September 2014 and never wavered in the commitment to lifesaving. The shelter has consistently maintained an incredibly high live release rate despite the pandemic and serving rural areas. As Doug told me, “Through the chaos of a global pandemic, staffing crises, decreased donations, and a rising tide of need, we never blinked. While some shelters used the pandemic as an excuse to backslide, we looked in the mirror and doubled down. Our combined live-release rate never dipped below 97%, and it often sits closer to 99%.” The live release rates for 2021 through 2025 are shown below:
Some of the programs offered by the HSFC include:
Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter; Georgetown, Texas  The Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter in Texas serves Williamson County, Round Rock, Cedar Park, Hutto, Leander and Georgetown. The population served by the shelter is approximately 727,000 people. The median income is approximately 111k and approximately 5% of the population lives in poverty. The current shelter director is Misty Valenta, who took over leadership of the shelter following the retirement of Cheryl Schneider in May of 2020. Much like the HSFC, I consider Williamson County one of the most progressive shelters in the country. Misty didn’t miss a beat when Cheryl passed her the baton of lifesaving in 2020, a difficult year for many tax-funded shelters. The shelter publishes an annual report; I found this statement from Misty in the most recent report reflective of her tremendous leadership: ”Welcoming people is not passive. It is active. By being present and accepting the help as it comes, we are participating in that flow of cooperation. It is an example of our belief that the shelter is not a destination but an intersection of resources. Our goal is to make each visit to our shelter a transformative one.” The live release rates for the shelter dating back to 2020 are shown below.
Huntsville Animal Services; Huntsville, Alabama  Huntsville Animal Services in Huntsville, Alabama, is operated by the City of Huntsville. It serves all of Madison County, Alabama, except for the City of Madison which handles its own animal control and sheltering. The population served by HAS is approximately 360,000 people. The median household income is approximately 86k and approximately 10% of the population lives in poverty. The current shelter director is John Fischer. HAS is also one of the most progressive shelters in the country thanks to John’s leadership. The shelter first began using progressive shelter programs in 2014 under the guidance of the city administrator. to drastically increase the life release rate but struggled in later years with issues related to dog behavior euthanasia and public trust. John took over operation of the shelter in late 2024 and hit the ground running to change the culture at the shelter in less than a year by empowering his staff (whom he describes as “helpers”) and by engaging with the public in creative and positive ways. As of the end of 2024, the live release rate for both dogs and cats was 93%. The dog live release rates in January and February 2026 were 97% and 95%, respectively. Some of the program highlights at HAS are:
Lake County Animal Shelter; Tavares, Florida  The Lake County Animal Shelter serves all of Lake County, Florida, consisting of approximately 444,000 people and covering approximately 1,157 square miles. Key cities are Mount Dora, Eustis, Tavares, Lessburg, Sorrento and Howey-in-the-Hills. Approximately 80% of the population live in urban areas while 20% live in rural areas. The median household income is approximately 73k and approximately 9% of the population lives in poverty. The current shelter director is Whitney Boylston. My dear friend and fellow animal welfare advocate, Alan Rosenberg, sang the praises of the LCAS many times on his New Jersey Animal Observer website before his untimely passing last October. Lake County had some issues with shelter leadership for years. Following advocacy by local residents, voters elected new members to the Board of County Commissioners in 2016 who supported No Kill philosophies. The County Commission took over operation of the shelter from the sheriff on January 15, 2017, and began operating it as a No Kill facility immediately. The county has since invested in a new, modern facility to better serve the needs of both the people being served and the animals. The live release rates dating back to 2020 are as follows:
I originally planned to write this blog as a Q&A with Doug, Misty, John and Whitney before shifting the focus to the programs I feel might inspire others. But I want to share some things Doug told me because they go to the heart of the commitment by all these amazing leaders who should inspire us all. I planted the No Kill flag the day I started in 2014, not as a marketing brand, but as a belief system. Language matters. Integrity matters. Every last animal that crosses our doorstep is someone, not something. To me, No Kill means doing right by the animals even when it’s hard, especially when it’s hard, and they need us the most. If an animal in need belonged to your daughter, your partner, or your mother, you wouldn't be asking if it's 'responsible' to save them. You’d be doing everything you could. So, we do. Amen to that. And despite what Doug says, he, Misty, John and Whitney do magic every day. I am grateful for their audacity and commitment to the communities they serve.
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.
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)
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.
 Do you think you know about the history of animal sheltering in the United States and what the No Kill movement represents? Let's see how you do. Pop quiz (the answer key is found at the end of this blog). 1. Who was the founder of the modern animal protection movement? a. Richard Avanzino. b. Nathan Winograd c. Henry Bergh. d. George Angell. 2. True or false. The same person founded the first Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals AND the New York Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. a. True. b. False. 3. How many animals were being destroyed in American animal shelters each year in the 1960s and 1970s? a. 30-35 million b. 20-25 million. c. 16-17 million. d. 10-12 million. 4. Where was the location of the first No Kill animal shelter in America? a. San Francisco, California. b. Austin, Texas. c. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania d. Tompkins County, New York. 5. What does the phrase "No Kill" mean? a. No animals die in the animal shelter under any circumstances. b. The shelter saves the lives of all healthy and treatable animals who enter the shelter. c. The shelter saves 90% of the animals who enter the shelter. d. The shelter only ends the lives of animals when it is overcrowded and to make space. 6. True or false. The No Kill movement promotes warehousing animals for long periods of time and leads to abuse and neglect of animals. a. True. b. False. I tend to blog not to read my own words or make a name for myself, but when I have something to say. Today is one of those days and is perhaps long overdue. As we head into Spring of a new year, I am seeing more and more toxic rhetoric against the No Kill Movement as people (and organizations) seek to make this social movement into something it is not or find other ways to describe ending the lives of healthy and treatable animals in our nation's shelters using tax dollars ("low kill," "community pet heroes" or "Saving More Animals Responsibly Together.") The first thing about these voices that surprises me - and which is different than years past - is people (and organizations) declaring the No Kill movement outdated, as if it served its purpose for a while but is no longer effective. Hardly. The No Kill movement has been a fast moving vehicle of change that has drastically shifted not only how many shelters operate but has also served to educate the public on how their tax dollars are spent so they can seek better. That was true decades ago and is still true today. The second thing about these voices - that does not surprise me at all - is there is no indication most of the voices behind these positions have done anything to educate themselves on the history of animal sheltering in the United States or the history of the No Kill Movement other than a few Google searches. It can be hard to take these people seriously because they profess to know something about a subject they genuinely know nothing about. But we ignore them at our own peril because many of these voices are heard the loudest 1) because the positions are put forth by a huge organization that rakes in millions of dollars from people who think their donation will help animals; 2) because of the identity of the speaker who has some form of notoriety; or 3) because of the self-validating nature of social media where people share and comment and share and comment and share and comment on posts about animal sheltering and the No Kill movement that support their current world view without doing any fact checking or better yet - thinking for themselves. I typically try to engage directly with the people who oppose the No Kill Movement in an effort to educate them if I think there may be a conversation to be had. I spent an hour on the phone a few weeks ago with a prominent figure whose family rose to prominence at the time of Henry Bergh (and who now leads a well known nonprofit organization) after she wrote a blog critical of the movement. I spent the same amount of time on the phone last week with an individual who engages with animal shelters and animal control personnel nationally because he is on the speaker circuit for conferences and he provides consultant-based training. Sometimes these calls achieve little, but I tell myself I tried. There are other times I don't even try to engage with the person if the hatred for the movement is so obvious there is no conversation to be had. I pick my battles. I have long said that an educated advocate is an informed advocate and I believe there is no shortcut to avoid doing our homework. How can we possible speak to the validity of a philosophy like the No Kill movement if we know nothing about the history that created the movement and about the challenges we face today? We cannot. This blog is intended to help two groups of people. The first group is people who genuinely want to learn about the history of animal sheltering in our country and the No Kill movement but don't know where to start. There is so much information on the Internet it can be easy to get lost. The second group is people who chose to parrot an opinion as a follower of someone else without taking any time to develop an informed opinion. Consider this a challenge issued. You cannot possibly say you know that you are talking about (or commenting about) unless you have invested time to learn, learn and then learn some more. If I was teaching a class called No Kill 101 for Everyone (Not Just Dummies), the first semester would start with the following assignments. Class is in session. Let me know if you have any questions.  Lesson 1. Read "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" (time - approximately 10 hours) Redemption was first published by Nathan Winograd, the founder of the No Kill Advocacy Center, in 2007. A second edition was published in 2008. The title of the book took many people by surprise when it was published, including many with decades of experience advocating for shelter animals. Why? Prior to having bubbles burst, almost everyone was certain animals died in shelters due to "pet overpopulation." We had been told that same thing over and over for so long that we believed it had to be true (when it is not). The book is almost 20 years old but the content stands the test of time. It is part history book and how "how to" book as it introduces us to the No Kill Equation which I consider to be a DIY solution for any shelter or any community seeking to balance public safety with saving the lives of shelter animals. Reading this book changed my life and put me on a different life path. To use a word from my legal career, it is a treatise. I refer to it often. I consider it the foundation to any education about animal sheltering in America and the No Kill movement.  Lesson 2: Watch "Redemption: The No Kill Revolution in America" (time - 56 minutes) This 2014 documentary film is based on the book Redemption and is described as follows: "This is the story of animal sheltering, which was born of compassion and then lost its way. It is the story of the No Kill movement, which says we can and must stop the killing. It is about heroes and villains, betrayal and redemption. And it is about a social movement as noble and just as those that have come before. But most of all, it is a story about believing in the community and trusting in the power of compassion." The film is still available on DVD if you want a personal copy but can be viewed on Youtube for free. It contains no graphic images.  Lesson 3: Watch "The Myth of Pet Overpopulation" (time - 21 minutes) This short film was published by the No Kill Advocacy Center in July 2019. It explains logically why it is a myth that "pet overpopulation" is the reason why animals die in American shelters (as opposed to shelter overpopulation). This is one of two short films I share most often with rescuers, fellow advocates and elected officials to explain that what people think is happening in animal shelters is, well, not true. In any given year, many millions more people will bring an animal into their home than the number of animals killed in shelters. This is not an overpopulation issue. It is an issue of market share.  Lesson 4: Watch "No Kill 101" (time 28 minutes) This film was published by the No Kill Advocacy Center in 2020. It is probably the most succinct explanation of the No Kill Equation in visual form. It takes us through each element of the Equation to explain how using that program serves to reduce intake, shorten length of stay and get animals out of the shelter faster. I share it with elected officials and shelter leadership often because it is short, logical and engaging. It also sets the stage for me to explain to those officials how the elements of the Equation can be implemented in their own community, often using existing resources and no (or very little) additional spending.  Lesson 5: Read "Not Rocket Science: A Story of No Kill Shelter Advocacy in Huntsville, Alabama (time - approximately 5 hours) This is my book published in April 2019. It is part my story and part the story of the political advocacy of No Kill Huntsville which formed in January 2012 to promote the City of Huntsville, Alabama, ending the outdated practice of killing healthy and treatable animals for space. I wrote it primarily to help the public learn about animal sheltering and programs and also to help people outside our area learn about our path, including what we did right and what we did wrong. It explains the No Kill Equation and how we used the Equation to help take an animal shelter than was destroying most of the animals who entered the building to a shelter that now saves the lives of most of the animals, while still focusing on public safety. The book is available on Amazon for just over 5 bucks if you want a book you can hold in your hand, but you can also read the pdf if you want it for free.  Lesson 6: Listen to the Winograd's Substack Series entitled, "Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Animal Sheltering in the United States" (time - approximately 9 hours total) In late December 2021, the Winograds began sharing a 5-part series of Substack podcasts about the history of animal sheltering and current challenges in response to what they considered significant backsliding by organizations and individuals associated with the No Kill movement which is damaging the movement as a whole. I blogged about the series in September 2022 using the word "gobsmacked" because it was the only word I could find to explain my reaction to the series. Because I shared my thoughts about the series in my blog, they are not restated here. I have included a 6th podcast that is not part of the original series but which I feel is important related to the other podcasts. The series is nothing short of amazing; I learned more from this series than I had in a very long time and I now consider if as important to the education of anyone interested in animal sheltering or animal shelter reform as is Redemption. Some of the episodes are long but I found them captivating. They are conversational between Nathan and Jennifer (who does not get enough credit for your advocacy with Nathan) and easy to listen to. I recommend listening while traveling, driving, exercising or some other task. I listened to most of them while doing other tasks and had a pen and pad of paper handy to take notes. I have encouraged the Winograds to put the series in book form and I hope that will be possible at some point in the future. Part 1: Regarding Henry. The birth and betrayal of the humane movement in America (51 minutes) Part 2: A House of Cards Divided: The fight for the heart and soul of America’s animal shelters (1 hour, 52 minutes) Part 3: All of Them: No Kill moves from the theoretical to the real (2 hours, 5 minutes) Part 4: A glass half full and half empty: we’ve made tremendous progress but we still have a long way to go. (1 hour, 52 minutes) Part 5: What’s Past is Prologue: To best serve animals, humane societies must recapture their roots (1 hour, 9 minutes) Winter is Coming: The movement faces dangers that threaten to erase the gains of the last three decades and increase animal homelessness, abandonment, neglect, abuse, and killing (1 hour, 12 minutes) My advocacy is in honor of our dog, Snake, who left us on Earth Day 2006. Pop Quiz Answers. 1c, 2a, 3c, 4d, 5b, 6b. *The dummies reference relates to a very popular series of books to help people which is a Wiley brand.
I first learned about the killing of healthy and treatable animals in our nation's "shelters" in the summer of 2006 when I had an unwelcome epiphany, thanks to the veterinarian who was the director of the tax-funded animal shelter in the city where I work. I was like most people back then. I though the only animals who died in shelters where those who were too sick or injured to save and the other animals were all reunited with their families, adopted into new homes or helped by rescue groups. I was wrong. The killing of healthy and treatable animals in our nation's shelters has continued for decades while the people doing the killing blame the deaths on "the irresponsible public" and on "pet overpopulation" while acting as though there is no other way to function. This awakening angered me so much that I began learning more about animal sheltering in America from those advocating for change and those leading the best performing shelters in the country. My education put me on a path I never expected and changed my life. I continue to learn new things to this day. Despite what some of my critics think, I am capable of admitting when I am wrong and I am capable of engaging in civil discourse with people who do not share all of my values. The cure for the disease that is shelter killing has been known for almost 2 decades and is there for the taking: the No Kill Equation. I am a member of the No Kill movement and I am an unapologetic supporter of the No Kill Equation for one simple reason: it works. Shelters that have stopped killing healthy and treatable animals for space or convenience have not done that because all the irresponsible people moved away and were replaced by people who care more. The shift from ending lives to saving them is the result of a change in the culture at the shelter which embraces proven programs that reduce shelter intake, shorten the amount of time animals are in the shelter, help the public make better choices and still protect public safety. I am bombarded every week by content from people who oppose the No Kill movement, promote the idea that shelters have no choice but to end the lives of animals and are more focused on how words are used than they are on the unnecessary deaths of animals that either were, or could have been, someone's beloved companion. Blogs. Social media posts. Media articles. I have historically spent a lot of time trying to reach out to these people, trying to start a conversation, only to find there was no conversation to be had in most cases. Some of these people are household names in our country (at least within animal welfare circles) and some are people who promote dangerous ideas online (like the photographer who administers a Facebook page called "Kill Shelters Care Too"). The reality is that large national animal welfare organizations - and people with lots of money or lots of followers - are heard the loudest. Folks like me in the trenches of animal welfare will never have the same reach and trying to connect with opponents individually is often of little value. This blog is about what I believe. If you are open to the idea that shelter animals don't have to die, would not want your own healthy and treatable animal to be killed in a shelter, support reform of our nation's animal shelters or just want your tax dollars spent consistent with public values, I hope you will share my blog. I am happy to engage on these topics with anyone who is interested.  What I Believe
So. That is what I believe based not on something I saw shared a dozen times on Facebook or because I have heard it so many times that I believe it to be true. These are some of my beliefs based on 2 decades of education and networking for the benefit of companion animals in my own community and across the country and for the benefit of people I believe want to do right by those animals. You are welcome to contact me if you have questions about this blog or want to learn more to advance your own education. People just never cease to amaze me. People who defend the killing of healthy and treatable animals in municipal animal shelters never cease to infuriate me. I was tagged on a social media platform recently related to a new page that openly and repeatedly defends the killing of healthy and treatable animals in tax-funded shelters. At first I thought I read the name of the page wrong. After my initial reaction of shock, I was reminded yet again that time travel really is possible depending on where you go in America and about which subject you are speaking. The views of this person may have been more easily understood had she stood on a wooden crate in the town square during the days of Henry Bergh. But this is 2025 and not 1875 so her insistence that municipal shelters have no choice but to end the lives of animals for space - and her stories about having personally participated in this process - made me both sick and angry. I have chosen not to share the name of her page here because I don't want to promote it. For me it is the social media written equivalent of a "stuff film." It is a "pro kill" page.  But back to the social media page. I tried commenting on a couple of the posts to see if I could get the attention of the page administrator and did not have much luck. I messaged her instead and implored her to learn more about the difference between "pet overpopulation" and "shelter overpopulation" which are not the same thing. She agreed to watch the 27-minute No Kill 101 video from the No Kill Advocacy Center and I offered her a free copy of my book so she could read about how the Equation was used in my area to take the municipal shelter from one that kills the vast majority of animals to one that saves the vast majority of animals. So much for that idea. She watched 3 minutes of the video, reached the point where Nathan Winograd talks about the concept of pet overpopulation being a myth, stopped watching and declared that I am wrong and have no idea what I am talking about. She continues to this day to post on an ongoing basis about shelter killing treating it as a fait accompli when it is not. I tried. I understand there are plenty of shelters that kill healthy and treatable animals while remaining either willfully ignorant or catastrophically uninformed despite the progress achieved by the No Kill movement to prevent that from happening. I also understand there are people that really believe that animals die in shelters due to "pet overpopulation" and "the irresponsible public." They have heard these excuses so many times for so many years that they hold tight to their beliefs with no allowance whatsoever for the fact that they may be wrong. When the Winograds first posited almost 20 years ago that pet overpopulation was a myth, people just could not believe it. They had heard so many times over so many years that animals die in shelters because there are just too many of them that the fact that animals were being killed seemed to confirm that belief. But pet overpopulation is a myth and is not the reason healthy and treatable animals die in shelters. In any given year about 30 million people are looking to bring a new companion animal into their homes and in any given year less than a million animals die in shelters. This is not an issue of too many animals and not enough homes. It is a marketing issue because people get animals from sources other than shelters. Shelter overpopulation is a separate concept and it does lead to the deaths of animals. When a shelter does not take steps to help reduce intake and move animals out faster, it becomes overpopulated. This leads to the antiquate practice of ending lives as a population control measure. If more animals enter the shelter than leave the shelter, the "excess" are destroyed. That may not matter to many people when looking at statistics on a form. But every one of those animals belonged to someone and you would not want that dog or cat killed if he or she belonged to you. As I have written about for years, the cure for the disease that is shelter killing is known and has been know for decades. It is found in the programs and services of the No Kill Equation which provide a DIY solution for any shelter to: 1) reduce shelter intake; 3) shorten length of stay (the phrase used to refer to the amount of time animals stay in the shelter); 3) help the public make better choices which affect how the shelter functions; and 4) focus on public safety so that dogs that are cognitively impaired and genuinely dangerous do not leave the shelter. This is not just something I read about and said, "hey, that sounds like it would work so that is what I believe and will promote." I know the No Kill Equation works because I have personally seen it work from Colorado to Texas to Alabama to Florida and and so very many places in between.  I have written about the concept of cognitive dissonance and shelter apologists related to shelter killing of healthy and treatable animals before so I won't restate the whole explanation here. The short version is this. Cognitive dissonance theory states that we routinely resolve the conflict in one of four ways: 1) we change one of the thoughts to alleviate the conflict; 2) we change our behavior to alleviate the conflict; 3) we add new thoughts to rationalize our behavior; or 4) we trivialize the inconsistency. As it applies to people who defend the destruction of healthy and treatable animals in shelters, an example of how cognitive dissonance works goes like this: Belief: healthy and treatable animals should not be destroyed in shelters is in conflict with Behavior: I support a shelter that destroys healthy and treatable animals Method 1 Change a belief - the shelter I support has no choice but to destroy healthy and treatable animals Method 2 Change behavior - I will not support the shelter because it destroys healthy and treatable animals Method 3 - Add new thoughts to rationalize - the shelter I support destroys healthy and treatable animals because the public will not spay/neuter, there are too many breeders and the public is irresponsible AND I know that the people who work at the shelter I support are good people who don’t want to destroy animals and are doing the best they can Method 4 - Trivialize the inconsistency - this happens across the country and there really isn’t any way to change it The methods I see used most often to alleviate dissonance are adding new thoughts and trivializing the inconsistency. Such is the case with the administrator of the pro kill page. She is not the only voice to defend the killing and she will not be the last or the loudest. While I was typing this I learned about a blog written by the founder of a nationally respected "pet foundation" who claims the "kill" label is killing our nation's pets. Uh, no. They are being killed at shelters that could stop that process by municipal officials and shelter leaders learning there are other ways to function instead of defending a process that is nothing short of an utter betrayal of the public trust. 2025. Not 1875. There are just no excuses since the ways to save lives are known and have been for a very long time.  |
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