Category: Animal Shelter

Some Things are Just Meant to Be

9/18/2018

In August of last year, we began talking about getting another dog. We had said farewell to Aspy very unexpectedly and traumatically on the 4th of July of 2016 and we just had not been ready for another dog. We needed time to heal and time to separate ourselves from the onslaught of memories of the last 36 hours of Aspy's life. But we were ready. We started the search on Petfinder and considered getting another American Eskimo Dog since we thought that was probably the breed Aspy had been. We weren’t able to find any close to us and considered making a trek to another state to adopt. We thought about adopting a senior and talked about whether or not I was strong enough emotionally to handle having a dog for a short period of time. We were also looking at local dogs and ultimately decided to meet some of them before making plans to travel to meet a dog in another state with whom we may or may not have a bond.

We met three dogs on a Saturday and did not feel a connection to any of them. They were all worthy of being saved, but we just didn’t feel like any were a good fit. The first was at a nonprofit no kill shelter. He was just too big, so much so that I had trouble controlling him on a leash. He was a beautiful dog and we knew he would be okay. The second was at a veterinary office which provides services for a local city. He was very young and too high energy for us. He was incredibly cute and we knew he would be adopted. The third was at what is called a dog shelter, although I have many other words to describe it. She was so traumatized from having been housed with hundreds of other dogs for years that we really could not interact with her. We felt guilty leaving her there, but we knew she would be kept alive and in the end we did not want to make a decision out of guilt. Our Saturday trip was a bust and it was upsetting. I had told myself I would be fine with any dog and I guess I was expecting magic that did not happen. I know intellectually that there are hundreds of thousands of dogs who would make a great addition to our family. I know emotionally that feeling a bond and a connection with a dog with whom we will share about 15 years of our lives matters.

We did what any rational people would do. We spent time back on Petfinder, looking for other dogs in our area. Rich was on his computer. I was on my phone. I must have handed my phone to him dozens of times to show him a listing while asking, “how about this one?” There were just so many that it was overwhelming, sad and encouraging at the same time. Surely there was a dog out there who would be a good fit for our home and our lifestyle. When I first saw “Shaggy’s” face, my heart skipped a beat. Or at least it felt that way. He was a young adult. He looked sweet. He had a little mohawk and while he was in what I consider a kill shelter and I worried about his care, he looked really happy. He was listed as a German Shepherd/Husky mix, he was thought to be two years old and the listing said he was "a little rough around the edges." His listing also said he had been found running loose with a chain around his neck which was so tight it had to be cut off. That touched a chord with me, considering that our dog, Snake, had lived chained to a tree for the first two years of her life before Rich adopted her. We agreed he was a possibility and Rich made plans to meet him on Monday when the Pell City Animal Shelter opened, along with another dog named King who was surrendered because his owner had cancer.

Rich made the trip on Monday and told me he liked both dogs, but that I should meet them. I made plans to take some time off work the next day to make the trip. I was anxious about it. I knew the Pell City shelter had a good reputation, but I also knew they destroy animals for space. Would I be able to stay calm? Would I be able to look past the faces of the other dogs in the shelter and focus on being there to adopt just one dog? We met both dogs. King was sweet and was fully vetted and ready to go. He really would need very little work and would just need to decompress in a new home. Shaggy was a mess. I think I knew from the time I met him that he was the one. He was sweet and goofy, he had no real idea how to walk on a leash and he was a jumper. King or Shaggy. King or Shaggy. We talked about it and decided that Shaggy was the one because we felt a bond with him and because he needed us more. We knew he had some behaviors typical for chained dogs that some people may not know how to handle and he was also heart worm positive. We left with him that day and made the drive home in a thunderstorm.

We began working with "Rusty" from the moment Rich put him in our truck for the trip home. When I say "we," I really mean that Rich did the work and I tried to help. Rusty is house trained and crate trained. He has learned not to lick us for the most part and when he does, I joke that it is "incidental contact" and that "after further review, the ruling on the field stands." He jumps less than he used to but still jumps and twists in the air when he's playing outside and is wound up; he jumps so high he could probably do well as an agility dog. He no longer uses rocks, leaves and pine cones as toys since he has dog toys, although we did learn the hard way that hard rubber toys are the only kind he cannot destroy in less than 5 seconds. He could do quality control work for toy manufacturers before they describe a dog toy as "indestructible." He is full of energy and loves, loves, loves to play. Rich taught him to catch a Frisbee and he has a host of toys he plays with on his own by tossing them in the air and then going to chase them down. Although the shelter thought he was two years old, we believe now that he was much younger and was probably a year old when we adopted him.

Rusty is actually not playing at all now since we are still doing his heart worm treatment. I still marvel at the fact that so many people in our region do not give their dogs heart worm prevention. It costs about $6 a month and using it can avoid putting dogs through an incredible ordeal to try to rid their bodies of heart worms. Rusty was given a heart worm preventive for period of months before prescriptions for an antibiotic and steroids. His first heart worm shot was in August; the second and third were over a week ago. Based on instructions from our veterinarian, Rich calculated that Rusty can play again on October 21st so it will be a day of celebration for us. He won't be retested by our veterinarian to confirm the worms are gone until May of next year.

Rusty may not have been perfect for everyone, but he was perfect for us. We still think about Aspy's last two days, but less than we used to.

I still know intellectually that there are hundreds of thousands of dogs out there who could have made a wonderful addition our family. But I believe that some things are meant to be and I believe the same about us finding Rusty. Thank goodness for Petfinder.

Happy Gotcha Day, Rusty. We'll be able to play soon.

Note: the dogs we looked at before Rusty have been adopted with the exception of the dog at the "dog shelter." I have yet to come up with a positive way to influence that location and continue to work with my contacts to try to have the dog pulled by a rescue group to be properly decompressed and rehabilitated.

1 Comment

Reaching the Public Radar - Use of Documentary Films

8/16/2018

0 Comments

We are a nation of animal lovers. The vast majority of Americans believe we have a moral duty to protect animals and we should have strong laws to do so. A poll from a few years ago showed that three out of four Americans believe it should be illegal for shelters to kill animals if those animals are not suffering. So why does it continue to happen? Good question.

People tend to focus on what is important to them in their own lives. It is human nature. We all have certain people, problems issues and concerns on our “personal radar” on an ongoing basis. We may have general knowledge or opinions about other issues, but we normally don’t devote too much time thinking about those things because they don’t affect us or our every day lives. It’s not that we don’t care. It’s just that most of us lack the “bandwidth” to remain fully engaged on all of the topics we find important on an ongoing basis.

This means that most Americans give very little regular thought to what happens at animal shelters using tax dollars and donations. Although we all pay for animal control and sheltering in some way, we still would not pay much attention to the topic even if our monthly bill for garbage and recycling pick-up included a line item for animal care and disposal. We think about shelters when we lose a pet or when we learn about some event or we are told about some tragedy. On other days, the shelter just “is,” pretty much like our view of other municipal functions on which we spend money. Law enforcement. Fire services. Engineering. Public works. Parks and recreation.

I have long believed that if we are ever to reform our broken sheltering system in America, in which the vast majority of healthy and treatable animals are still killed by the millions, we have to put that subject on the public radar and get people involved. I once described the separation between animal lovers and animal shelters like two groups of people on opposite sides of a chasm. On one side are the people who own and care for animals or at least like animals. They are at best family members and at least serve some purpose. Most of us include our animals in family celebrations and may take them on our vacations. We buy them beds and toys and treats and provide them with regular veterinary care. We expect that the people in the sheltering system will operate in ways which are consistent with our values and many of us just presume that all animals who end up in shelters are given an opportunity to be adopted. On the opposite side of this chasm are people in the sheltering industry. Most of them (but certainly not all) care about animals and do their very best with the resources they have. Many of them, however, work in a defeatist culture with calcified attitudes in which healthy and treatable animals are destroyed. They see this as some terrible task they must perform because there is no other way to function while blaming the destruction on the “irresponsible public” which is on the opposite side of the chasm. Not every shelter functions this way, of course, and many have become very progressive. I’m speaking for the majority of shelters which still destroy animals regularly and with no apparent regard for the very real fact that the way to stop that archaic practice has been known for decades.

Some communities change the culture at the animal shelter through municipal leadership or nonprofit leadership (in cases where the shelter operation has been outsourced to a nonprofit organization). Change is hard and those communities are to be commended. Most communities which change do so as a result of public pressure. People don’t like it when their money is used in ways which are inconsistent with their values. Once you tell people that healthy and treatable animals are dying and they are paying for it, most get mad, some get vocal and others become community activists seeking change. In all places where change takes place, there is one common denominator. The public didn’t suddenly become more responsible. It was the shelter operation itself that changed. It absolutely helps for the public to be invited to be part of that change. Their buy-in is actually vital to the process. The No Kill equation I promote contains 11 elements, but vital to most of those elements is public awareness and participation.

The last documentary film about the No Kill movement was released in 2014 - “Redemption: The No Kill Revolution in America.” The film has since been made available by Nathan Winograd on Vimeo for free. It is based on Winograd’s 2007 book by a similar name - “Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America.” If you have not seen the film, you owe it to yourself to watch it for free while you can. It runs just over an hour.

At about the same time Redemption was released, documentary film maker Anne Taiz began working on the first of two fills about the No Kill movement. The first is called “No Kill: The Movement Begins.” This film focuses on both No Kill efforts and failures in the City of San Francisco. The people who appear in the film include Richard Avanzino; Nathan Winograd, Director of the No Kill Advocacy Center; Julene Johnson, former San Francisco SPCA volunteer; Dr. Kate Hurley of the Koret Shelter Medicine Program at UC Davis; Maria Conlon of Give Me Shelter Cat Rescue; and Dr. Jennifer Scarlet, the current director of the San Francisco SPCA.

The second film is not formally named yet, but will likely be something along the lines of “No Kill Across America.” I had an opportunity to meet with Anne on July 30th to talk about both films. My hope is that the story of Huntsville, Alabama, will be included in the second film, provided it is produced. We had a great connection and I think the story of the changes in Huntsville can inspire other communities to get ahead of this issue.

I know that Anne is passionate about reaching the public about this very important and urgent subject. Like all documentary films, however, this film is only as good as the ability to finish the final production. All of the footage for “No Kill: The Movement Begins” has been shot and it has been partially edited. What is needed are finishing funds.

You can make a donation toward completion of the first film using this From The Heart Productions platform as I have done. No donation is too small. A donation of $25 will give you access to see the “rough cut” of the film and provide feedback. A donation of $250 will give you film credit as an associate producer. Award winning actor and narrator Peter Coyote has agreed to narrate the film.

https://fromtheheartproductions.networkforgood.com/projects/50444-documentaries-no-kill-the-movement-begins-rough-cut-screening-campaign

A time will come when the outdated practice of destroying healthy and treatable pets in our nation's animal shelters will become part of our shameful past. We can reach that point faster if we reach more of the public and put this issue on the personal radar of as many people as possible.

0 Comments

Get Up Off the Floor and Stand Up for Your Beliefs

6/18/2018

1 Comment

I saw an image in my Facebook news feed last week that I just didn’t need to see. I’m very visually oriented and once I see some things, it can be hard to get them out of my head. The image was of a veterinary examination room. There was a dead dog laying on a metal table and a man sitting on the floor near the table with his head lowered towards his knees. The image said, “you think it’s easy to kill companion animals day in and day out.” It also said, “1) adopt from shelters and rescues until they are empty; 2) spay/neuter your pet; 3) volunteer to help if you can.” Below the image was the following statement: “shelters do not want to kill animals, but 5 million healthy pets die every year. It is an antiquated system that is not good for the workers or the animals. Neutering your pets does make a difference!” The statement about 5 million animals is wrong. That’s not my issue here. And I will not share the image.

I know that some organizations use what I call “shock and awe” to try to get people’s attention. I’m just not one of those people. When I see ASPCA or HSUS commercials on television showing images of injured or suffering animals while making pleas for money, I change the channel immediately. When I encounter someone on social media who regularly uses shock images to make a point, I unfriend them. I know full well what happens in most animal shelters and I don’t need to see images of dead dogs and cats over and over again to make a point. I am outspoken in my own animal welfare advocacy, but I use words to convey my message and I am careful to avoid images which can be upsetting to some people, particularly children.

But back to the image. It showed a man represented as a shelter worker sitting near a dog he had apparently killed. His posture made it appear as though he was upset.

I am not totally unsympathetic to people who go to work in animal shelters with good intentions and then become part of an antiquated system which destroys healthy and treatable animals for space. I think a lot of people decide to work in the shelter industry because they love animals and they want to make a difference. There are many places in our country where healthy and treatable animals are no longer destroyed in shelters and where the only animals destroyed in shelters are those who are genuinely suffering (in which case use of the word “euthanasia” is appropriate) or dogs who are so dangerous they present a public safety risk and for whom no sanctuary placement is available (as opposed to dogs who are just scared, fearful, traumatized or confused). There are more places which do still destroy healthy and treatable animals for space or convenience.

My expectation regarding people working in those places is two-fold. First, find out if the shelter destroys healthy animals before you apply to work there. If they do and that upsets you, the answer is simple: just don’t work there. I would no sooner work in a kill shelter than I would work in a poultry processing plant or on a hog farm. We all choose where we work and it’s not like “kennel worker” is the only employment opportunity available in your community. If you are already working at a shelter which destroys healthy and treatable animals, please take the time to educate yourself on how to make that process stop and work to reform the shelter from inside the system. Your silence is truly your consent. No Kill philosophies have been common knowledge for about 20 years and the No Kill Equation specifically has been known for more than 10 years. There is really no reason to lament the needless killing of animals because there are ways to stop it. I’m not saying it’s easy and I’m not saying it will happen overnight. It takes work, planning and commitment. It takes a change in culture in the shelter to take it from a place where animals are brought to die to a place of hope and new beginnings. If you fear that you will lose your job if you speak out for change, then give some thought to what is most important to you. Perhaps you will find another job which does not cause you to be part of a system which affects your mental health and causes you to lose sleep because you destroyed animals who were not suffering.

I would have responded much more favorably to an image of a shelter worker walking a dog and talking about how enrichment programs are used to keep dogs entertained and to help socialize them.

I would have responded much more favorably to an image of a shelter worker engaged in community outreach to help educate the public to make better choices.

I would have responded much more favorably to an image of a shelter worker engaged in a peaceful protest regarding the continued destruction of healthy and treatable animals using tax dollars or donations.

If the death upsets you, don’t be complicit in the behavior. Do something to change the system. If you choose to work in a facility which destroys healthy and treatable animals, that is your choice. Just don’t expect a whole lot of sympathy from me. My sympathy goes toward the animals whose lives were ended unnecessarily – an act which is entirely permanent.

I hope the guy in the image I saw got up off the floor, quit his job and became an advocate for shelter reform. I would welcome him to join the No Kill movement so we can change our country for the sake of the animals we say we love and value.

1 Comment

A Dog is a Dog is a Dog is a Dog - Stop Discriminating

3/12/2018

1 Comment

A dog is a dog is a dog is a dog.

I have long stood against breed discriminatory legislation and breed specific legislation. It is my genuine belief that dogs are products of the manner in which they are treated immeasurably more so than the breed they are perceived to be. I got deep into this subject back in 2009 when I was asked by my local animal shelter director to write a research paper advocating adoption of pit bull type dogs. She claimed she would use the paper to help persuade city officials and long-time members of her staff that adopting out dogs believed to be “pit bulls” was something her shelter should be doing. I have blogged on my research paper before (which I later updated in 2014) and won't revisit the entire topic here. If you'd like to read the paper, you will find it here. If you would like to look at the hundreds of pages of research, you will find it here.

I was brought back to this topic of breed bias recently when I learned that the very shelter director who asked me to write a research paper almost a decade ago either never read the paper or has never taken any steps to educate herself on this topic even though she is a licensed veterinarian. I learned recently that she not only relies on but “studies” a website called Dogsbite.org and that she truly believes that pit bull type dogs are inherently dangerous.

No. No. No and no.

It seems that not a week goes by when I don't hear of someone singing the praises of Dogsbite.org. The site is run by a web designer and self-professed fortune teller named Colleen Lynn who was once bitten by a pit bull type dog. I am sorry she was bitten. Taking that personal experience and using it to create a platform which is based not on science or actual research is both irresponsible and incredibly harmful to all dogs and all dog owners. The site is based, on its own admission, by media reports which are notoriously unreliable and more often than not wrong. Others have written about the website before me on more than one occasion. One glance at the data for my state shows that the information is focused on pit bull type dogs and to the exclusion of other breeds. The 2012 dog bite fatality attack I became involved with indirectly in 2014 due to my job involved Rottweilers so you won't find any mention of it on Colleen Lynn's website.

I rely on research from the National Canine Research Council and from reliable sources like the Animal Farm Foundation. I believe the JAVMA study about dog bite related fatalities and I believe in the research of Karen Delise which is based not on media reports but on official records like law enforcement reports. I have communicated with Karen on more than one occasion related to her research of dog bite fatalities in my state, referring her to law enforcement authorities as part of her research. If you have never taken the time to look at the NCRC website or read Karen's book, "The Pitbull Placebo: The Media, Myth and Politics of Canine Aggression," you owe it to yourself to do so.

The reasons for actual dog attacks (as opposed to incidents of simple and avoidable injuries) are often complex, but the answer to preventing dog attacks is relatively simple: humane care and control of dogs is often all that is needed to prevent most dog attacks. The National Canine Research Council 's investigations into dog bite-related fatalities reveals the majority of these tragic cases involved circumstances where owners failed to provide necessary care and human control of their dogs: 1) failure by dog owners to spay or neuter dogs not involved in a responsible breeding program; 2) maintaining dogs in semi-isolation on chains or in pens; 3) allowing dogs to run loose; 4) neglecting or abusing dogs; 5) maintaining dogs not as household pets, but as guard dogs, fighting dogs, intimidation dogs, breeding dogs or yard dogs; and 6) allowing children to interact with unfamiliar dogs.

The 2016 Final Report on Dog Bite-Related Fatalities by the National Canine Research Council was most recently updated on March 8, 2018. If confirmed the data in the 2013 JAVMA Study and states:

MULTIPLE FACTORS CONTINUE TO CO-OCCUR THAT ARE WITHIN THE CONTROL OF OWNERS.
The December 2013 study is the most comprehensive multifactorial study of DBRFs to be completed since the subject was first studied in the 1970’s. Covering all incidents that occurred during the ten-year period 2000 - 2009, it is based on investigative techniques and data developed by National Canine Research Council not previously employed in dog bite or DBRF studies.

THE CONCLUSION OF EXPERTS:
SERIOUS AND FATAL DOG BITE-RELATED INJURIES ARE MULTIFACTORIAL.
Annual reports and detailed case histories considered in isolation will not enhance awareness of what the experts have agreed on. Minor annual fluctuations in co-occurrence of owner factors, or dramatic, one-of-a-kind case histories may, in fact, obscure rather than enlighten. No single factor has been shown, in isolation from other factors, to be the sole cause of a dog bite-related injury or fatality. Professionals studying dog bite-related injuries, even when venturing speculations regarding breed, have been remarkably consistent in their recommendation of pet ownership and child safety practices directly relevant to prevention, and against regulating dogs on the basis of breed or appearance.

I realize that the topic of dog attacks on people is an emotional one. The fatality case I was involved with indirectly was the most gruesome case I have dealt with in more than 25 years in the legal profession. But we do our society, our families, our dogs in animal shelters and our family dogs a complete disservice when we focus on breed - because there is no scientific basis to show that it has anything at all with dog attacks and fatalities.

A dog is a dog is a dog is a dog. When dogs are treated well and socialized to people, they make wonderful companions. When dogs are not treated well, are used as resident animals, are not socialized to people and not sterilized, they all become potentially dangerous no matter what they look like and no matter what breed we think they are.

If you really think that pit bull type dogs are naturally aggressive, I challenge you to educate yourself on the topic. You can start with my research paper, which is not particularly long, and go from there.

If your lead an animal shelter that destroys dogs based on perceived breed, shame on you. It's time to stop relying on junk science and time to get educated not only on the causes of dog aggression but about how you can better market pit bull type dogs to get them through the system and into good homes. If you are not willing to do that, it truly is time to find another occupation which does not involve making decisions regarding who lives and who dies. Now.

(image of Roo Yori and Wallace courtesy of Roo and Josh Grenell; infographic images courtesy of Animal Farm Foundation)

1 Comment

Someone Please Just Tell Me Why

12/7/2017

2 Comments

I have been blogging a lot lately about the topic of animal shelters and particularly those shelters which destroy healthy and treatable pets. I try to cover a number of topics on my website related to companion animals, but they are all related to the bigger issue of what happens in our nation's animal shelters using our tax dollars. Puppy mills contribute millions of dogs to the market which causes dogs to end up in shelters. Chaining dogs and treating them as resident dogs leads to dogs being in our shelters, perhaps following some attack or fatality. Failure to spay and neuter animals leads to higher animal populations in our communities which means more animals end up in shelters. Failure to embrace TNR (trap, neuter, return) as the most humane method of helping populations of free roaming cats causes more cats to end up in our shelters, with most of them being summarily destroyed.

It's been a tough year from where I sit related to this primary topic of shelters where healthy and treatable animals die. I have seen the shelter in the city where I work fail to sustain progress achieved last year, going back to a culture in which it is permissible to destroy healthy and treatable dogs and label them as having had issues with "behavior." I have seen an organization in a city a couple hours south of me continue to destroy about half of the animals entrusted to its care while still managing to maintain a cult-like following of supporters who either don't know how their tax dollars and donations are being spent or who remain willfully ignorant of what is happening. I have interacted with self-proclaimed animal advocates in other states who have defended the killing of animals in tax-funded shelters while labeling those who are speaking out to change that culture as the source of the problem.

There is a balance to all this bad news, of course. There are incredible things happening in some parts of the country related to shelter animals. Doug Rae of the Humane Society of Fremont County in Colorado was given the Henry Bergh Award for his wonderful life saving work at his shelter where he saves the lives of nearly 100% of his intake. Lake County, Florida, had a shift in culture thanks to the tireless advocacy of Steve Shank and Mike Fry, who managed to get county commissioners on board with a change in culture, leading to a transition to No Kill almost overnight. Phil Peckinpaugh advanced a Companion Animal Protection Act in Muncie, Indiana, which provides that the live release rate at the city shelter will never fall below 90%, among other life-saving and life-affirming provisions. Advocates in Pueblo, Colorado are on the verge of having the Pueblo Animal Protection Act codified, thanks to support from some former and current members of the city council.

But back to reality for a minute. For all of the wonderful things happening related to animal sheltering across the country, the grim reality is that most shelters still destroy the vast majority of the animals entrusted to their care as many people do not know it is happening, do not understand it does not have to happen, defend the killing as some Orwellian form of public service or continues to blame the public as a whole. Even thought it is that very same public which needs to be brought to the table so that they can make better personal choices, so they will adopt, so they will foster, so they will volunteer and so they will donate.

If you run a tax funded animal shelter where you still destroy healthy and treatable animals, please tell me why you still do that instead of embracing proven No Kill programs being used across the country to save those lives and which have been known for almost 20 years.

If you run a tax funded animal shelter and you are offered free help from subject matter experts and you refuse that free help, please tell me why your arrogance continues to be the primary obstacle to saving the lives of animals entrusted to your care.

If you run a tax funded animal shelter and you are provided with researched and reasonable recommendations by animal welfare advocates on how to keep more animals alive without spending any more money, please tell me why it is that you refuse to even consider those recommendations even though they could bring about positive changes, possibly even making you look like a hero in the process.

If you run a tax funded animal shelter and you are incapable of listening to constructive criticism for how you spend public money, please tell me why you remain employed as a pubic servant when you have no intention of being responsive to the public you serve.

If you know that your local tax funded animal shelter destroys healthy and treatable animals using your money and donations, please tell me why you not only support that behavior but you defend it.

If you volunteer for or otherwise support a tax funded animal shelter which destroys healthy and treatable animals using your money and donations, please tell me why you have not tried to educate yourself about No Kill programs and services in order to use your influence to change the culture at the shelter to stop them from destroying animals who either were, our could have become, someone's beloved companion.

I'm not being flippant. I'd really like someone to help me understand all of these behaviors.

Our nation's animal shelters are funded by us, the public. We pay for what happens in those buildings whether it is wonderful, good, bad, heart breaking or criminal. It is time for us to all speak out for how we want our money spent, for us to demand better of those employed using our money and to focus on saving the lives of the companion animals we say we value. It is a betrayal of the public trust for those who manage our animal shelters to destroy animals by the thousands while at the same time blaming us for doing that and failing to fully embrace proven methods to stop it not years from not but right now.

Please just tell me why.

(image of the Muncie Animal Care and Education Center courtesy of the No Kill Advocacy Center)

2 Comments

Advocate Free Speech: Phil Doster

11/2/2017

0 Comments

It has been said that advocacy is not a spectator sport. If you want to be heard on a topic, you have to be willing to get down on the field of play, get dirty and take some hits. Many of us have learned this the hard way. We have also learned how common it is for people to focus on the messenger instead of focusing on why the message is necessary in the first place. Even the most diplomatic of advocacy can make people uncomfortable because it challenges the status quo which most of us have grown accustomed to.

It has also been said that the media is the most powerful entity on Earth because it controls the minds of the masses (Malcolm X). My own experience with the media as it relates to animal welfare advocacy has been a mixed bag. I have found some media outlets and journalists to be incredibly professional and entirely focused on neutral reporting which serves a public purpose and educates the public. I have found that other media outlets and journalists are not at all focused on neutral reporting, almost as if they are afraid to speak out on matters they know may be unpopular. Their bias is demonstrated in how they report on facts either in unexpected ways or incomplete ways. When it comes to how tax dollars are spent, some media outlets have no issue reporting on pot holes in the road or citizen complaints about law enforcement. But reporting on how animal shelters function? That's a whole different topic which seems to be off limits for some reason.

There has been a lot of media coverage in my state recently regarding activities at and by the Greater Birmingham Humane Society which fought for and then obtained municipal animal control and sheltering contracts in early 2015. The public perception of the organization and the behavior of the organization as a whole do not always match. When advocates expressed concern about the organization's own statistics and regarding some behavior, many of those advocates received "cease and desist" letters essentially threatening to sue them. I find that to be a bullying tactic which does not speak well to the true goals of any organization which purports to be focused on the lives of animals and needs public support to do a good job. I fully expect that upon learning of public critiicsm for how tax dollars are spent, an organization would first initiate at least some type of discussion toward resolving conflict or clearing up communication issues. There has been some local media coverage regarding what is going on with the Greater Birmingham Humane Society regarding the volume of animals being euthanized and reports from former employees, volunteers and fosters. I have honestly found it lacking to date. I am told another media outlet is working on an investigative report. Time will tell how deep the story goes or if is is more surface reporting which doesn't closely examine the issues.

One of the people speaking out in Birmingham is Phil Doster, a long time contact of mine. I had hoped that Phil's comments would end up being reported locally. Since they have not, I offered my website as a platform for Phil. Phil is down on the field of play and is getting dirty, knowing full well that many people in his area will be made uncomfortable by his words. I hope you take inspiration from Phil, that you speak your personal truth in your efforts to help animals and that you stand your ground when people try to bully you. The First Amendment is a powerful tool, but we have to have the courage to use it.

So I've been asked my feelings about the Greater Birmingham Humane Society and current leadership, and when I tried to prepare a fair, but critical response, the overwhelming response was that it is not sensational enough. That was never my intent in writing about my experience. I expect us to hold non-profits, especially those with an executive that makes over $160k annually as a base salary, to a high standard of integrity and responsibility. Furthermore, and forgotten in a lot of the conversation, is the fact that it is extremely painful and difficult for former staff to step forward and talk about how they were treated. Many are sensitive and compassionate people who were treated with incredible disrespect and tossed aside when they were no longer useful to specific executives. Below is my experience. You can dislike it if you'd like, but I ask that you consider the people and animals in the shelter, as well as the community that this charity is intended to help.

As a former staff member of GBHS, I have a few things to say about animal shelters, the public, and the current leadership of that organization. I would consider this less of a whistle blowing, and more of a personal account and call to action.

Four years ago, I served as a Cruelty Prevention Officer at GBHS. My role was to build relationships in the community, across all racial, socioeconomic, and cultural lines, in an attempt to help people and their pets coexist happily, humanely, and with as little stress as possible. There are many times that our assistance, education, and compassion were received with open arms. Other times it was a bigger challenge. The dogs and cats in some of the most inhumane situations were often the most expressive. The fact that animals “speak” in their body language and actions has always been profound to me, because it is not built on deception. Pets do not lie or misrepresent themselves. We did a lot of good as an organization, and I was as proud as I’ve ever been to be a part of it.

In the summer of 2014, Allison Black Cornelius and her consulting firm BlackFish was hired by GBHS to work with our leadership team. I was immediately impressed with the structure of our meetings and the openness that positive communication was bringing. She preached transparency and integrity, and the staff responded strongly to that.

Just a few months later, Ms. Cornelius was named the new leader of GBHS, giving herself the title of CEO. This is when I felt the change in our operation. Immediately it seemed that we became more frantic as an organization, concentrating more on public appeal than on serving the community. As a caveat, I am fully aware that fundraising is necessary to run any non-profit, but I felt that often the mission was lost in an effort to present more favorable images to the public. That is a difference in opinion that I voiced… but not very loudly. That was my first error. Many within the organization took issue with Ms. Cornelius’ leadership style. To the public, it appeared as if she was playing herself and the shelter out as a victim and an underdog. Behind closed doors however, she came across as loud, foul-mouthed, and direct. It was more than that though. From my perspective, Ms. Cornelius has a way of beating down those that work for her. Far too often, I saw the light extinguished in passionate animal advocates and humane shelter heroes. I, myself, started questioning why I was even involved in humane sheltering. I often wonder how many compassionate, brilliant people left the world of animal welfare as a result of Ms. Cornelius and what I now feel were her gas-lighting tendencies. It’s often not until you escape a situation that you recognize how you were manipulated.

During this period, Ms. Cornelius and the GBHS Board decided to make a concerted effort to win the bid to run the Animal Control facility for Jefferson County. I was supportive, as I had worked for the vendor that was in place, BJC Animal Control Services, and was dismayed at the lack of transparency on numbers and operations. That being said, the staff and caretakers at BJC were some of the most compassionate and humane that I’ve met. Individuals from BJC were villainized by GBHS leaders in staff meetings and to the public. With strong public support, GBHS won the bid and took over Animal Control in January of 2015.

As we took over Animal Control, I was moved to Director of Impoundment, overseeing the shelter staff and the care of animals coming to the shelter. It was a critical change for animal control, as we saw a dramatic increase in the amount of pets being returned to their owners. The staff worked diligently towards that goal. Allison Black Cornelius claims that nobody at GBHS wants to see pets euthanized, and I never observed anything to contradict that. I have many complaints about GBHS, but shelter workers, even the few who make decisions on euthanasia, are never happy about making such a difficult call. To that end, the shelter and staff worked twice as hard to make sure pets went back home. As we were working to reduce intake via education, and reduce euthanasia by returning stray pets back to their homes, I started seeing Ms. Cornelius making pleas to the public to help GBHS keep their Animal Control contract. I heard intake statistics being relayed to the public that were not consistent with the numbers we would see when running our reports. Even estimating numbers for the rest of the year, the information being disseminated vastly exceeded what was actually entering the shelter. Our euthanasia rate had improved with huge efforts, but not to the dramatic extent that Ms. Cornelius claimed publicly in press releases and visual media. I can’t speak to whether this was done maliciously or if it was a clerical/unintentional mistake, but it happened frequently and did the same disservice to animal advocates and the public trying to get a grasp on how many animals truly enter the shelter.

Shelters, particularly in Alabama, were created to protect the population from potentially dangerous stray animals that may potentially carry a zoonotic disease such as rabies. Over the years, society and animal care have evolved, creating the need to not only protect the citizens, but to do what is best for people AND their pets. My concerns, and those of so many Birmingham advocates, citizens, and city and county leaders, is that without accurate statistics, how are we as a community going to improve our treatment of animals and reduce the risk of so many of them being euthanized. My hope is that we, as a community, will ask hard questions of the GBHS board and its CEO. I know what I witnessed in 2015, and I hope that it was an anomaly that now has a better check and balance system. According to the peculiar and inconsistent manner in which statistics are reported via the GBHS website, it appears that some months see around 25% of the animals euthanized, while lately, 50% or more of the animals coming to the shelter are euthanized. As horrific as that sounds, it isn’t unethical or deceitful. What may be deceitful is the history of misleading the public and failing to be transparent, the chief complaint about BJC that allowed GBHS to win their contract. As a non-profit that is here to serve the citizens and pets of the Greater Birmingham area, I would hope that the GBHS board would be as dedicated to promoting the facts as the public is.

(images courtesy of Phil Doster)

0 Comments

Animal Shelter Apologists and Cognitive Dissonance

11/1/2017

3 Comments

Americans consider themselves animal friendly. In a national poll, 96 percent of Americans said we have a moral duty to protect animals and we should have strong laws to do so. An AP-Petside Poll from a few years back revealed that three out of four Americans believe it should be illegal for shelters to kill animals if those animals are not suffering. These social attitudes are indicators of our cultural values, at least when it comes to general attitudes about animals and how our nation’s animal shelters operate.

There is, quite unfortunately, a great divide between our social values and how many animal shelters function using our tax dollars and donations. People want animals to be protected and don’t want shelters to destroy animals needlessly, but that is what is happening in the majority of our shelters in all but the most progressive of communities. As Nathan Winograd (the Director of the No Kill Advocacy Center) once said, if we had never killed animals in our shelters and we suddenly decided to do that, people would be outraged. The fact that it has happened for so long has made many of us resigned to the death, as if it is a foregone conclusion. It is not.

The good news is that things are beginning to change. With each passing month and year, the list of places where healthy and treatable animals are no longer at risk in shelters continues to grow. Success is now leading to success. Each time a new community adopts No Kill philosophies and ends the needless destruction of savable pets, other communities in the area and the region see the example and say, “we want that.” In places where municipal officials and shelter leadership do not voluntarily make changes to operate shelters consistent with public values, more and more advocates are stepping up and speaking out to demand that changes be made. Some of these advocates do so in spite of great personal risk and threats by shelter leadership to sue them for having the audacity to speak out. They speak out so they can live with themselves.

When my No Kill Huntsville advocacy group was speaking out to end the destruction of healthy and treatable animals at the local municipal animal shelter, some of the most vocal opposition to our efforts came from some surprising sources. Not only were some shelter employees opposed to our advocacy, we also faced some incredibly hostile opposition from shelter volunteers and supporters, in addition to local rescue group leaders. These are people who would tell you that they feel strongly about helping animals and making good decisions for animals. Rather than consider why our advocacy was necessary in the first place, they expended an incredible amount of energy engaging in personal attacks and defamatory behavior on social media. It was both obstructionist and unproductive.

I have seen this same behavior recently related to the Greater Birmingham Humane Society which fought for and then obtained the municipal animal control and shelter contracts in Alabama. I will likely never understand why a nonprofit organization would seek so much work and take on so many animals, resulting in the deaths of large numbers of those animals. Much like happened in Huntsville during what we call the “difficult years,” people in the Birmingham area are now speaking out in support of the organization even though they have been told (and shown) that the majority of the animals taken in are destroyed in all but some months of the year. There are countless people who have supported the organization so long that it is apparently inconceivable to them that animals are being destroyed needlessly.

All of this strange behavior by people who consider themselves champions for animals and animal welfare got me thinking about a concept you may have heard of before: cognitive dissonance.

In 1957 Psychologist Leon Festinger proposed a theory of cognitive dissonance centered on how people try to reach internal consistency. His theory states that cognitive dissonance is created when we have attitudes, beliefs and behaviors which are in conflict with each other. We naturally feel compelled to have our thoughts consistent and when they are not, it can cause us negative physical tension which can actually be physically uncomfortable. Common examples are when a person knows that smoking is unhealthy but that person still smokes or when a person knows that driving a vehicle which hurts the environment is bad, but still drives that same vehicle.

We know it is a fairly common occurrence for animal shelters to destroy healthy and treatable animals even though doing so is not consistent with public values or current social norms. The reasons this happen are many (and this no longer happens in Huntsville for the most part). My interest is in people who either volunteer in or otherwise support animal shelters which destroy healthy and treatable animals. As hostile as some have been toward me, I recognize that they are all people who either love or care about animals and they are very passionate about it. In spite of this, they often defend the destruction of healthy and treatable animals and in some cases do so with a great deal of hostility, as if they are being personally attacked. Although they would tell us that they don’t think healthy and treatable animals should be destroyed, they are very defensive of the fact that it happens every day

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. It is easy to come up with a list of reasons to rationalize the destruction of animals who either were, or could have been, someone’s beloved pet who ends up in a shelter due to circumstances beyond the control of the people who love that animal and may be looking for that animal. It is also easy to just throw our hands up in the air, say the problem is too big to be overcome and we just need to live with the fact that it can’t be stopped.

The example I gave above is just the tip of the iceberg. I have heard countless excuses from shelter supporters in defense of the killing of healthy and treatable pets and at the end of they day, they are just that: excuses.

If you currently lead or manage an animal shelter where healthy and treatable animals are destroyed, I challenge you to take immediate action to stop what you are doing. The methods being used across the country to save shelter animals have been known for about two decades. No shelter is an island. If you want to stop destroying savable animals you need only educate yourself about No Kill philosophies and then network with other shelters who can help you learn from their successes. If you refuse to do at least that, and do it with a sense of urgency, I encourage you to find another occupation.

If you currently work at an animal shelter where healthy and treatable animals are destroyed and you feel you have no control over that, please do all you can to try to use your influence to get the shelter leadership to network with No Kill facilities or communities in order to learn new ways to keep animals alive. If you are not willing to do that, you may very well find that your life will become incredibly difficult as you try to reconcile your personal beliefs with what happens at work every day you are there. We all decide what we will and will not tolerate in our working environments.

If you currently support an animal shelter where healthy and treatable animals are destroyed, please ask yourself why you tolerate that. As uncomfortable as it may make you to read these words - your silence is your consent. Consider becoming a positive influence for change to try to get the shelter to embrace proven programs being used across the country to save the lives of shelter animals. One of the worst things you can do as someone who cares about the well-being of companion animals is to enable the killing or be an apologist for the killing. The very worst thing you can do it to engage in obstructionist behavior to prevent shelter reform. Doing so only puts the lives of more animals at risk.

A time will come when all animal shelters in America are No Kill shelters and the practice of killing healthy and treatable animals is simply part of our shameful past.

It’s time to lead, follow or get out of the way.

3 Comments

Who Could Possibly Disagree With Saving Animals?

10/11/2017

0 Comments

Some recent events regarding my animal shelter reform advocacy have led me back to the book which was a game changer for me. Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America by Nathan Winograd. The book was first published in 2007 (and has since been made into a documentary film). It changed my life when I read it in 2008 and learned about not only the history of the animal welfare movement (which began with Henry Bergh) but also about this wonderful thing called the No Kill equation. My copy looks like a used textbook with worn covers and highlighting. Nathan did not “invent” the No Kill programs and concepts so many of us live by today. What he did do was to analyze them and then present them in equation form for the very first time. He essentially created what I consider a blueprint for No Kill success in any place in the country. And therein lies the genius of the equation; we do not need Nathan Winograd to come to each of our communities and rescue us from ourselves. We need only learn about the No Kill equation, evaluate our existing resources and challenges, connect with those how have used the equation before us (in order to learn from their successes and mistakes) and then mold and shape the equation to fit the needs of the community.

I believe in the equation because I know it works. I know people who are using it at this very minute and are saving the lives of countless animals in the process. In spite of the success of the programs and services of the equation, opposition still abounds. I should no longer be surprised by the toxicity of the opposition, but I am. As Nathan has said before, this is not just some clash of egos. People who either promote or oppose No Kill concepts and programs can’t just get in a room together and talk and hug it out and all just get along. While those who promote No Kill as an ideal and as a cultural norm champion saving lives, those who oppose No Kill as an ideal (or even say it is not possible, ala “the world is flat”) champion the status quo and do so at an incredibly high cost.

Which leads me back to my point about Redemption. The afterword in the book talks about four groups of people who will oppose the concepts presented in the book. The observations about those groups are as relevant today as they were when Nathan wrote about them so many years ago and I’d like to share them with you, with Nathan’s permission, of course. Do you recognize any of this behavior?

- The first group will agree with the message, be sympathetic to the cause, and want the same goal. Nonetheless, they will claim it ignores the success of others and focuses too much attention on San Francisco and later Tompkins County, communities in which [Nathan] played a significant role in drastically increasing the live release rate for shelter animals. (Making this observation more current, the first group will say that Austin, Texas, had to spend a lot of money [when in fact it became No Kill with no initial cost output)] that Huntsville, Alabama is "different" because of the progressive and diverse nature of the community, that there is no one on Earth quite like Doug Rae in Fremont County, Colorado and that compassionate leaders like him are hard to come by or that there must be something magical in the water in Lake County, Florida for it to become a No Kill community virtually overnight.

- The second group that will take issue with the book are the animal activists who are intent on doing what they have always done, regardless of the facts. They will continue to blame the public and fight for more and tougher laws-once again buying into the false paradigm of pet overpopulation and public irresponsibility. They will argue that their community is different and that citizens in their community are particularly irresponsible. The evidence clearly shows that none of this is true. What is true is that shelters are filled with animals, in no small part because of a small segment of the public's throwaway attitudes about their pets. But that is why shelters exist in the first place. They are supposed to be the safety net for animals the same way orphanages and child protective services are the safety net for parentless and abused children. While people surrender animals to shelters it is the shelters that kill them, and one does not necessarily follow or excuse the other.

-The third group of critics of the book will be the shelter directors themselves - those who are involved in the killing of [millions] of dogs and cats a year and who erroneously claim that doing so is both necessary and proper. They will see this book as nothing more than a personal attack. They will argue that we should all get along, not fight each other, and focus on our common enemy-the irresponsible public which fills shelters with discarded animals. This point of view is nothing more than a smokescreen and is contradicted by the facts.

-The fourth and final group of people who will criticize the book are a group I collectively call “the naysayers.” The naysayers are those who have a predetermined agenda of support for animal control, regardless of how many animals the local shelter kills or how otherwise dysfunctional the agency is. They cannot be swayed by logic, facts or alternative points of view. They seek out that which fits their beliefs and reject everything else to the point of taking facts out of context - and in some cases, making up “facts” - to fit the story.

It is incredibly unfortunate that so many people expend so much time and energy fighting against programs which have been proven to save lives when fully implemented. Some of the most vocal and toxic opposition to animal shelter reform comes from people who claim to advocate for animals - which seems completely illogical. Because it is. I never cease to be amazed that people view free speech seeking better for shelter animals as "bashing" or an "attack." It is neither when it is done respectfully, diplomatically and it is focused on accountability and leadership (as opposed to being focused on specific people).

As I have written before, a time will come when we no longer destroy savable pets in America. When that fine day comes, will you look back and know that you championed life? Or will you look back and regret all those hours and days and weeks and months you spent defending the killing because you were more focused on people than on animals? Or worse yet, because you would not speak your personal truth to save innocents when that is what the situation demanded of you.

0 Comments

An Adoption Story - And Why You Should Adopt

10/6/2017

1 Comment

You’ve decided to bring another dog or cat into your home. You know where and how you’ve found animals before so you tend to gravitate to what has worked for you in the past. If you haven’t cared for a pet before, you may take advice from friends or family members on how best to proceed. There are plenty of options out there. You can buy from breeder, you can search through newspaper ads or you can go to a local pet store. Or you can take a long, hard look at why you really want to bring an animal into your home and into your life and find that adoption from a shelter or a rescue group is your best option.

It has been said that “adoption could in theory replace all population control killing right now – if the animals and potential adopters were better introduced.” When the time comes for you to bring a "new to you" animal into your life, I hope you will seriously consider making adoption your best option. If you were planning to purchase a purebred animal, think realistically about whether you plan to enter the animal in professional dog or cat shows or if you are more focused on the companionship of the animal. If the animal will be a pet and will not compete in breed competitions, you can find a wide variety of animals at your local shelter or with a rescue group. Shelters and rescues help both mixed breed animals and purebred animals. You can use web sites like Petfinder.com or AdoptaPet.com to search for homeless animals by location, breed, gender, size, age and temperament to find a homeless animal who is perfect fit for you and your family.

Which is exactly what my family did recently. Our dog Aspy passed away on July 4th of 2016 under what we consider traumatic circumstances. His passing was nothing like we had hoped and while it sounds theatrical, we both had problems with flashbacks for a very long time. I knew we would wait quite a while before we brought another dog into our home and we did. The search began in earnest a few weeks ago as we talked about the size of dog we were looking for, basic temperament, how much time we are willing to devote to training and rehabilitation. Our tool of choice? Petfinder. As I have written before, I have a love/hate relationship with Petfinder. I love it because it’s a wonderful way for animals in need to find new homes. I’ve described the site as being like an online dating site, but to connect humans with companion animals instead of humans with humans. I hate it because there are so many animals in need that going on the site can be both depressing and sensory overload. And I find it somewhat addictive also. Once I start looking on Petfinder, I almost feel like I can’t stop. Looking at so many faces compels me to look at even more in the search for that next creature who will spend the rest of his or her life in my home. I ended up spending hours at a time staring at my phone, looking through listings and then handing my phone to Rich to say, “here. Look at this one.” He sent me links for dogs he was interested in and we went back and forth over a period of time before we agreed on a small group of local dogs we wanted to meet.

The first dog we met was being held at a local animal hospital which holds the contract for a local city. “Boudreax” was cute, but he was a puppy and was practically uncontrollable when we took him outside on a leash. I know that’s not his fault. I fully realize that most dogs do not behave in a shelter environment in any way remotely like they behave away from that environment and in a home. Boudreax went on our “to consider” list. Because of where he was being housed, we felt he was less at risk of being destroyed.

The second dog we met was being housed at a dog sanctuary/shelter in another city. Our visit there was so shocking that I have still not quite processed it. I have never been to a place like that and as we walked around, I found myself thinking that I could easily be shooting B roll video footage for the HSUS or the ASPCA. There were hundreds of dogs on the property, three to each outdoor kennel. There was waste everywhere and flies everywhere. “Lindsay” was nothing like the dog we saw in the Petfinder listing. I know it was the same dog, but three years at what I consider a dog prison had clearly taken a toll. She was so withdrawn that we really could not engage with her in any meaningful way. Even the volunteers (who seemed oblivious to the conditions in which they were working) were not really able to get a positive response from the dog. I cried when we left. I have put the wheels in motion to try to have some positive changes made at the outdoor shelter, but have no idea if they will do any good or not. That is another blog for another day.

The third and fourth dogs we met were being held at a county animal shelter a couple hours away from where we live. Rich was interested in a dog listed as “Shaggy” and I was also interested in another dog named “King.” King had been surrendered because his owner had cancer and could no longer care for him. He was house trained, neutered, could walk on a leash and had clearly been someone’s pet.

I knew Shaggy would be “the one” from the moment I saw his face. His Petfinder listing said that he had been found running loose with a chain around his neck and the chain was so tight it had to be cut off. We were told he was 2 years old and the shelter staff thought he was a German Shepard mix. He did not do well on a leash and when we tried to walk him around the “meet and greet” yard, I ended up with poop all over my shoes and my pants. But that didn’t matter at all. We talked for a few minutes to make sure we were ready. I was torn, much like I was while looking at all the images on Petfinder. Part of me wanted to adopt Linsdey just to get her out of the terrible place where she had lived for three years. But we also did not want our adoption to be motivated by guilt and we wanted to make decisions for the right reasons. Shaggy went home with us that same day.

Shaggy became Rusty. He has been in our home for just over two weeks and is doing really well. He’s been crate trained and we’re working on house training. He’s much younger than we were told and still has a lot of puppy in him which makes him somewhat of a wild child. He has some of the behaviors of a formerly chained dog. He is easily distracted by sounds – other dogs barking, children at play, birds. The leash training is a work in progress. He will go in circles if he’s on a lead that’s too long and we have to keep him focused (chained dogs often go in circles out of boredom and as they explore the diameter of the small areas to which they are confined). Rusty now has “sit” down pat and is doing better with “down” (which we use to get him to lay down to have his feet wiped before coming inside). He loves, loves, loves to run and play. Thankfully, Rich has years of experience in training dogs who come from bad circumstances. It helps that we had a fenced exercise area put in our yard at the same time we were doing perimeter fencing recently. We can take Rusty off leash to let him run and chase a ball. We actually think someone may have tried to do agility training with him before. He will fetch a ball and when he brings it back, he jumps in the air like he expects to be caught. Rusty is goofy and sweet and silly and full of energy. We have no idea what breed he is. Some have said he has some type of snow dog in him based on his face and his tail curls up like a Samoyed. In the end, his breed doesn't matter to us at all. He was the perfect dog for us. It will take time for him to decompress and to learn how to behave as we teach him our language and he learns ours. But he will live a great life in our home and is now a family member.

I talk a lot about animal shelter reform and about No Kill philosophies on my site for a reason. Rusty is but one of millions of dogs in our country who have done nothing wrong and who just need a new start. I shudder to think what would had happened to him had we not just happened upon his Petfinder listing one day. Would he still be alive? We’ll never know. The director of the shelter from which we adopted him freely told us that she does destroy animals for space. Which is simply a tragedy as far as I’m concerned. With very few exceptions, every animal entering our animal shelters either was or could be someone’s beloved pet. We owe it to all of them to treat them as the individuals they are and to not judge them solely by the circumstances which led them to be in the shelter. Or even by how they behave once they are in the shelter.

King went to a rescue group run by a contact of mine last week. Boudreaux was adopted two days ago. I’m working to get a rescue contact to pull Linsday and put her in a foster home so she can be socialized to people again and can overcome whatever trauma she has experienced in the last three years.

October is Adopt a Shelter Dog Month. When the time comes to bring a new companion animal into your home, please adopt. Please. There are so many animals in need and there is surely one “out there” who will perfect for you.

1 Comment

Rescuers at Dog Auctions - Redux

10/3/2017

0 Comments

In November of last year, I wrote a blog called "Rescuers at Dog Auctions - Please, Stop." The blog received a lot of attention and not all of it was good. I knew that some in the animal rescue community would not take kindly to my position. I honestly expected a great deal of hostility from some rescuers and I was not at all surprised by their negative reaction. My hope was to reach ordinary, animal loving people who may not be aware of the topic and who may unwittingly be complicit in the behavior through well-intended donations.

The concept is fairly simple. There are organizations and individuals which breed dogs and which then sell them at auctions, much like a livestock auction or an auction of farm equipment. Dog auctions are held in a variety of places. The most well known dog auctions are held by Southwest Auction Service in Wheaton, Missouri. The next dog auction is being held this Saturday - October 7th. Looking at the schedule, four more dog auctions will be held before the end of the year after the one being held on Saturday. There was a time when the people at dog auctions were other breeders and were brokers who were there to buy dogs to be sold in pet stores across the country. Make no mistake - this has always been big business and it is fueled by one thing: our willingness to buy dogs in pet stores. Millions of dogs are bred each year to meet public demand and millions of dollars change hands in the process.

I have never been to an dog auction, but I have numerous sources and contacts who have and their first-hand accounts are good enough for me to not only have an opinion about the auction process in general terms, but to have an opinion on how that process has changed - for the worse - due to people in the animal rescue community. My sources have decades of combined experience in interacting with commercial breeders and with the auction houses themselves. They have been around long enough to see the evolution of the industry based on sweeping changes brought about by good intentions, but which have made matters worse. Many of them have been involved for decades in seeking legislation to regulate the dog breeding industry, to make auctions illegal and to ensure better conditions for the "breeder stock" and the puppies they produce.

As I wrote in my earlier blog, there was a time as recently as 10 years ago when the presence of rescuers and rescue groups at dog auctions was not the norm in most regions. Most of those present at auction were breeders who were at the auction to buy dogs to add to their businesses. During this time, it was not uncommon for some in rescue get dogs for free, to get "dollar dogs" or to get large numbers of dogs for small amounts of money (i.e., 50 dogs for $3. Yes you read that correctly). That all changed not quite 10 years ago in the Great Lakes region and about 6 years ago in the Midwest. Rescuers had an increasing presence at auction and were often easy to spot from the way they dressed, the way they behaved and the amount of money they were willing to spend on dogs. The presence of rescuers at auction is now extremely obvious to both the auction companies and to the breeders who are both fascinated by and repelled by the rescuers’ behavior in terms of how much money they are willing to spend to "rescue" dogs.

I have heard the arguments of many in the rescue community to the effect that buying dogs at auction is a noble cause and that it is all about the dogs. I recently read an article written by a rescuer who equated the dogs she and her peers buy at auction as machines. She said the breeding dogs are the machines and the puppies are the products. She wrote that when she and others like her buy dogs at auction, they are taking a machine out of the production process and that dog will no longer be objectified or mistreated in the course of producing puppies. This argument is not only incredibly short-sighted. It is simply wrong. Yes, there are some dogs "in the system" at "puppy mills" or in large commercial dog breeding operations who are not treated well. Some are outright abused. Yes, it is noble to seek to get those dogs out of the system to end their lives of imprisonment and servitude and to rehabilitate them to put them into loving, compassionate homes. But when money is paid by rescue groups for those dogs in amounts which far exceed what any other bidder would pay, three things happen:

- a dog has been removed from the breeding operation and will more likely than not go on to lead a wonderful life in a new home(if the dog has been neglected, has serious health issues and is not socialized to people, the rehabilitation process can take a long time and many well-meaning adopters may not understand the challenges they will face)
- more money has been paid for that dog than would have been paid by non-rescue bidders at the auction (in some cases these amounts are many times what another breeder would have paid for a dog)
- the dog which is no longer part of the breeding operation will be replaced by a better, younger or more healthy dog

The first of those three things is great. I would love nothing more than for all dogs currently being used as part of a breeding operation to be freed, rehabilitated and to go on to live lives of luxury and be spoiled rotten. That is not a realistic idea at this juncture simply because the business is so huge and because it is fueled by us and our demand for dogs. It is the second and third things which are the issue. The money paid for the dog at the auction simply serves to enrich the breeding operation and the dog bought by the rescuer will be replaced with at least another dog if not more than one dog.

It cannot be denied that the presence of rescuers at auction has changed the industry. Breeders send dogs to auction because they are done breeding them (they are no longer profitable), because they can't sell them directly to consumers and/or because they know they can get more money at auction than anywhere else. As I wrote about last year, there are now breeders who produce puppies of certain breeds specifically to sell to rescuers at auction.

The solution to me is simple even if some people get emotional about it. The dogs who are in the commercial breeding industry now are already there. Some are well cared for. Many are not. If we want to end what many call "puppy mills" or better regulate the commercial dog breeding industry, the way to do that is through endorsing legislation which sets standards for the care of the dogs and to stop buying the products in pet stores. And in auction tents. I understand we feel badly for those dogs in the system, particularly those who have not been treated well. We see them as victims and we should. But when rescuers buy them at auction and call it rescue, we are simply ensuring the industry will be more profitable than ever and we are ensuring that dogs we do not see will take their place. It is a fallacy to think that by purchasing a dog at an auction, no other dog will be negatively impacted.

Animal rescue is very much about helping animals in need, many of whom are in our antiquated sheltering system and who are at risk of death every day in all but the most progressive communities. If you are a rescuer, or you financially support a rescue group, please focus on those dogs in need in the animal shelter in your own community or in another community. If yours is a breed specific rescue and the demand of your followers for the breed of choice is so great it cannot be met through saving shelter dogs or other dogs of that breed needing to be re-homed for some reason, consider expanding your rescue organization to also help other dogs of a similar size or look. You may be surprised to learn that many people think they want a particular breed, but are willing to adopt another breed of dog in order to save the dog's life.

Please, rescuers, just stay away from auctions. Please. And donors, please do not financially support those who buy dogs at auction. You may think you are doing something noble and just. But you are not. If you are intent on having a dog which came from a puppy mill for some reason, connect with an organization which does not buy dogs at auction and which instead gets dogs relinquished to the organization for free by breeders and auction houses with no money changing hands.

(Note - at the time I was writing this blog, I learned that the City of Dothan, Alabama, was planning to auction off a number of dogs which had been seized from a local dog breeding operation. The dogs had been spayed/neutered and vetted and I am told that this was done as a fundraising effort toward building a new shelter. I opposed the auction decision; a lottery would have been another way to raise money from the community while raising awareness about all shelter dogs. A number of people in the rescue community who regularly buy dogs at auction in Missouri spoke out against the Dothan auction, but they attended anyway. I had hoped they were attending for research purposes. They bought dogs as intermediaries for other rescue organizations, in some cases outbidding locals who had hoped to adopt the dogs.)

(images courtesy of PetShopPuppies and National Mill Dog Rescue)

0 Comments

<<Previous

Some Things are Just Meant to Be

Reaching the Public Radar - Use of Documentary Films

Get Up Off the Floor and Stand Up for Your Beliefs

A Dog is a Dog is a Dog is a Dog - Stop Discriminating

Someone Please Just Tell Me Why

Advocate Free Speech: Phil Doster

Animal Shelter Apologists and Cognitive Dissonance

Who Could Possibly Disagree With Saving Animals?

An Adoption Story - And Why You Should Adopt

Rescuers at Dog Auctions - Redux

Author

Archives

Categories

Author

Subscribe to the Paws4Change E-list

Archives

Categories