There was a time about a decade ago when I considered myself pretty well informed about animal issues simply because I grew up in an animal friendly household and I just like animals. Looking back now, I just didn’t have a clue. Yes, I meant well, but I really was completely out of touch with most of the issues which now take up a lot of space in my head and about which I find myself thinking. A lot.
One of those issues relates to pit bull-type dogs and something called either breed discriminatory legislation (BDL) or breed specific legislation (BSL). I really didn’t have much awareness on this subject until long after the Vick debacle related to his arrest and which led to the 2007 relocation of 47 of the 49 dogs seized from his property (one dog was destroyed early in the process and another was later destroyed for medical reasons). I knew the dogs had been treated in ways most of us simply cannot imagine and they all deserved a second chance. But I really didn’t get into the topic of pit bull-type dogs and legislation issues related to breed until the summer of 2009 when I was asked by my local shelter director to write a “white paper” advocating adoption of “pit bulls” from her shelter. She told me she wanted the paper so she could use it to persuade some of her old guard employees that these dogs were not inherently bad and to convince some folks at city hall that she should not have what then was essentially a de facto ban on these dogs in her building, leading to their destruction. I told her I was not qualified to write a white paper, but that I would be happy to prepare a research paper if it would help her and would save the lives of dogs. I think I knew even the she would never use the paper and so I wrote it to be of use pretty much everywhere, in hopes that someone would get some use out of it. It took me weeks to research and write and when I first shared it in September of 2009, I felt good about it. I had learned things along the way I just did not realize before and developed a great contact in the process through my interaction with Karen Delise, the founder of the National Canine Research Council. The paper got passed around a bit, ended up on the Animal Law Coalition website, and the feedback was generally positive. When I saw my shelter director being interviewed by a local news anchor years later (in late 2012), lamenting the fact that she had so many “pit bulls” she simply had trouble placing, I’ll admit it made me angry. Yes, I just wrote a paper. Yes, it was just research. But had she been genuinely interested in advocating for these dogs and helping to educate those around her on how great they are, all she had to do was read my paper and develop a plan of her own on how to use it. I decided to channel my anger into action and I revised my research paper in February of 2014. Some of the end links no longer work, but I stand by my research all of which is found here. When you put the media hype aside and you take a real look not only at the breeds of dogs we all call “pit bulls,” but at the research regarding factors which cause fatal dog attacks, the reality is that these dogs are no different than any other dogs. All dogs have teeth. All dogs bite. How we treat dogs, objectify dogs, use dogs, whether we spay and neuter dogs and whether we neglect or abuse dogs all play a role in their behavior. I am a huge proponent of breed blind legislation and I firmly believe that all dogs should be treated as individuals. I’m fine with legislation which is focused on public safety, but which is completely silent regarding dog breed. Some dogs really are dangerous. Some dogs are just broken, for lack of a better word, and should not be around people. But to take entire breeds of dogs – or worse yet – perceived breeds of dogs and try to legislate them is not only unconstitutional, but it is entirely ineffective. I was on Facebook today and two items in my news feed stood in stark contrast to each other and served as a reminder that legislating dogs by breed simply does not work and is just wrong.
If you really care about dogs or just about how municipalities spend your money in the name of public safety and through use of police power, please educate yourself about the history of the types of dogs we call “pit bulls” and about the real reasons behind dog aggression. The best way for you to help man's best friend is to be an informed animal lover or animal advocate. If the whole subject is a bit too overwhelming for you and you need a place to start, well, my research paper may just help you.
0 Comments
In June of 1992, I was staying with my folks as I transitioned back to civilian life from my GI Jane days. I got a call from Rich that was a game changer. He had met a girl. She was young, came from an abusive situation and he had decided to take her home. “You'll like her, I know you will,” he said. I was a bit taken aback. I didn't know he had been looking. Her name was Snake and she was a young German Shepherd/coyote mix he had saved with the help of a local game warden in northern California. She had no fur around her neck, having been chained to a tree by a heavy logging chain her entire life. “It may not grow back,” the vet had said, “and she has never really been socialized to people. She could be a challenge.” I had never met anyone quite like her before and I just didn't realize at the time that she would change not only my life but that she would change me as a person. She was wicked smart and incredibly athletic and completely devoted to our little pack. She was beautiful and graceful and Heaven help the person who got a little too close to either of us without her consent. She looked like a Shepherd but was the size of a coyote and was a wild child in many ways. She loved her Frisbee. She loved to out on the lake in our pontoon boat and jump into the water to retrieve a tennis ball over and over again. She was just a sight to behold. It was October of 2002 when our vet gave us the bad news. “She's got a degenerating spine condition and she probably has about a good six months left before there will be quality of life issues.” We did what any good animal caregivers would do: we completely overreacted. We were devastated. I could barely look at Snake without bursting into tears. She had been with us around the clock for so many years that she was just part of life, like breathing. Rich made a heavy duty ramp that would hold a half ton person so she would no longer need to use stairs to get in and out of the house. I bought a super ortho bed from Foster & Smith that could have been used for a small child. We limited her impact activity and were careful to keep her from being too sedentary. We worried and we wondered and then one day life just went back to normal and we tried not to look too far into the future. Snake was with us another three and a half years. In her final months, we knew our time with her was coming to a close. Her vision and hearing were almost gone, she had trouble getting up and down on her own and she had trouble digesting food consistently. Rich began the labor of love that was to become her homemade casket. Much like her bed, it was suitable for a small child. We had talked about what we would bury with her when the time came. Her beloved Frisbee. Her dishes. Her squirrel toy, on which I had performed “surgery” so many times that it was almost as much heavy-duty thread as it was fake fur. Her hand sewn Christmas stocking. I wanted to do something to help and was of no use in Rich's woodworking shop so I came up with a plan. “I'm going to make her some homemade dog biscuits and put them in an air-tight container to go with her,” I told Rich. He smiled, tilted his head to the side a bit and said, quite softly, “shes' not Egyptian, Babe.” I laughed. He laughed. The mood was lightened. And I began making her dog biscuits anyway. We let her go on Earth Day of 2006: April 22nd. We didn't know at the time that it was Earth Day. We just knew we could not keep her here any longer for ourselves and we had to be selfless for her sake. Our vet came to our house to help her and on that day, our lives were again forever changed. We gave her wings. I have continued to bake Snakey's favorite treats in her honor. I share them with friends and with people who have helped in my advocacy to which I am devoted in the memory of a beautiful girl who changed my life. And who change me as a person. I became an animal welfare advocate because of her. I miss you, Snakey. I am sure your soul lives on and perhaps we will meet again some fine day. There are certain things that just aren't done.
You don't abuse or victimize children. You don't abuse or victimize the elderly. You don't drink and drive. You don't engage in any behavior that violates the sanctuary of another person's home. And you don't kill healthy and treatable shelter animals. I am often criticized for being zero tolerance when it comes to organizations that destroy savable animals. I am told I would get much more cooperation and my message would be better received if only I was nicer or more polite. I simply don't agree. When it comes to certain behavior, I think the manner in which the message is conveyed is not at all relevant. Once I say one time, "please stop _______________," (in this case destroying savable animals) it is my position that is sufficient in and of itself. When that request is met with anything but genuine enthusiasm, being more polite or diplomatic is simply not really necessary or appropriate. I realize that this aspect of my animal welfare advocacy makes some people uncomfortable. Most people like or even enjoy my multimedia projects I do for rescue groups and on important subjects. Most people find something of value on my website. To me, this aspect of my advocacy may very well be the most important; I share my position in order to persuade you to consider your own. Yes, I am zero tolerance when it comes to needless killing of healthy and treatable animals using my money or donations. For me, this is an issue of behavior that is morally indefensible. The cure for the disease that is shelter killing is known and has been known for a very long time. I am happy to share what I know about that cure but then those who are doing the killing need to own responsibility for doing just that and stop deflecting blame by talking about how I have hurt their feelings. This isn't about people; it's about saving lives. When people tell me to be nice or to stop making them uncomfortable or to stop being divisive, what they are really saying is that their personal comfort level is more important to them than the lives of defenseless animals. For shame, for shame. When lives are at stake, diplomacy is nice but there is no time to take a poll and make sure everyone is happy and comfortable. You do your best to show some respect but then you focus on the task at hand: saving lives. It's just that simple. There is a lot of talk these days about the phrase "no kill." It is much misunderstood and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable. There are those who say we should not use the phrase because it is divisive or because it offends people. Some would tell you that no kill is not possible or that it is irresponsible. Others say that we should use the phrase "low kill" instead. I'm not entirely sure what that even means. Some who oppose no kill philosophies use the phrase as a weapon to try to discredit a social movement which is changing our country, whether they like it or not. Yet others toss the phrase around and apply it to situations which have nothing to do with true no kill philosophies. I saw a story on the news last night from my area in which the phrase no kill was used inaccurately and this leads to my blog of today. This is what "no kill" means - and does not mean - to me. If you do not agree, that's perfectly fine. I'm writing this to bring some clarity to the subject for those who really have no idea what the rest of us are talking about. For an in-depth look at the phrase, I encourage anyone reading my blog to read this publication by the No Kill Advocacy Center called "Defining No Kill." No kill is a culture in which healthy and treatable animals are not destroyed in our shelters for space, convenience or following some tradition using our tax dollars or donations. In this culture, the only animals destroyed are those who are suffering, are irremediably ill or dogs who are so genuinely aggressive (as opposed to scared or traumatized) that they are unsafe to have in our communities (and for which no sanctuary placement is available).
No kill is not a definition. It does not mean that no animals ever die. To keep animals alive when they are truly suffering or are so genuinely broken that they present a danger to the public would be unethical and irresponsible. No kill is a philosophy which says the lives of all companion animals have value and that those animals must be treated as individuals, worthy of our time and attention to keep them alive. In this philosophy, homeless animals are treated as either having been someone's beloved companion or being capable of being that companion. They are essentially given the benefit of the doubt, treated as adoptable and not blamed for the fact that they need our help. No kill is not about simply keeping animals alive, regardless of the conditions in which they live. It does not allow animals' physical, psychological or emotional well-being to be compromised just so we can say "they are alive and we did not destroy them." No kill is about programs which function in concert with each other to both reduce shelter intake and to increase shelter output so that animals spend the least amount of time possible in an institutional setting. When animals are boarded for undefined periods of time, that is not no kill. That is a situation which is simply not sustainable financially. It can also cause animals to become so accustomed to living in a kennel environment that they are ill-prepared for the stimulation of life outside of the kennel. When animals are collected on rural properties out of the knowledge and view of the public and law enforcement authorities, that is not no kill. That is essentially collecting and more often than not it also involves neglect and abuse. When animals are kept at a "sanctuary" which does not function within its financial and physical ability to properly care for and then place those animals, that is not no kill. Overwhelmed sanctuaries are little more than animal prisons where the animals and the people caring for them are under incredible amounts of stress, often leading to disaster. No kill is about values and hope and compassion and about doing our very best for companion animals because we care about them and we want the very best for them. I understand that there are a lot of people out there doing a lot of great things to try to help animals and keep them alive. I think that any person who genuinely means well in their efforts to help animals should be commended. But with those efforts comes a responsibility to learn how to best care for those animals while avoiding a situation where the people essentially "flame out" - or are arrested- and we are left with a crisis situation where large numbers of animals have to be placed in very short periods of time. If you would like to learn more about no kill philosophies and about what the phrase really means, please educate yourself by doing some homework and by networking with people in no kill communities. You may say that you don't have time for that. I say you have to make time. The lives of companion animals depend upon you being not just a passionate advocate but an informed advocate. I am considered "the animal person" where I work. Because of my advocacy, people seek me out on a variety of subjects and when they need help. I am not the Dog or Cat Whisperer, but I do my best to help people and point them in the right direction. A co-worker emailed me yesterday to tell me she wanted to get a puppy for her five year-old daughter and wanted my help. I asked her to come see me instead. We had a long conversation (which I warned her would sound more like a lecture) about why she wanted to get a dog, what kind of dog she thought she wanted, why she wanted a puppy, etc. She said that she had grown up with a dog who was her best friend and she wanted that for her daughter. She wanted a puppy and wanted a small breed dog so her daughter would have a companion and would have someone to hug on and play with. No. No. No. And No. The conversation took a different turn from there. We talked about how much work it is to have a puppy, about how many small breed dogs do not do well with children and about how hugging a dog is just not a good idea. I told her point blank that if her daughter needed something to hug, to get her a stuffed toy. We talked about how bringing any dog into a home is a 15 to 20 year commitment not to be taken lightly. In the end, we had a good conversation. I believe my co-worker’s heart is in the right place and she does want to get a dog for all the right reasons. She has plans today to meet a medium-sized rescue dog whose life is at risk but who is described as both "sweet" and "cuddly." Have I hugged our dog? Sure. More than my husband prefers. But we’ve known each other for 16 years and I know enough about our dog’s body language to know when a soft hug will be well received as opposed to resulting in some vocalization because he isn’t feeling well. You can kiss your spouse. You can hug your child. But if you really want to show your dog how much you love him or her, learn about dog behavior and about what your dog needs from you. And if you want to spend some quality time together and bond - take your dog for a walk. Canine Body Language Successfully Adopting a Rescue Dog The Data Says "Don't Hug the Dog" Canine Body Language From Labrador Training HQ (very comprehensive and well worth the read) I was talking to a contact of mine in Chicago the other day about the issue of toxicity in animal welfare advocacy. She said, “I wish I could list all the people I meet who tell me they have stopped giving money to animal causes because they can't stand dealing with the rescue people anymore. I am not talking small dollars either. Now they give to people causes, or the symphony. Shame on the animal community.”
Yes, shame on the animal community. Most people who are not “in the weeds” of animal welfare advocacy and who simply want the best for animals likely have no idea of the battles being waged each and every day between people who claim to advocate for animals. I would like to think this is a testament to the emotional nature of our attachment to animals; we care deeply and so when we cannot agree, we argue passionately. I'm afraid that the dysfunction within our ranks has gone far beyond what I could ever consider passionate discourse. I engage regularly with people who don't share my belief system or at least have differing opinions. Although my beliefs are firm on certain points, I have no issue at all with having an adult conversation with someone who does not agree with me. That's what adults do. We share thoughts and opinions and ideas and while we sometimes find common ground, we come to terms with those items on which we will simply have to disagree. There is a certain level of toxicity and hostility in animal welfare circles, however, which just never ceases to amaze me. If you don't agree with me or my belief system, that's perfectly fine with me. Please walk away and let's each just continue on our own path. But when you don't agree with my belief system and you make a direct effort to attack me personally, I am left to wonder what you really hope to accomplish and if your time would not be better spent doing something to actually help animals instead. There will always be differences of opinion in animal welfare circles, but it is my position that those who engage in hostile attacks on a personal level and who engage in behavior that even children know is wrong, truly do a disservice to the causes they claim to support. Someone who does not share my belief system recently took the time to download a PSA I did for television, edit my voice out of the PSA and create a video with the audio file which they surely would not want to share with their mother. Using my voice in this manner and without my permission is not going to cause me to suddenly change my opinions as I throw my hands up in the air and say, “oh, okay. You were right all along. And please stop being mean to me.” I am quite certain the time spent on that particular project would have been better spent trying to find a home for a shelter animal. This is just an example of a series of things done and remarks made about my advocacy and that of others in my community, some of which is actually libelous and about which an attorney is being consulted. The people engaging in this behavior? Rescuers and shelter volunteers, one of whom is the vice-president of a well-respected nonprofit group. I am not suggesting by any means that we all sit around and sing kumbaya and hope that things get better while we focus on not offending anyone. There is a time, place and style which is appropriate for advocacy. It is one which focuses on facts and policies and programs and not on personalities and people and pride. I work very hard to be logical in my advocacy and while I have referred to the destruction of healthy and treatable animals in our nation's shelters as killing – because it is most certainly not “euthanasia” - I have never engaged in name calling or personal attacks of any kind because doing so serves no purpose. Some would say that our issues in our country are animal issues, but they really are people issues related to making better personal choices related to companion animals and doing a better job of spending our collective funds to help shelter pets and not kill them. I am sure I will continue to be attacked by those who do not share my belief system and who are so diametrically opposed to my values that they lash out against me. This behavior is quite telling for me. Because if they are attacking me, it means they have no real, logical arguments to counter my beliefs they think are "wrong" and which they claim to oppose. Attacks and bullying are tools of desperation. |
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. Archives
August 2023
Categories
All
image courtesy of Terrah Johnson
|