There are a lot of facets to my animal welfare advocacy. I manage multiple websites and I do volunteer work for a number of organizations, some of which are local and most of which are in other states. Most of my advocacy relates to my keyboard and my phone and I believe that I am making a difference in my own way.
I do not volunteer at the animal shelter in the city where I work. I lack the time to do that and even if I had time, I just refuse to be in a building where healthy and treatable animals are still at risk. The shelter is doing much better than in years past, but savable animals still die there. I would no sooner volunteer there than I would work the line at a chicken processing plant. There is also the not-so-small issue of my history with the shelter director. She has made my life immeasurably more difficult than it otherwise should have been in the last decade due to her refusal to adopt progressive shelter programs on her own and without the necessity of advocates like me seeking change through years of boat rocking. Advocacy is hard work which is often infuriating and exhausting. And when we get right down to it, it should not have been necessary in the first place. If you ran a shelter where most of the animals died just because that was the way things had always been done and someone told you about better ways to save lives and do it quickly, wouldn't you move with a sense of urgency to do just that? Of course you would. The shelter director also thought it was a stellar idea to participate in a hate page related to me and my advocacy group on social media which led me to file a formal complaint about her conduct. We might as well be living on separate planets for all we have in common.
But getting back to the "if you would just _________" argument, let's think about that. On the "you should be nicer" or the "can't we all just get along" argument, I simply disagree. As I have blogged about before, I really do not believe that the manner in which I ask a shelter to stop killing saving animals is relevant at all. I think it is sufficient to say, "please stop killing animals," "these methods will help you do that right away" and "these people can help you because they have proven experience. Please call them." When a house is on fire, no one stands outside debating how to save lives and stop the blaze in ways which won't offend anyone. The focus is on the task at hand. When people tell me that we should all just get along or that my method of communication is a bit too direct for them, I say stop putting the focus on the messenger and start focusing on the message. I am all for diplomacy and respect, keeping in mind that is a two way street. I also have no issue at all with conflict. I think I can disagree with someone on some issues and we can still find some common ground and work together toward the same destination.
Moving on to the "if you would only volunteer" argument, that is also a deflection. Sure. I could volunteer at the shelter. But if just having more people to do work for the city is so important, there really are other options. Plans could easily be made to get help from our county jail by using inmate trusty labor or by having the court refer people to the shelter to fulfill community service obligations. Using inmate labor alone would be a huge help inside the shelter and there are a host of programs used across the country which have shown that this helps the inmates as much as it helps the animals. I would argue that me being in the shelter would actually be disruptive as long as savable animals are destroyed there. Unlike some volunteers who have decided that it is easier to go along to get along, I would not be silent about my beliefs. This is a moot point anyway since I refuse to be complicit in the killing and no amount of bullying will make me compromise my values. And the truth is that I do volunteer; just not at the local shelter I am criticizing. I choose to use my volunteerism for organizations which function consistent with my values and one of them is actually the animal control department of the county where I live.
The key to any community becoming a no kill community is local leadership which makes saving lives an immediate priority now. Not a year from now or in 5 years but right this very minute. Once the leadership decides to stop the killing, that changes the entire landscape related to adoption, fosters, donors and potential volunteers. If you are in a community where there are advocates who are fighting for shelter reform and fighting to save the lives of animals and someone has told you that those advocates should just be nicer or should just stop talking and volunteer, take a good look at whether or not that makes any sense at all. Ask yourself what that would really accomplish. And then take a good look at why the advocacy is needed in the first place. People don't advocate for fun or because they have nothing better to do. People advocate for social change and they should not be made out to be the enemy for having the audacity to seek better for all of us.
The burden of change is not mine to carry. You can stop telling me that if I would just be nicer or would just volunteer everything would change. No. Everything changes when those who are responsible for making life and death decisions regarding shelter animals choose life, take responsibility for what happens in their buildings and then invite the public they serve to be part of a new and better future.