Wednesday, May 13, 2009

The Fallacy of “Fates Worse Than Death”

For those seasoned rescuer's we are often exposed to the worst of what mankind has to offer with our experiences with shelter dogs. But have we lost the ability to step back and see the lighter side that dogs bring to our lives. Dogs who ply, dogs who seem not to have a care in the world, why should we be the one's to choose whether ending a shelter dog's previous suffering is a excuse that overlooks a dogs amazing abilty to respond to just a small measure of love, care and consideration.

In January of 2007 I was asked to take in a beagle named Camilla from Northeast Georgia Animal Shelter. Camilla was about five plus years old and was suffering from a severe skin condition which caused her to lose over half of the hair on her body. One would assume that if rescue was about saving dogs from a "Fate Far Worse Than Death" the logical disposition for Camilla would be a humane ending to life as she knew it.

Rather then make this judgment call myself I decided to let Camilla make that choice. Despite her obvious suffering from what was a skin condition that didn't seem to respond to the many treatments we tried camilla remained stoically a beagle at heart, spending her days in search of a scent and ultimately in search of food for her belly. Despite her suffering she never seemed to stop wagging that tail or ignoring your every command. Yet, still, Camilla was still by definition "un adoptable (in her present condition) and a perfect candidate for a "no kill sheltering" for the rest of her life.

While we never gave up on finding a cure for her illness often times realty was to simply try and help Camilla hold her own. She would have good weeks and some that were not so good. Through it all I became tremendously attached to this little girl and by the summer of 2008 considered Camilla as one of my own.

However, this love for Camilla was not shared by our local animal sheltering world. Flexing the muscle's developed with the "steroid" bill we call our local animal ordinance of 2007 animal control and our local animal rights leaning solicitor's office zeroed in on beagles like Camilla by suggested she be included as one of ten beagles I surrender to appease the county over our dog barking ordeal.

Fate would decide that Camilla and others would become the local poster dogs for why poorly thought out laws can set a dangerous precedent where the courts, not the pet owner or rescue caretaker, hold the ultimate judgment of the Fate of Death which would be far worse then life itself for these innocent victims.

Despite assurances from insiders working with animal control who assured me ALL the hounds I surrendered would be turned over to rescue why would any reasonable person believe this when the shelter had such a dismal record with the healthy dogs that went through the shelter. The reality was that a dog suffering from the abuse of a previous owner would simply be moved from a home where she was cared for, loved and kept safe and become a statistic on a monthly spreadsheet instead.

Fortunately, our case went better then we expected, the judge refused to order surrender of any pets and as the news head lines leaked out the "hounds were elated". I still took beagles like Camilla to adoptions every weekend even though there was little chance anyone would share my commitment to this sweet but medically challenged little hound. Then along came that special person....

A little more then six weeks after our trial a woman approached the cages where the beagles were, well acting like beagles and ask if "that beagle was still available." Even though she pointed at Camilla I started pointing out the other more healthy beagles but she cut me off withy "no, I want THAT beagle - the one who's speaking to me..." Low and behold Camilla was speaking to her, wagging her tail and working real hard to get her attention". After a lengthy discussion about Camilla's health issues she was adopted.

From time to time over the next few months I would see Camilla on her trips to Petsmart. You really couldn't tell who was happier Camilla or her new proud mom. But what you could see was a gradual improvement in Camilla's overall health. Six months and over $1,200 in vet bills later Camilla is no longer Camilla in name or body. Her new name is Georgia and she has completely recovered from her illness.

Georgia has a beautiful beagle coat, has added six pounds to her once skinny frame and serves as a perfect example why we shouldn't be so quick to judge whether there ever is a fate far better then death. Certainly you would have a difficult time convincing Georgia or her mom of this ridiculous assumption.

From Nathan Winograd's blog:

The Fallacy of “Fates Worse Than Death”
April 28, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd

Recently, I read a letter from a woman who has spent half a century doing animal rescue work. Her description of her experiences over the years, including the heartbreaking rescue of a near-dead kitten abandoned near a dumpster, makes it clear she cares deeply about animals. And yet, she opposes No Kill. She opposes No Kill because she believes that “there are fates worse than death.” And she cannot conceive of a No Kill nation because she sees a crisis of uncaring in the U.S., a conclusion drawn from decades of experience seeing abandoned, neglected, and abused animals. She knows this, she says, not from “percentages, data, and studies,” but from “what she has seen with her own eyes.”

Sadly, she, and other animal rescuers who share these views, have been in the trenches of rescue work so long, that they have become myopic, and as a result, they have come to believe that the world of animals is little more than pain and suffering. They have been led to believe in the inevitability of certain outcomes, and the things they witness seem to confirm this point of view for them. In addition, the large national organizations which they turn to for guidance reaffirm their beliefs: people don’t care, irresponsibility is rampant, there are too many unwanted animals, and the only available choices for a majority of these animals are a quick death in a shelter or suffering on the streets. Because they lack personal experience at progressive shelters which would debunk these views and have trained themselves not to see evidence to the contrary all around them, they have actually come to believe that “killing is kindness” and the alternative is worse. But they could not be more wrong.

And what is driving these misplaced perceptions is a lack of perspective—perspective which comes from a larger view, a global vision, a top-down image they cannot see and which the animal protection movement historically has failed to provide. They have a distorted view of reality. If they took a step back, if they allowed themselves to see what is happening nationally, if they kept an open mind and stayed informed about the emerging success of the No Kill movement, they would see something else entirely, as many other rescuers do. They would see the “big picture”—which reveals that there is a way out of killing and that a No Kill nation is not only possible, it is well within our reach.

There are roughly eight million dogs and cats entering shelters every year, a small fraction compared to the 165 million in people’s homes. Of those entering shelters, only four percent are seized because of cruelty and neglect. Some people surrender their animals because they are irresponsible, but others do so because they have nowhere else to turn—a person dies, they lose their job, their home is foreclosed. In theory, that is why shelters exist–-to be a safety net for animals whose caretakers no longer can or want to care for them. And the majority of animals who enter these shelters can, and should, be saved.

Based on dog bite extrapolation data, an analysis of intakes at shelters, and the results of the best performing shelters in the country, about 90% of all animals would be adopted if our shelters where compassionate places run by animal lovers dedicated to saving lives. Indeed, imagine if this were actually realized. Imagine if shelters provided good care, comfort, and plenty of affection to the animals during their stays at these way stations funded through tax and philanthropic dollars by a dog- and cat- loving culture. And imagine if all shelters embraced the No Kill philosophy and the programs and services which make it possible. We would be a No Kill nation today. Because while roughly four million dogs and cats are needlessly killed every year, there are also three times as many people—upwards of 17 million—who are looking to get a new companion animal next year and who have not yet decided where that animal will come from. And, as communities across the country have proven, a great many of them could very easily be persuaded to adopt a shelter animal.

For the rest of the story.....

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council – Making Policies Founded on Fear?

The Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council (GAAC) met on Tuesday, April 21, to consider proposed changes to the county’s animal ordinance. A spirited discussion, shrouded in contemptuous overtones that pervaded for two plus hours, focused on nuisance dog barking and tethering restrictions. From this writer’s perspective, representing "We, the Pet Owners of Gwinnett" a grassroots group of concerned pet owners, the feeling tone set by GAAC is reflective of a common malady: fear of change.

Nonetheless, considerable progress was made in that GAAC and We, the Pet Owners of Gwinnett each made compromises in revising nuisance dog barking and tethering guidelines. As a result, a modified animal ordinance was crafted, to be submitted to the Gwinnett County Commission for their recommendations and approval. GAAC member Carla Brown worked diligently to resolve contentious issues and deserves the community’s thanks for her efforts

Although the proposal presented by We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett wasn't adopted in its entirety, consensus was reached regarding several key provisions within the proposed revised ordinance. Changes included in the new ordinance are listed below under the subject categories.

Nuisance Dog Barking

Sentencing guidelines no longer include jail and/or probation.

Pets of an owner cited with a barking violation will not be removed from the home.
An owner can be cited just once (per incident) for a barking violation, rather than multiple times based on the number of dogs he or she owns, as is currently enforced.

The new ordinance requires two complainants from individuals who live at addresses close to the disturbance (rather then one as in the current law). This complaint expires after thirty days meaning the process would have to start all over.

Removed was the language that excluded barking when vocalizations are given as a warning to the "presence of a person trespassing on the property were the animal(s) are present. This section alone would be a deal breaker in any new ordinance, the county will go back to the current language that vocalizations do not apply "as a warning to the presence of an intruder".

The new law will incorporate a mediation process in resolving conflicts.

However, AAC Chair Gail Laberge refused a change that would reduce the maximum fine from it's current "up to $1,000" level to a more realistic fine of "up to $100". While Laberge never said the fine was a "reasonable" amount one can assume her refusal to put limitations in place demonstrates her opinion excessive fines are not unreasonable.

Laberge, who represents the Lawrenceville Kennel Club, went on to claim that the wording says the judge MAY give a fine not to exceed $1,000 but allows the judge to give a fine from $0.00 to $1,000. Of course, putting reasonable restraints on the court process that would lower that range to $0.00 to $100 and still allow the same discretion.

Laberge has a disconnect with the court process. After all, it was under her leadership that the current draconian ordinance was passed in 2007. Judge's are not required to levy fines for convictions under Recorders Court rules.

The problem with allowing excessive fines for minor offenses is in how those guidelines are used to intimidate pet owners into relinquishing their pets without even going through the court system. The issue of maximum sentencing is being abused by the county solicitor's office during what should be "good faith" plea negotiations.

Further, animal control is able to use the threats of "potential" sentencing limits to convince pet owners who are not even charged with a crime to surrender their pets in lieu of being cited. Animals who are surrendered thus become part of a much larger issue of escalating intake and kill numbers at the county shelter.

"We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett" will continue to lobby for fines that fit the offense. There is no reasonable explanation for excessive fines that punish responsible pet owners in the process. Pets are part of our culture and deserve to be treated as such.

Tethering Guidelines

Slight modifications were made to the total ban on tethering and approved which will allow for short term tethering when the pet owner is present. Once those changes are finalized I will "blog" them for public discussion.

Progress made thus far in hammering out an animal ordinance satisfactory to Gwinnett County government officials, pet owners, animal control employees and GCAA represents the culmination of nine months of intensive efforts. While it is encouraging, progress far beyond “putting a good animal control ordinance in place” begs for attention.

Legislation is often thought of as a quick solution to high rates of shelter killing. For those "animal advocating" attorneys who write these laws and claim to be motivated by saving lives, there is a more powerful driving force in play: a desire to punish. Ultimately, it is the animals they claim to want to save who are punished by losing their lives in the process.

Experience paints a different picture of saving more lives - communities like Gwinnett that have passed such draconian laws instead find themselves moving in the opposite direction. Shelter intake rises which translates into more killing, not less. More killing translates into additional animal control funding needed and the process spirals.

We will never lower our shelter intakes and kill numbers without enhancing proven life-saving strategies instead. If we are ever going to realize change we must stop ignoring the excuses of blame that lead to shelter failure. Every dog and cat killed is a shelter failure.

You can't eliminate public irresponsibility but you can stop using it as an excuse to kill. There is more then enough compassion, caring, kindness and love for our pets in Gwinnett to overcome the much smaller amount of human irresponsibility. What is needed is a shift in thinking that moves away from excuses to solutions instead.

Additional discussions during the Animal Advisory Meeting addressed:

Volunteer Program

The current "volunteer" program is non functional. The failure to implement a volunteer spirit in the community, a failure to organize a working foster care program, a failure to increase exposure for pets needing homes through off-site adoption events, a failure to implement "trap,neuter release" policies for feral cats, a failure to maintain a customer friendly shelter environment, a failure to offer affordable services that nurture responsible pet ownership in the community all feed into a failing animal welfare policies of killing more at our shelter.

Instead our current volunteer program requires a thorough criminal background check thus stifling most citizens from the program. Even this program is closely guarded as there are no links on the county web site that would advise volunteers on how they can participate.

The Animal Advisory meeting included a discussion about the application and background check process that quite probably is discouraging community volunteer participation. Until we get over a philosophy of running the public animal shelter like a prison that problem will persist.

Thus, we have a dismal number of less then twenty volunteers who currently participate.

Clearly, that is not enough participation to make a noticeable difference in helping to advance "these" pets chances of being adopted back into the community.

Life saving programs that need volunteers include:

Help with off site and special adoption events.
Fostering dogs and cats thus expanding the number of pets being made available for adoption.
Educational programs in the community that promote the shelter and responsible pet ownership.
Pet councilors that offer resources that help pet owners avoid relinquishing their pets.
Maintaining the shelter's "Petfinders" listing to vastly improve a pets chances at being adopted or being transferred to rescue.

Without unpaid volunteers programs like off site adoption, special adoption events at the shelter and many of the other services that volunteers can offer in helping to keep the public informed about pets needing help go unresolved.

Partnerships with the Rescue Community

A significant issue that needs to be addressed is the dramatic drop in dogs and cats being transferred to area rescue groups in 2008. That number dropped a staggering 35% in one year alone.

Shelter Director Mary Respress commented that many of the rescue groups the shelter approaches are not taking in animals because they are full. The sad reality is many long time very responsible rescue groups do not pull from Gwinnett because they feel like they are not treated as partners in the shelters success.

Hopefully, putting an end to the repressive enforcement of the county's animal ordinance might help reduce that tension but it is also imperative that the shelter realize there are serious issues that need to be addressed in order for rescue to openly embrace pulling from Gwinnett.

Rescue groups or foster homes who reside in Gwinnett will not risk the judgmental thinking that could endanger their personal pets and current fosters when there are pets available in nearby shelters who are not so intrusive. That is not an opinion - it is a reality.

Building and expanding a partnership coalition with the rescue community is imperative in moving towards finding rescue solutions for many of the dogs and cats who are left with no other options..

Revamping the Animal Advisory Council

The current structure of GAAC is, in my opinion, dysfunctional and primarily serves the special interest that blocks change. This structure is heavily weighted in support of local breeder and kennel club interest who compete in the marketplace with shelter pets.

GAAC Chair Laberge, who represents the AKC, countered with "I do not believe the GAAC is dysfunctional nor do I believe it blocks change. The GAAC tries very hard to look at all issues brought to the GAAC and recommend what is best for the community and the animals."

Yet, Laberge is hard pressed in explaining her support of the 2007 Animal Ordinance Revisions that allowed the county to jail pet owners and take away their family pets for minor ordinance infractions. She hard pressed in explaining the lack of a volunteer program, she's hard pressed in explaining the shelter's policy of "trap and kill" for ferals which resulted in a huge increase in the number of cats being killed.

Clearly, the best interests of the community and the animals were not served with those sentencing guidelines - nor are the best interests of the taxpayers who foot the bill for all of this excessive killing.

Laberge tried to clarify her comments with "There are seven members of the GAAC and we don't always agree. I have only one vote and sometimes I am in the minority on a decision, an example was the regulation to ban all tethering. I stated at the time that I thought that was a mistake and it has proven true, but the Council voted and the majority of members at that time wanted to ban all tethering."

In reality, there were no dissenting votes in approving this flawed bill which now has been corrected. If Laberge lacks the backbone to vote her conscience then she should not be in a leadership position.

A true paradigm shift is called for in that we must get past the mind set that “killing the excess is what we have to do.” We must find the ways and means to improve current programs and implement additional programs that we know save lives.

WE MUST get past this current thinking of justifying the excuses for killing a pet and push on to ways and methods for saving lives. The history and voting record of this GAAC, many of whom are long time members, will not be resolved without changes in the makeup and will of the council. We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett support a proposal that would have added in local pet owners from each commissioner's district.

GAAC Chairperson Laberge has removed this proposal from the GAAC agenda. There have been no discussions or an up or down vote that addresses changing the makeup of the board to be more inclusive for local pet owners.

In her explanation she explains "just because the topic of the GAAC was not on the April agenda does not mean the topic has been removed for future meetings. But I will remind you that in the end, the Commissioners decide the makeup of the GAAC. The Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council (GAAC) does not have the authority to expand the size of the GAAC. Enlarging the membership of the GAAC can only be done by the Gwinnett County Commissioners and the Commissioners are the only ones who can do the by-laws for the GAAC."

That does not explain her efforts to halt discussions on this proposal. The GAAC does have a responsibility to discuss, vote on and send forward any proposals for board considerations. She is correct, however, in the end it will be up the BOC who answer to the voters to determine whether our animal advisory council includes voices from the pet owning community or continues to disenfranchise them instead.

With the next meeting scheduled for July 21st, we will once again face the sad reality that "the business of killing our community's pets" is our animal welfare policy for the balance of 2009. This is clearly not acceptable to those demanding change.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Tomorrow's DOA Meeting CANCELED

One of the advocates planning on attending tomorrow afternoon's meeting of the Department of Agriculture's "Companion Animal Advisory Board" has been informed by Mary Green's office the meeting is "canceled".

According to Susan Berryman, who works in Mary Greene's office, Mary is in Savannah for the weekend and she seemed to think that the May 2nd date was a "typo". She claims the meeting was scheduled for May 12th, but overheard that has been canceled (was erased from Mary Greene's calendar.

The May 2nd date was given to me on the telephone when I originally consulted with the Department of Ag office weeks ago. It was verified as a response to my open records request by return mail PRIOR to my announcing that date to the various rescue groups and advocates who were planning on attending.

One is left to guess whether this was a deliberate attempt to keep this group's activity out of the public eye which would be an egregious violation of the open meeting act this group is required by law to follow.

For those of us who now have to reschedule OUR weekend at this late hour my suggestion is to make our voices heard loud and clear - "this lack of professionalism is NOT acceptable" for a group who exists to serve the public's needs - not their own.

At this point the "meeting" has been rescheduled for August 11th BUT I certainly wouldn't take THAT to the bank.

Contact list to demand an explanation as to why this group feels it is above following the law. -

Carolyn Danese Companion Animal Advisory Board Chairperson

Gail Laberge Companion Animal Advisory Board Vice-Chairperson

Mary Greene phone 404-656-4914

Obviously, this group needs a much more extensive investigation into how it operates and why it seems intent on remaining so secretive.

Reminder - Dep of Ag "Companion Animal Advisory Board" Meeting Sat May 2nd

If your involved in rescue, if you care about puppy mills that seem to skip from one warning to the next, if your concerned about why some shelters still gas, if your concerned about why there isn't any plan for bringing shelters into the same compliance requirements that rescue groups are held to the you really need to show up for Saturday's Dept of Ag's "Animal Advisory Board" meeting.

This meeting will be held at 1:00 PM, 19 Martin Luther King Jr Drive SW, Atlanta, Ga 30334. It's open to the public.

My attempts at getting a copy of the meetings agenda failed despite "open meetings" requirements that the agenda be posted. In fact, it seems that for years now this group has "governed" or offered advise on "governing" for years now bypassing the laws requirements of transparency to the public.

I was able to discover - "I think" that the group is chaired by Carolyn Danese and Co-chaired by AKC's Gail Laberge. This group is critical in moving any statewide agenda that addresses puppy mill enforcement, shelter operations, the gassing issue or a number of other companion animal issues in Georgia. For years it too has been a closely guarded "boys and girls" club that operates at the pleasure of Tommy Irvin. The decisions made here trickle down to bad policies that effect each and every county in the state.

You can read more in my recent expose at: