We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett - Shelter Report 2010

A sand so white and sea so blue

Can’t match our tear stained eyes

How many moons and many June’s

Before we let them leave alive

The following spreadsheets are a compilation of six years of shelter statistics – including three years from the old shelter (2005-2007) and three years with our new shelter. The data represents only the live animals that entered the shelter. Since the shelter officially opened in the last quarter of 2007 some of the numbers for 2007 were skewed upwards



                            **********OLD SHELTER********* **NEW SHELTER***
                             **2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**

Felines Handled
Felines Strays            1707       1771        1981         2487         2836       1318
Felines Surrendered   2642       2257        2051         2343         2298       2486
Felines Total Incoming  4349    4028        4032         4830         5134       3804
Felines Killed                3084    3079        3169         4025         4588      3232
Felines Picked Up Owner  57      28            43             18           108              32

Total Canine/Feline In    9,868    9,107     9,174       10,437     11,063       8,845
Total Out Alive              4609      4136     4660          4049        4157        3567
Total Out Dead              5229      5399    5842          6991        7608        5707

After three years of a steady increase in “stray cats” the number of stray cats picked up in 2010 went from 2,836 in 2009 to 1,318 in 2010. While the number of cats surrendered at the shelter increased slightly from 2,298 in 2009 to 2,486 in 2010 the overall effect was a cat intake number of 5,134 in 2009 dropping to 3,804 in 2010 or a net decrease of 1,330.

That number mirrors the drop in cats killed from 4,588 in 2009 to 3,232 in 2010 or 1,356 that were saved by simply leaving them alone.

That in itself might be a feel good statement, but for taxpayers the “potential savings is in the range of between $120,000 and $150,000 (*** see note) in animal control costs.

Potential, because in order to capture those savings a management team familiar with the concept of changing with the communities needs is needed. Now, if that gets your attention read on, we CAN save more.

One might suggest not picking up strays cats placed the community or cats at risk thus justifying the huge yearly expenditures for the “catch and kill” enforcement model, yet, there isn’t any statistical data to support that.

***cost figures based on manpower, equipment needed for catch/impound, cost of intake handling, cost of care and manpower during housing, costs of killing and cost of disposing of waste.****

One would think that the “excess” cats would find their way to the highways as “road kill” yet, in 2010 the number of dead cats picked up off the road dropped as well from 263 in 2009 to 153 in 2010.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett applaud this policy change and encourage the county to adopt a “Trap/Neuter/Release” program in partnership with the “Feral Cat Rescue Community” completely outsourcing forever the issue of feral cats in our county.

The goal should be zero for the number of stray cats picked up by animal control in 2011. Attaining that goal alone would result in another 1,300 cats not entering the shelter allowing the shelter to focus on providing shelter and top notch adoption/rescue opportunity thus relieving the county of the cost and negative stigma of simply killing these cats as well.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett strongly encourages a task force committee study the alternate Trap/Neuter/Return programs. Madison County (GA) embraces a trap/neuter/release policy because it SAVES MONEY.

This “task force committee” approach is hallmark too success in business. There could not be a better time for this county to reach out to it’s citizens for help in attaining our shared goals. It certainly is a better approach then to continue squandering this trust instead.

Note: There wasn’t any increase in 2010 in the number of cats that were adopted or that went to rescue. That would have been another cost savings as well.

FACT - Despite killing 98 cats in December 2010 there were only SEVEN cats available for adoption when I visited the shelter on January 6th 2011.

I am also disappointed that ANY cats were killed in December of 2010 since little effort was made trying to promote adopting/rescuing these cats out AND there was plenty of empty cage space. It should be appalling to all citizens that our leadership in animal control places so little value with these cat’s lives.

No cat should be killed as long as there is ONE space available to keep it’s alive – that’s not providing shelter – that’s slaughtering an innocent cat.

Shelter numbers for dogs

                                                 Gwinnett Shelter Stats 2005 thru 2010
                           **********OLD SHELTER********* **NEW SHELTER***
                          **2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**

Canines Handled
Canines Strays       3026         3068         3095         3539         3823          3455
Canines Surrendered  2493     2011         2047         2068         2106          1586
Canines Total Incoming  5519  5079        5142         5607         5929           5041
Canines Killed         2145         2320        2673         2966         3020          2475
Canines Picked Up Owner 891   860          865          924           885            936

The number of dogs picked up as strays picked up from 3,823 in 2009 to 3,455 or a drop of over 10%. Likewise, owner surrender’s dropped from 2,106 in 2009 to 1,586 in 2010 or close to 25%. The combined result was a drop in canine intake numbers from 5,929 in 2010 to 5,041 in 2010.

Dogs killed 2009     3,020
Dogs killed 2010     2,475

Dead dogs picked up from the road 2009     320
Dead dogs picked up from the road 2010     249

We like to think that these numbers are the result is from the responsible pet owners feeling less intimidated into surrendering their responsibility under the threatening guidelines of the old animal “nuisance” ordinance that the county had the courage to correct.

We recommend offering low cost retention services like microchipping where pet owners would be guaranteed at least one “free ride home” for any pets picked up that whose owner can easily be identified.


We encourage the county to investigate expanding cost saving programs offering low cost spay/neuter services, low cost vaccination programs and pet retention consulting under a revamped and retooled animal services unit.

Partnering with the Rescue Community – A Dismal Failure

                           *********OLD SHELTER***** **NEW SHELTER***
                         **2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**

Animals Adopted   2326       1756         1982         1906         2093          1583
Animals Rescued    1335       1492        1770          1201         1071          1016

Citizens Visiting Shelter (2009)     32,308
Citizens Visiting Shelter (2010)     27,791

The number of citizens visiting the shelter fell off in 2010 by 4,500 visits. The number of pets sent to rescue continues to drop – adding to the cost of running the shelter.

The number of pets adopted from our new shelter dropped as well. Adoptions fell by 25% from 2,093 in 2009 to 1,583 in 2010. This is disappointing as well.

Clearly, we have not fully utilized or promoted our new shelter for the reasons it was built. The shelter was NOT built as a more efficient detention, disposal operation – it was built to service the needs of pet owners in our community.

Innovative shelter managers realize that moving a pet to rescue or finding a family to adopt ends the county’s responsibility and expense in handling that pet. .

It simply COST money to kill a pet and COST NOTHING to save it..

We call on the county to replace the current “Rescue/Adoptions Coordinator” with a qualified civilian applicant with the experience and motivation needed to build this partnership.

We encourage the county to expand on promoting shelter pets through the many social networks that other progressive shelters are using. Posting pets on Facebook saves lives and provides the rescue community with accurate information on URGENT pets. It also results in more pets being adopted and more going to rescue. That saves money.

Shelters competing for market share with other kill shelters in the region – Gwinnett chooses to NOT compete. This policy cost the taxpayers money.

When you look at the number of dogs and cats that still are being killed, you realize that if only we were “doing our best” we would reach goals on adoption/rescue that were our best efforts in the past. Those best numbers combined with fall into the 4,000 to 4,500 dogs and cats saved.

Simply by doing our best we would save from 1,500 to 2,000 pets are currently being killed by NOT doing our best.

When you add that number to the number of 1,300 stray cats that shouldn’t be being picked up in the first place and we now reduce the killing by 3,000 or more in 2011.

That is our goal. That is our target for saving lives.

Enforcement issues and warning Signs for 2011

There are warning signs from 2010 shelter report that are concerning as well.

For one, the number of complaints responded too in 2009 totaled 25,049. In 2010 animal control responded too 25,259 complaints.

Citations issued dropped off as follows:

Restraint 10-29 (2009)    685 - note – there were no warnings issued at all
Restraint 10-29 (2010)    440

License No Tag 10-43 (2009)     345
License No Tag 10-43 (2010)     171

Public Nuisance Animal 10-33 (2009)     500
Public Nuisance Animal 10-33 (2010)     290

Fact is, even citations issued for “nuisance animals” dropped as well in 2010.

Those numbers are tempered with new categories created with the revised barking/tethering ordinance passed in 2009

Barking (which used to be part of the nuisance section) 10-51B (2010)    54
Duty to be a responsible owner (2010)    140

So, while those numbers remain constant – under the new law NONE of these pet owners add to the number of pets entering our shelters but instead are resolving there pet issues through mediation or fines – just as it should be.

Vicious Animal 10-37 (2009)   39
Vicious Animal 10-37 (2010)     5

Biting Animal 10-38 (2009)   44
Biting Animal 10-38 (2010)     5

Animal Control has a huge responsibility in keeping our community safe from vicious or dangerous dogs. Despite all the media hype about ‘pit bulls” in our county being a “clear and present danger” the numbers don’t bear that out either.

Even the number of bite cases dropped from 44 in 2009 to again FIVE in 2010.

Doesn’t sound like a problem HUGE enough to pass new laws that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to enforced, especially if we’re trying to move that number from FIVE to ZERO?

A Transformation in ideology takes root

Animal Control killed 3,455 dogs and 3,232 cats in 2010. Our goal for 2011 is too reduce that number by 3,000 moving us that much closer to becoming Georgia’s first No Kill Community.

Solving our longstanding and expensive animal control issues was the foundation for which “Animal Advisory Reform Resolution” was built on. We acknowledge and support the work of Dr Tim Montgomery and Superior Court Judge Carla Brown for their role in writing this proposed resolution. We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett appreciate being given the opportunity to participate in that process.

This resolution has the overwhelming support of citizens in our community as well.

Collectively as a community, we have provided the bricks, tools and mortar necessary to build the bridge, but need the political leadership and courage to lead the way.

We respectfully request once again an UP or DOWN vote on this issue that has been held hostage for TOO LONG.

A unique opportunity for the county presents itself to selectively invest in programs that will continually lower our intake numbers moving us closer to ending all the needless killing of dogs and cats in our shelter.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett have provided and will continue to provide a blueprint for that success. All of our proposals will be short term budget neutral with long term cost savings of lowering intake built in.

We seek the leadership in our government, our shelter and our animal welfare community that SHARES that vision. Can we count on YOU?

We encourage our elected officials to give strong consideration to a long term strategy for it’s animal welfare issues. The focus remains to control costs and provide the citizens with the quality of animal services they and their family pets deserve.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett are committed to building a responsible community of pet owners by empowering our citizens to do the right thing for not only their pets but the neighborhood and community as well.

This is about working together as a community in solving our animal problems, that’s how a democracy works.

Follow:

No Kill Gwinnett on Twitter
http://twitter.com/#!/by20hounds
No Kill Gwinnett on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/No-Kill-Gwinnett/126165217428735?v=info
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#!/pages/We-the-Pet-Owners-of-Gwinnett/146231598744336

Changing the way we think about animal control

Much has changed in the field of animal control in the past five years. We know how to end the killing of all healthy adoptable dogs and cats. We know how to implement cost effective, community supported feral cat programs, low cost spay/neuter services and proactive adoption programs. Many animal shelters across the country have no only embraced the No Kill philosophy, but more important the programs and services that make that possible.

One would think that with all this success is saving shelter pets innovative communities like Gwinnett would be leading the charge at our own shelter – but it is not.

After an exhaustive study on how our county provides it’s advise our animal related issues it became apparent that the system was broken.  Detailed documents on every Animal Advisory Council meeting in the years from 2006 through the summer of 2008 showed an alarming disconnection with issues that plagued our shelter.

It became apparent that we not only needed to reform how we ran our shelter but more importantly how we developed our animal welfare policies and restore confidence with pet owners in the community.

The “Animal Advisory Council Reform Resolution” tackles the difficult process of how we provide expert advise to our political process in developing a long term animal welfare program that not only meets the expectations of the community but more importantly looks at programs that will reduce the cost of animal control moving forward while putting an end to the killing on healthy dogs and cats that our shelter is supposed to protect.

The credit for this resolution goes to AAC members Carla Brown and Tim Montgomery who worked diligently in finding common ground. The resolution is up for consideration by our commissioners is collaboration with the current animal advisory council who passed this resolution without dissent.

As in any change – the “devil is in the details” – here is precisely what these changes are::

The membership changes from the current seven members to eleven. Only two positions were left intact under the new makeup of the board, they are the Lawrenceville Kennel Club and the Gwinnett Municpal Association retains.

The Gwinnett County Extension Service position was eliminated and replaced with a representative from the “Livestock Animals”

Gwinnett Humane Society’s position has been eliminated and replaced with a representative for the “Gwinnett Rescue community”.

The Feline Interest position remains but will be filled by a representative from the Feline Rescue community specifically with experience in developing a feral cat program.

The two “Member at Large” positions have been eliminated and replaced with one member being appointed by each commissioner’s district and a representative appointed by the county Chair. This will form the direct communication link between the advisory council and the board of commissioners that has been lacking.

The advisory council will no longer report findings and recommendations to animal control and the Gwinnett Police Department but instead forward these recommendations directly to the Board of Commissioners. The GAAC will forward only those recommendations that have been approved by majority vote.

It will remain the responsibility of the Board of Commissioners to make final decisions on all recommendations submitted.

There are also procedural issues that were addressed.

Officers elected to the same office will have a two-year term limit.

Two Year Term Limit on chair position.

Members can set up subcommittees that investigate specific issues/problems without approval from animal control or the GPD.  This will set in motion creating subcommittees to investigate solutions for problems like feral cats, building a no kill community and developing an animal services unit that serves and educates the community on responsible pet ownership.  This coalition building will bring together many of the experts in animal welfare who have been disenfranchised from the process.

This is not cosmetic change - this is changing our animal welfare culture.  This is about opening up the door for others to join in on the discussion and participate in the process.

The most significant change comes with HOW this group will study issues.

Section 12 – Committees – The chairman may appoint, with concurrence of the GAAC, various standing and temporary committees to further proposals of the GAAC. Such committees may include members of the staff of various county departments, residents and business owners of the county whose background and knowledge may be a benefit of the GAAC in accomplishing it’s goals.

The purpose of the committees shall be to make detailed investigations, stidies and recommendations to the GAAC as instructed pertaining to matters or classes of matters within it’s purview.

The Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall be an ex-officio member of all committees.

This step alone opens up the process of developing breakthrough thinking leading the way towards solving long-term problems with animal issues in our community.

We now stand on the mountain of change.  While our efforts have brought us to this pinacle - it will be YOUR efforts that decide our county's destiny.   The question is "do we want to slip backwards and return to the valley of failure and doom" or do we want to march boldly on to the promised land that embraces life saving thinking instead.  I think we know that answer.


Please write your commissioner and ask for their support in passing this resolution.

Neighborhood Bully under seige

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Still The Band Played On

Still The Band Played On

This blog was created with a purpose of informing local pet owners on the laws and rights of pet ownership in our county. It is presents a vision of how we can work together in reducing the number of pets who are senselessly killed in our new shelter when life saving alternatives do exist.

There is a paradigm of killing that is embraced by those who control our animal welfare policies who are resistant, down right stubborn, to any suggestions of change that would focus on life saving alternatives instead.


While history has praised the band that went down with the Titantic as heroes, there are no heroes for those who defend the the practice of killing innocent yet homeless animals.

Initially, the focus of my writing was to protect all of my hounds from the county’s attempt to include their lives as part of any plea bargain with the court. There has never been a reasonable explanation why a first offense, amounting to three minutes of barking, could send me to jail for twelve years.  Instead, this type of "behavior by the court" was used to extort a guilty plea in exchange for the lives of ten of my hounds.

For my role in speaking out, I have paid a heavy price, including the loss of my freedom,  I was was sentenced to thirty days in jail for “violating probation” which ultimately lead to the death of one of my beloved hounds Bam Bam.

That type of sentencing extreme would be common for violent criminals, drug offenders, sexual predators or even white collar criminals but for three minutes barking offenses?

Since the solicitor never presented any evidence of my incident being anything more then a first offense, the county attorney's office should have offered a nolo plea, with a reasonable fine, which I probably would have accepted.  Had we reached an agreement the county would have come out ahead as opposed to opening up the vault in a desperate attempt to punish me.

Instead, the case mutated into a costly nightmare that included several pre trial hearings, a full blown trial (Dog Barking Case of the Century) covered by the media, which lead to a finding of guilt and a sentence of two years jail time (served on probation) and that my property be “brought into compliance with all zoning codes within 45 days”.  In the end the county emerged battered and bruised in the court of public opinion, the hounds became heroes oblivious to all the new found fame..

I was content with an outcome that didn’t include the court placing a “pet limit” on my property.  Judge Muise did correctly rule that doing so would amount to the court invoking zoning requirements, which is outside of the courts juristiction.  Nor did the court include any fines due the county.

The county attorney's office wasn’t content on simply silencing the hounds.  Instead, an effort was made to silence me as well.   I was told that as a part of my two year probation term I would be prohibited from speaking out, either verbally or through my writing, with any negative comments about the solicitor’s office, animal control or any of the witnesses who testified in my case.  Those witnesses included Lilburn City Councilman and tax cheat Eddie Price).

As an advocate and a writer these conditions were clearly not acceptable.  There has never been any precedence that would include surrendering one's first amendment right to "free speech" for a misdemeanor offense   Clearly, the lengthy probation term was more about silencing me as opposed to “bringing peace and tranquility" to a neighborhood that has overwhelmingly supported the hounds.

While one would assume that attempts at limiting discussions on governmental policies might be expected in some third world areas where oppression rules the land, one should be outraged that the "law of our land" would include such outrageous conditions.  Since I also intended on changing the nuisance barking law that was used to manipulate my case, this condition was tempered but ignored.

Once the hounds were safe, I moved forward with having the barking law changed.  There were a number of issues in the old law that clearly violated pet owners rights, including the issue that allowed citizens to file a criminal complaint with no policing agency being required to investigate whether a crime had indeed been committed. Nowhere in the constitution are citizens granted such broad policing powers.

The other changes involved requiring complainants to actually live nearby where the alleged complaints were filed. Both witnesses in my case, realtor Porter and Councilman Price lived several miles away with their only interests being rental property they owned.

Finally, the sentencing guidelines that allow animal control and more importantly the animal advocating attorney who wrote the law to threaten and extort pet owners into surrendering their family pets or go to jail had to be removed in it’s entirety.  This is the area where I went nose to nose with our self proclaimed animal advocating attorney who not only wrote the previous law but wanted to strengthen any new law by limiting barking where any dog that barked six times for thirty seconds would be a violation of the ordinance.

Animal advocacy is, in a certain sense, standing up to tell true life

stories that are not being heard; true life stories that most people are

ignoring. The first step in animal advocacy is to help people see things

differently. Animals are somebody, not something. - Tom Regan

The public saw through this madness and sided with the barking provisions recommended by "We the Pet Owners.  With her law now extinct it became clear that the county attorney’s office and the court was not happy with my involvement in rebuking her idea of advocating for animals by sending them to our high kill shelter simply because they bark. 

No longer could she build her career by sending innocent dogs and cats to animal control despite her claims "where they would be adopted".  Had she ever bothered to really get her "hands dirty" by investigating the truth on the fate of animals entering our shelter, especially our new shelter, she would have realized that for most this was a death sentence.  While it may be understandable that animals living in "squalor" might be better off dead (something I don't advocate for) hounds who are living in a responsible, loving home would never be better off dead.

Maybe, she was upset because I hurt her feelings.

Instead of thanking me for streamlining the court process and saving the county money by having these cases resolved through mediation my efforts were instead greeted with six attempts to revoke my probation for much mundane offenses like failure to pay probation fees of $129 and for alerting the county tax office of Councilman Price’s fraudulent claim of a homestead exemption on property he owned nearby.

The county attorney’s office proceeded with six attempts to revoke my probation including attempts to. One would assume that the courts would focus on jailing violent offenders that present a danger to the community, especially during an economic downturn that has many fellow citizens struggling financially. In fact, even when presented with prior Supreme Court rulings (Georgia vs Bearden) where the court upheld the Fourteenth amendment which prohibits incarcerating citizens simply because they have an inability to pay fines or fees.

In that ruling, the court suggested that non violent offenders be offered alternatives to jail not limited to changing fines or fees over to community service instead. My repeated attempts at offering to pay back “restitution” with community service were denied.

This makes absolutely no sense, of course, in lieu of recent studies by “Engage Gwinnett” that point out the cost of incarcerating a person to taxpayers is about $45 a day – thirty days incarceration comes at a cost of $1,350. Even with the good time provisions that allowed me to “only” serve 15 days the cost to taxpayers was $675 – for a failure to pay Sentinel Offender Services $474 in fees – none of which were due the county of Gwinnett. 

Since when does the court have a responsibilty to improve the bottom line for a private company like Sentinel by acting as a collection agent with tactics one would expect from the mob - not our courts.
Anyone else who used threats and intimidation to collect money would be charged with a RICO violation.

These are the facts in my case – even though my case is officially over – even though I have no further business with the court – the court is now attempting to intimidate me from speaking out about my dreadful experience.  This has never been about seeking justice for something the hounds may have done – it’s about punishing me for my dissent.

On July 28th I wrote an entry that explained how our court case was now over with the following article which was only initially released to the rescue community.

http://by20hounds.blogspot.com/2010/07/dog-barking-case-ends-with-30-jail.html

Sittin' and starin' out of the hotel window.

Got a tip they're gonna kick the door in again

I'd like to get some sleep before I travel,

But if you got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in. –

Words from Grateful Dead – “Trucking”

This article was released early in the morning. Within the hour two animal control trucks pulled up wanting to “inspect my house”. I simply informed animal control's "cruelty officer" that the court case was over, probation was over (which never included allowing inside inspections of my home since the barking incident occurred outside) and that absent any proof of a specific cruelty or neglect complaint there would be no inside inspection of the hounds or my property.

The law is clear on this, policing agencies are required to attain warrants before storm trooping your home, looking under your bed, rifling through your belongings, invading the sancity of your home looking for alleged criminal activity with no prior proof that a crime has or will be committed.

Further, AC was advised that if they were truly concerned about issues with the hounds they could simply go to FACEBOOK (like everybody else) where I have shared dozens of pictures of the hounds inside our “castle’ and that was as close as they would get.  The truth be known, why would I trust the judgment of  animal.control with a history of being complacent with killing?

Our shelter director can not explain why she choose to send two trucks with two officers who spent at least two hours “investigating” my property simply because of something I wrote on a blog. This is an abuse of power which she should be held accountable for, especially since she has repeatedly claimed she can’t implement programs that save lives at the shelter she manages because the citizens in our community don’t give her the resources needed to do the job. She has the resources; she simply squanders these resources in her attempts to punish anyone who has the nerve to hold her accountable.

One would think that would be the end of those in positions of making responsible decisions on spending resources that should be directed towards the real crime issues we face in Gwinnett. Tuesday morning I answered a call from someone who identified himself as an “Officer of the Court” who wanted to discuss comments I had written on my blog.

After pointing out that all of the comments I had written were protected under the first amendment and after he assured me I wouldn’t be arrested for those comments I agreed to meet him outside to clear up any questions he might have.

According to the two officers who showed up, a court clerk had brought this posting to the attention of the court as “threatening” and they just wanted to make sure I had no intentions of being “violent”. It was pointed out that there was nothing in the post were threats were made that could even remotely be viewed as threats as opposed to what appeared to be one more desperate attempt to silence my comments by intimidation.

What bothers me is why would the court assign a clerk to monitor private emails I have written in the first place?  Would they prefer I send them an advance copy for their review? 

Since this happened early in the morning with the court in session I would assume the court could find more productive duties.  Not only was the court clerk’s time a waste and abuse of the court system but to send two officers to my house when they had my cell number where any misconceptions could be cleared up is mystifying.   This isn't about justice, it's about protecting personal agenda's and appeasing political special interests.

Anyone smarter then a fifth grader would be able to see that the only weapon I have ever used is my keyboard.  The only way I’ll give up my keyboard is when the county pries it from my cold dead fingers.

I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way.

Thomas Jefferson

The right to dissent is a core value and foundation with which our country was founded.

All the flag waving in the world doesn’t make us free if we are intimidated against speaking out against those who are supposed to uphold the law. The court is free to answer why they deemed this case so important to proceed in the irresponsible manner as they have.

Over the years I have volunteered over 5000 hours of my time trying to place hounds in homes. Still I am saddened by the fact I no longer feel safe living in this community. While I do feel safe inside my home I certainly don’t feel safe outside. How ironic that it’s not the fear of being victimized by a criminal element that concerns but instead a fear I now have for our county government instead. Love my country but fear my government.

It should be obvious that these latest acts of desperation from the court and from the leader of animal control come from those who are trying to protect that power to kill - acts of desperation coming from an obsolete killing mechanism that's sinking faster then the Titanic. With a ship hell bent on killing sinking fast, this band of characters still plays on.

We have two political positions on the fate of animals sent to animal control being actively discussed in our community. Those who want to protect a paradigm of killing that is embraced by animal control, our county attorney’s office and the court and those who want to change the focus to proven life saving alternatives instead.

The question for those on the fence is what side of the issue do you want to end up on? The side that will continue to abuse their power in a feeble attempt to bale out the water on a sinking ship OR the many No Kill Advocates who are offering life boats to anyone who is willing to abandon this killing philosophy.

Your typical city involved in a typical daydream

Hang it up and see what tomorrow brings.

Sometimes the cards ain't worth a damn, if you don't lay'em down and play your hand.,

I guess they can't revoke your soul for tryin',

Get out of the door and light out and look all around - Grateful Dead

One would assume that these recent threats would cause me to throw down my “axe” in disgust but in doing so I would dishonor all of the brave souls who through the years fought and died to keep this country free.

For those dumber then a fifth grader, an “axe” is British slang for a “tool used to create words that cut deep”, no violence intended there either.

Now, excuse me while I answer the door…. It’s the band still playing on….. disconnected.

Dismantling the Killing Machine

Shelter’s killing dogs and cats by the thousand

“If we are to reach the goal of a No-Kill Nation, we must move past the notion that animals are being killed because of pet overpopulation (not enough homes), because we don’t have enough laws, or because the public is irresponsible – Nathan Winograd

Contrary to what many shelters falsely claim are the primary hurdles to life saving, be it the public’s irresponsibility or lack of homes during this period of economic downturn, the greatest impediments are actually in the shelter manager’s hands.

Animals in shelters, like Gwinnett, are being killed because shelter management clings to kill oriented practices.

For far too long animal advocates have remained silent to this abuse – yet sanctioning or allowing these practices to continue will never bring this killing to an end.

In the end, this is not a war of words or ideas but a life and death struggle to save all the healthy and treatable animals we claim to advocate for. In the end, this issue is not about “too many”, “not enough” or “more or less”, the question that begs for a moralistic answer is “why do we kill healthy pets at all”?

Yet, every dog and cat that enters our shelter is more likely to be killed as a result of our broken animal shelter system. For nine out of ten cats that enter our shelter there is absolutely no chance at survival. Dogs don’t fare much better.

The public is increasingly aware of just how broken our shelter policies are and will support proven “No Kill” alternatives. What the public won’t support is a defeatist attitude that wants to blame them for the killing.

The public is left to believe that it is their irresponsible actions as pet owners who is at fault for this failure. Yet, its not the irresponsible public who fails to implement life saving programs at our shelter, nor is it the irresponsible public who fails to hold the animal control staff accountable either. It’s definitely not the irresponsible public that decides the only workable solution for shelter dogs and cats is the “blue solution”.

Effectiveness in our shelters goals and operations begin with competent leadership that sets realistic life saving goals and holds her staff accountable for reaching those goals.

Our battle is against those who claim to be part of our movement but fail to recognize the killing of shelter animals as the ultimate betrayal

It is time that pet owners in our community have an open discussion, not on the excuses given for killing healthy pets but why we kill healthy pets in the first place.

The fact is killing is neither kind, nor necessary, nor does it prevent any future animal suffering. The decision to kill an otherwise healthy animal is not only the ultimate act of irresponsible behavior but it is clearly immoral as well.

In contrast, animals that enter our shelter should be cared for and be saved – no excuses – no blame game.

That is the right thing to do in a community that is compassionate about our pets. A morally acceptable way to run our shelter. Ultimately, does it really matter how they arrive at the shelter as much as how they leave the shelter?

Shelter “Death by Numbers”


“There is nothing so wasteful as doing with great efficiency that which doesn’t have to be done at all. – Anonymous

Our shelter continues to “kill it’s way” to animal control with a majority of animals entrusted to their care paying dearly with their lives. Yet one might suggest that despite all of this killing our shelter is more out of control then anytyime in recent hisory.  The shelter has failed to set a mission to control the killing.  Staff accountability, effective life-saving programs, and good relations with the community currently do not exist.

The following spreadsheets are a compilation of five years of shelter statistics – including three years from the old shelter (2005-2007) and two years with results from the new shelter (2008-2009). The data represents only the live animals that entered the shelter. Since the shelter officially opened in the last quarter of 2007 some of the numbers for 2007 were skewed upwards

Felines Handled           2005     2006     2007     2008     2009
Feline Strays                1707     1771      1981    2487     2836
Felines Surrendered     2642    2257      2051     2343    2298
Total Incoming              4349    4028      4032     4830    5134
Felines Killed                3084    3079      3169     4025    4588
Felines Return/Owner      57        28          43         18      108

What is telling about these numbers is the dramatic increase in feline cats entering our shelter system after 2007. The number of cats killed at our new shelter went from an average of slightly over 3000 to 4500 in 2009 or an increase of 50%. The number of cats being surrendered has remained constant at around 2300. Since the shelter doesn’t report separately on cats that are adopted or that go to rescue the increase in killing of cats (1500) is a combination of increases in strays picked up in the field and a decrease in the number of cats going that are adopted or go to rescue.

Yet, not once has our Animal Advisory Council or the shelter’s management brought up the issue of cats during the meetings this author has attended for the last two years. It would appear that killing cats has become acceptable to those who manage our shelter..

The fact remains that there isn't a leash law for cats.  Any cat picked up as a stray is impounded despite the cat not violating any of the ordinances.  Nor is animal control required to pick up stray cats.  With a 90% kill rate on cats this author has questioned the reasoning behind management's decison to continually round up cats she knows are going to be killed.  That's not a policy I would expect a compassionate director to implement.  While all cats are impacted by this policy it's the feral cats who are most in danger.

I have heard from several local volunteers who maintain trap/neuter/release colonies for feral cats and they are concerned that the county does not care whether a feral has been altered or whether someone has accepted the responsibility of feeding the colony.

Not only is the rampant killing of feral cats (Hemingway’s) morally wrong, it comes at a huge expense to our animal control budget as well.  Money that could be spent helping low income families alter their pets, help open the shelter more hours for potential adoptions and a variety of other pet friendly programs are squandered by this policy alone.

History has shown that killing has never been a solution to contolling feral population numbers – Trap/Neuter/Release programs have been successful in that area.

Canines don’t fare much better……..


Canines Handled            2005    2006     2007    2008     2009
Canines – Strays            3026     3068     3095    3539     3823
Canines Surrendered      2493     2011     2047    2068     2106
Total Incoming               5519      5079    5142     5607    5929
Canines Killed                2145     2320     2673    2966     3020
Returned to Owner           891       860       865      924       885

The numbers on canines are down for owner surrenders but there are huge increases once again in the number of strays that enter the new shelter. Some of this explanation could be as simple as poor customer service which has local pet owners concerned that the shelter will simply kill any pets that are turned in or perhaps it may account for pet owners who have been told that owner surrenders that enter the shelter without shot records are killed immediately. Pet owners might choose not to surrender a pet if they want to avoid an surrender fee. Unfortunately, any or all of these issues ends with the pet owner simply dumping the dog and letting it fend for itself.

No Kill is an open door facility where the shelter actually lives up to it’s name of providing shelter for pets with no where to go. Since there is little or no evidence that animal control officers are trying to return stray dogs in the field, one way to reduce the number of strays that ends up at the shelter is to aggressively scan for microchips or ask neighbors if the dogs owner is known.

It is far too simplistic to simply blame the public for a problem that management has spent little or no time determining if there were programs that might reduce these numbers instead. Absent a proactive management approach to problem solving the problem and costs associated with strays in our community will likely get worse.

The Killing Machine Continues

Since the shelter has failed to develop an infrastructure that saves pets, any increase in the number of pets entering the shelter results in a corresponding increase in the number killed. Not only has our shelter management fasiled to develop new programs that increase adoptions but it has failed miserably in building a partnership with Gwinnett’s diverse rescue community.

Dogs/Cats               2005       2006      2007       2008      2009
Animals Adopted     2326       1756      1982       1906      2093
Animals Rescued      1335       1492      1770       1201     1071

One could argue that adoption averages have remained constant from the results of the old shelter versus the new shelter except – we were told that by building a new shelter adoptions would increase. We do know that the shelter is capable of adopting out more – after all the best year was 2005. Is it poor customer service, lack of advertising, lack of promotions? Who knows – this is another area that management doesn’t seem to care about. Of course, the reduced hours of operation are probably suspect as well.

The biggest failure of shelter management can clearly be seen in the dramatic drop in the number of dogs and cats going to rescue. Those numbers dropped by 700 from 2007 to 2009 alone. This author would once again point out that not only is the reduced number of dogs and cats going to rescue a reflection of the failure of shelter management to work in partnership with the rescue community, but in fact, had management built these partnerships those numbers should have shown a dramatic increase instead.  That increase might have all but wiped out any increases in shelter intake.

One fact is beyond dispute – dogs and cats - going to rescue has been down by 30% for the last three years now. There's the new shelter that opened in 2007.  One would assume that the increaed killing isn't becuase a new facility was built.  With the new shelter came a new management agenda of focusing on enforcing the draconian animal ordinance passed in January of 2007.

Who wants to put themselves in potential harms way when the shelter management is threatening those who rescue with jail, huge fines and even loss of their personal pets???

Totals                            2005           2006       2007       2008       2009

Total Canine/Feline In    9868           9107       9174     10437      11063
Total Out Alive              4609           4136       4660       4049        4157
Total Out Dead              5229           5399       5842       6991        7608


What does it all mean? The number of dogs and cats killed has increased from 5200 in 2005 to an astounding 7600 in 2009 – we’re not only not approaching No Kill in our brand new state-of-the-art shelter but were going in the other direction at warp speed.

The buck stops at the Gwinnett Police Department’s management door. That’s were the decision was made to replace a shelter manager who had developed a partnership with the rescue community with a bona fide beat cop who knows how to write citations. Are they really surprised with the chaos that we now have?

The result of this colossal mistake is we end up with a totally unqualified shelter manager who finds enforcement, punishment and the killing of innocent animals entrusted in her care easier then developing the programs and partnerships to do otherwise.

The current shelter manager lacks management skills that manifests into poor community relations, poor customer service, a lack of lack of leadership in setting life saving goals for employees to meet. The job of management is not just supervision, but more importantly it’s leadership.

Management must work on sources of improvement, the intent to deliver a quality of service to the community’s pet owners, and off setting high expectations that all staff members would focus foremost on the shelter’s responsibility to save lives not end them.

Rather then removing employees who fail at their jobs, poor performance is tolerated and becomes the norm. There is no incentive for employees to go above and beyond in trying to save an animal’s life when it’s far easier and less time consuming to kill them. Since each shelter death is a failure, our shelter fails over 60% of the time.

Why else would management keep the current rescue coordinator in her position.  Her numbers alone would have been enough cause to at least move her where she couldn’t kill any more animals.

Instead, she has been rewarded with job security despite the number of animals placed with rescue is consistently down by 30% for three years in a row? Rewarded for what – because she’s valuable for not doing her job?

To this day, this rescue coordinator still refuses to post urgent lists to the rescue community – claims she doesn't have time.  Rescue is often the last resort for many of these pets.  Gwinnett remains the only shelter in the Atlanta area that doesn’t put out a weekly urgent list in the hopes that they can save more animals.

As Forrest Gump would say “That’s all I gotta say about that” cause it makes me ill to think anyone could shirk there responsibility to the pets they are about to kill.

Stay tuned for the rest of the story...............

Gwinnett's Dismal June Shelter Report

Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council – Shelter Report for July 2010

Last Tuesday the Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council held it’s quarterly meeting at the shelter. Since there was no attempt to notify thie public of this important meeting only two citizens from the community showed up. What follows are my comments on what was discussed and more importantly the lost opportunity of not discussing the current situation of disarray at the shelter.

After a brief introduction, GAAC Chair Gail Laberge mentioned the accomplishments of Society of Humane Friends “Jail House – Second Chance Dogs” program. This program has lead to the adoption of twenty two dogs that were slated as “un adoptable” by shelter standards, yet, with a little patience and more time afforded by jail house prisoners these dogs are now part of our community at large.

If a message should be taken from the success of the program it is that off site fostering is critical in saving ALL of the healthy but adoptable pets that are being killed instead.

In fact, I was there to witness a few dogs who arrived straight from the shelter. One, a five month old dobie mix puppy now named Ernie was rescued right of the “euth” table – only minutes from being killed by our shelter management.

Ernie arrived at the jail as a “wild, enthuastic and uncontrollable” puppy. He was obviously lacking in any previous training skills but with three or four days Ernie was following his handler around like he found his new best friend. In four short days Ernie went from an unsocial able “un adoptable” dog needing to be killed to a dog with a very promising future being adopted instead.

The question that needs to be asked by our community of pet lovers and animal advocates is what criteria was used in determining that Gwinnett would be better served if dogs like Ernie were simply killed and disposed of rather then attempting to find a safe place where an evaluation and retraining program could be utilized instead?

The answer to that question is probably little or no attempt was made to try and “save” Ernie because our leadership at the shelter places very little responsibility on the shelter’s “rescue coordinator to save lives as opposed to defending the “tough job” she has in having to kill all these wonderful pets.

To be clear, the decision to kill a dog like Ernie rests entirely on the shelter and it’s management decisions.

If the shelter chooses not to release an urgent plea to the rescue community seeking a place for dogs like Ernie then the follow up decision to kill dogs like him are the consequences of their laziness.

Not one member of our esteemed GAAC panel brought up any of these issues. They are supposed to be the experts providing our county commissioners with advise on improving shelter operations. Yet, not one mention of other “no kill” shelters successful use of volunteer foster homes that not only save the tax payers the expense of caring for dogs and cats needing more time for placement, but also the end result of foster homes that actually find homes for these pets as well.

It costs the taxpayers NOTHING to move dogs and cats to rescue groups or volunteer foster homes as opposed to the cost associated with holding and killing healthy animals instead. Of course, I would never attempt to put a price on an animals life.

What was left out of the discussion of the “Jail House Dogs” program was that a vast majority of the adoptions were from employees of the jail itself. One could only imagine the success of THAT program if it was properly promoted by bringing the “Jail House Dogs” to off site adoptions were the public could meet the dogs as well.

Next came the shelter manager Lt. Respress' “shelter report”. For June of 2010, she reported there were 1110 animals handled of which 98 were reclaimed. There were 137 adoptions (less then 15%), a deplorable 80 went to rescue (less then 8%) and the rest – 208 dogs and 468 cats were killed. That is an absolutely horrible month for homeless pets that went through our shelter.

Yet, the only suggestion offered to change those results was that the shelter will be showing movies and handing out popcorn on Friday nights. No plans for off site adoptions, no explanation why the shelter’’s web site still hasn’t changed the hours to let the public know it is oipen on Sunday’s now, no talk about promoting events for increasing adoptions, in fact, what was strangely absent from this meeting with the “experts” was this information seemed to be accepted as typical of the shelter’s dismal performance.

Have WE reached a point in our history of accepting a defeatist attitude that saving only a small number of homeless animals is somehow acceptable?

Our shelter manager’s refusal to address the dismal performance of the shelter’s “rescue coordinator” only points out her shortcomings at setting goals for her staff and holding them accountable.

For three years in a row now the number of dogs and cats that go to shelter are down by over 30% from the numbers out of the old shelter on Hi Hope Road.

This costs the taxpayers of Gwinnett over $50,000 a year alone in costs associated with caring for and killing pets that should be placed in rescue itstead.

Of course, as long as the shelter and the courts maintain an adversarial relationship with those who rescue in our community and threaten and jail people who speak out against the killing do we honestly think there is a partnership between the two groups?

Partnerships only work when there is a shared respect for the role each participant plays in helping to resolve the problems at the shelter.

I have no confidence that the current leadership is prepared to make even the easy decisions of replacing employees who clearly have agendas that kill animals in the shelter as opposed to those who honestly care about saving lives. Our current rescue coordinator has commented that she has no problem with killing any cat she thinks is feral – yet it is the taxpayers who foot the bill for a shelter that kills more then eight out of every ten cats that enter the shelter.

It’s time the community has an open discussion on why we pay for shelter operations that kill healthy adoptable pets while blaming the public for actions formulated by our own shelter management and the “leaders” in our animal welfare community.

The fact that there wasn’t even an attempt to address the high number of animals killed in June only points to the jaded opinions of our current GAAC that killing is the only option and we should just accept the “status quo” as “good enough.

Chair Laberge did mention that the board would be happy to look at any programs that “might help” but what is telling is that this is the group who is suppose to be the “experts” in animal welfare issues. Shouldn’t they already know about programs that are successful in other community’s?

Not only is there a need to reform the animal advisory board but for a change in leadership at the shelter as well. We must change our perspective on accepting the current leadership’s squandering of the new facility and the yearly budget that should be used on life saving programs but instead focuses on creating excuses for failure.

For more information on the alternative programs that are not being used at our shelter follow my blog at

http://by20hounds.blogspot.com/

Dog Barking Case Ends With 30 Day Jail Sentence

Controversial Dog Barking Case Ends With 30 Day Jail Sentence

After 33 months, our highly controversial dog barking case has come to a close. On June 29th Recorders Court Judge Patricia Muise revoked the remaining two months of a twenty four month term sentencing me to serve 30 days in the Gwinnett Detention Center for failure to pay $473 in probation fees.

While I have complied with the court’s order of “bringing my property in compliance with all zoning issues that alone did not satisfy the judge. This case has long drifted from a case of barking dogs to an issue of inflicting punishment for what the court found was an isolated “three minute” incident of barking close to three years ago.

Citizens should be concerned why our court system saw fit to hold seven pretrial hearings, a full trial and six hearings attempting to revoke my probation. During the process the court awarded (and the taxpayers funded) three court appointed attorney’s including one who was assigned in an attempt by Sentinel Offender Services to collect $129 in “late probation fees”.

Obviously, the court fails to understand that there are citizens in our community who have been effected by the economic downturn. Judge Muise seems confused not only on interpreting the constitution but the real concerns about crime in our community.

In an era where citizens are being threatened loss of police, fire and emergency services our court found fit to expend thousands and thousands of dollars to force me into surrendering dogs to our local shelter where they would be greeted by employees all to ready to kill them. Do we really feel safer knowing the county was able to lock up a retired senior citizen who was found guilty of providing a safe haven for some old hound dogs that otherwise would be dead?

I always said I would go to jail before I would allow the county the county to kill even one of my hounds – so NOW I’ve served my time. The leash is off – no more threats – no more intimidation.

Those of us in rescue have long been the last line of defense for the senseless killing of our companion friends. We speak out for the voiceless suffering and silent screams that kills far too many innocent creatures in our county funded kill shelter. Each life lost is sacred and I will continue to speak out against the planned slaughter of our county's homeless pets.

Unfortunately for everyone who was involved in passing the draconian ordinance in the first place one of my beloved beagles, Bam-Bam was killed while I was being held prisoner by the county of Gwinnett. Had these "leaders" in our animal; welfare movement been diligent in their duty to protect pet owners from repressive laws that threaten our pets Bam-Bam would still be alive today.

In passing the 2007 Draconian Ordinance which granted the county solicitor with broad powers to threaten and intimidate pet owners and in granting false hearted judges like Muise with the power to punish any pet owner who opposed this senseless slaughter of our family pets the wheel was set in motion that lead to Bam-Bam's death.

I always said “you kill one of my dogs and that changes everything….” That changes everything – the muzzle comes off too.

Gwinnett County can NEVER give me back what the county has taken from me and the hounds. The loss of Bam-Bam was not only senseless but avoidable.

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.....

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1076

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.