Thirty months ago, I went in front of the BOC to discuss the controversial animal ordinance passed in January of 2007. That ordinance passed in all of “sixteen seconds” without allowing any public reading of the proposed changes or more importantly – asking Gwinnett County’s pet owners for their comments on the new law.
With that vote thousands of pet owners throughout the county discovered that even being a responsible pet owner could lead to criminal charges being filed for such minor infractions as barking dogs, dogs tethered for short periods of time, no tags, and a number of other issues that micro-manage the care we provide our pets. Offenses that should have been “fix it” citations instead had pet owners facing losing their pets.
For their role, the solicitor’s office (who drafted and were charged with prosecuting the draconian bill) used the threats of jail and huge fines to intimidate pet owners into surrendering their family pets. Pet owners were being threatened with lengthy jail terms only further endangering their ability to care for their family members and their pets.
Instead of focusing our animal control resources on educating citizens on how to be responsible pet owners, our animal control resources and judicial resources were being directed towards prosecuting and impounding pets with the worst possible consequences leading to even more deaths at our brand new shelter.
How this revised ordinance became "law" is even more disturbing. This revision of animal ordinances in Gwinnett was passed solely on the recommendations of the county attorney's office with the blessing of Gwinnett's dysfunctional and highly secretive Animal Advisory Council.
Battle lines being drawn – nobodies right when owning a pet is wrong
At the June 24th 2008 BOC meeting each of the commissioner’s was provided with copies of the Animal Advisory Bylaws and copies of all Animal Advisory Council meetings held in 2006 drafting those changes.
One longtime advocate wrote this as her observation
“This shadowy group (AAC) in no way represents the citizens of Gwinnett County and in fact hides from us, refusing to post it’s meetings, agendas, or minutes on Gwinnett County’s excellent website, which is intended to keep Gwinnett citizens informed. I have attended many (AAC) council meetings and in almost every case I was the only non-member in attendance.
She further went on to report “The partisan inclinations of the core membership, combined with lack of participation from several members and complete isolation from county citizens, resulted in the council’s passage and the Commissioners’ subsequent passage of an animal ordinance of such breathtakingly draconian nature that it punishes the most minor infractions with thousands of dollars in fines and years in jail without the benefit of a jury trial. This ordinance has made Gwinnett a laughingstock among animal law specialists across the country, with several lawyers expressing the opinion that the law is unconstitutional on a variety of grounds. I sincerely hope our commissioners will expand the Council’s membership to be more inclusive and require it to abide by the spirit, not merely the letter, of Georgia’s Sunshine Laws.”
While each of the sitting commissioners received this information only then candidate Shirley Lassiter responded with “it would appear that holding any government meeting should be professional, open and convenient to all the citizens.”
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett couldn’t agree more. We not only believe that these meetings should be open to the public but more importantly the communication between pet owners in the community and the commissioners should be transparent and it is not.
Over the past thirty months our organization has worked diligently in presenting an “Animal Advisory Reform Resolution” that corrects these communication and transparency issues. Unlike the Animal Ordinance that was passed without public input our organization reached out across the county with full disclosure on all the issues involved.
We sought out the opinions of pet owners on issue that related to responsibly owning pets. We fought off numerous attempts by the AAC to drop these issues from AAC’s agenda. In the end these discussions generated the issues that were in serious need of reform. In the end we found common ground and compromise that served the citizens and gave a voice to responsible pet owners in Gwinnett.
The proposed revisions to the Animal Advisory Council Bylaws were drafted, discussed, argued and negotiated for close to a year now. To date, there has been nothing but support from the citizens on the final resolution that passed during the April 20th 2010 AAC meeting.
This resolution has been voted on and passed, the time for negotiation and discussion at this level is over. For animal control and the Gwinnett Police Department to hold these changes hostage six months later to protect the status quo of “catch and kill” is un-conscionable. It is NOW time to bring these issues to a vote in front of the commissioners who WE elected to oversee our interests.
Paranoia strikes deep – into your life it will creep
During the last AAC meeting the issue of reforming the Animal Advisory Council once again reared it’s ugly head. Shelter Director Lt. Respess brought up “new” concerns explaining “Animal Control and our superiors have concerns about the way the resolution is written”. With an air of pettiness animal control’s concerns focused on two areas, one “they” wanted to add a condition that “no one could serve in an advisory position who had violated any animal ordinance”. This stipulation is not only insulting to the citizens who would step forward but to the Commissioners as well, who I would hope would exercise good judgment and appoint people to this committee who they themselves have vetted. Appointments to the advisory council should NOT require approval from animal control or the Gwinnett Police Department especially in light of oversight implications.
One of many major malfunctions of the current makeup of the AAC is that anyone who disagrees with current (failed) policies at the shelter runs the risk of losing their position as an advisor. This stifles created innovation and leaves us with a process of simply defending the status quo. The current process of animal control and/or the Gwinnett Police Department having 100% control over who gets appointed or is allowed to stay on the AAC limits the free exchange of ideas.
The second area of newly created dispute was the reorganization that eliminated several obsolete positions on the AAC and replaced then with slots that addressed the county’s primary issues with animal control.
Animal control sought to keep Gwinnett Humane Society position while sacrificing a position for the rescue community at large. For several years now Gwinnett Humane has held a position on this council and yet open records have yet to offer any program or insight offered that would benefit the rescue community at large. Nothing has been proposed that would assist in building the critical partnerships with the rescue community but instead focuses on self-preservation of their own needs.
The number of pets going to rescue is down by over thirty percent since the new shelter opened. New leadership that understands the importance of building partnership with those who rescue dogs and cats is critical to our long-term success in reducing the carnage. This won’t happen without a voice that understands the significance these partnerships offer.
Building partnerships with rescue community will result in fewer animals being killed and return a substantial cost saving to the county as well – it costs MONEY to end a pet’s life – it costs NOTHING to send that same pet to rescue. This, the new feline interest position and individual representatives from each of the commissioners were areas that were never open for compromise.
Obviously, change is needed to dramatically turn around our failing shelter. Pouring money into a broken process is NOT a solution – change in thinking is. Several positions were removed with even more new positions created – those groups who felt disenfranchised would still have an option of lobbying for one of these openings.
The time for talk, the time for negotiation is over – we have a passed resolution that must be passed on to the BOC for an up or down vote.
People speaking their minds – getting so much resistance from behind
With thirty months invested in this reform effort “We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett” is past the point of offering further compromise. To hold these changes and the resulting citizen oversight hostage while thousands of dogs and cats are being killed is simply not acceptable. We are NOW reaching out to the community to support the “Animal Advisory Council Reform Resolution” with an up or down vote.
Our constituents have strong feelings on moving forward with building a more humane community for our homeless pets. We are solid in our support of building a No Kill community. Those feelings are being realized with the growth of No Kill Gwinnett.
Our supporters come from all walks of life, your church, your neighbors, your friends in rescue and in many members who work in and around Gwinnett County government. We may not agree on all the issues but there is a common bond that there is no moral foundation for ending an innocent dog or cats life simply because it’s convenient and because we can.
Rather then focusing on resolving the serious issues we have at animal control, far too many dogs and cats being killed, we end up with a broken partnership with the rescue community and a lack of professionalism in leadership that has resulted in serious morale issues that look the other way. The result is a process that does nothing but protect a failed model of status quo.
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say hoorah for our side
The battle hymm's being sung, we are all tired of all the dire sideshows of personal ambition and goals rift with excuses and blame that changes nothing and allows the killing as usual to become our standard animal welfare policy. We are tired of being harassed and intimidated simply because we choose to include pets as an intregal part of our family unit. Pets are NOT a nuisance issue - they are a quality of life issue.
We the Pet Owners of Gswinnett have presented a positive package for professional advise on animal welfare issues moving into the future. The makeup of this team would consists of citizens passionate about representing ALL points of view with a new focus where it’s needed most – lowering the number of dogs and cats killed at our tax supported shelter.
The new advisory council will be able to investigate not only life saving programs but cost saving programs as well. The new advisory council will be more responsive to not only pet owners in our community but there will be a dramatic improvement in the communication between citizens and their commissioners on animal related issues.
More importantly, the commissioners will finally have direct communication with the advisors they appoint and not be limited with ideas or proposals that have been screened by animal control.
The makeup of the Animal Advisory Board is in serious need of new blood which will include active participation by local pet owners and private volunteer rescuers who have for too long now been silenced from this process.
While the current makeup of the AAC may be powerless to do anything more then protect their own self-interest “WE PET OWNERS” have the power of electing commissioners who protect not only our families interests but our rights to responsibly own and protect our family pets.
There will be a meeting with the Board of Commissioner’s on Tuesday December 14th at Gwinnett’s Judicial Center. The meeting starts at 2:00 PM and the public is permitted to speak at the end. It is imperative that our community’s pets be represented as well as Gwinnett’s other important issues.
Those of you who have something to add to this dialog are encouraged to write out your thoughts that can be presented via email or presented to the commissioners for consideration during this public forum.
Look forward to seeing you there.
Showing posts with label Judge Muise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Muise. Show all posts
Monday, December 13, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Gwinnett gets tough on Pit Bulls but soft on drunk drivers
Caught this off Twitter:
SNELLVILLE - A Gwinnett teen has been charged with running over about two dozen mailboxes in Snellville and Loganville neighborhoods during an after-party vandalism spree, police said.
Phillip Rohrer, 18, of Snellville and a passenger reportedly took a destructive joyride in a 1997 Dodge Ram on Loganville’s Brusymill Court and Snellville’s Hidden Forest Drive, among other locations, about 4:30 a.m. Sunday.
Gwinnett police spokesman Cpl. Edwin Ritter said Rohrer is responsible for toppling and damaging 24 mailboxes in the spree
and from the Gwinnett Daily Post
SNELLVILLE — A Gwinnett teen has been charged with running over about two dozen mailboxes in Snellville and Loganville neighborhoods during an after-party vandalism spree, police said.
Phillip Rohrer, 18, of Snellville and a passenger reportedly took a destructive joyride in a 1997 Dodge Ram on Loganville’s Brusymill Court and Snellville’s Hidden Forest Drive, among other locations, about 4:30 a.m. Sunday.
Gwinnett police spokesman Cpl. Edwin Ritter said Rohrer is responsible for toppling and damaging 24 mailboxes in the spree.
A noise complaint led a patrol officer to the area, where the officer spotted the loud green truck barreling past with one headlight and a busted taillight, according to a Gwinnett police report.
The officer pulled the truck over and questioned Rohrer, who admitted to drinking at a friend’s party before destructive urges came over him, the report states.
“He said he was bored and decided to go run over people’s mailboxes for fun,” the officer wrote. “He said he went into a few neighborhoods and ran over mailboxes.”
Rohrer’s passenger, Graham Fidler, told police he was being taken home from the same party when Rohrer decided to “go joyriding,” the report says.
Police charged Rohrer with 10 counts of criminal trespass and ticketed him for a headlight violation and underage possession of alcohol. The Georgia Gwinnett College student was released on bond Tuesday.
Fidler, the passenger, was ticketed for underage possession of alcohol. Jail records list him as an Athens Tech student.
Tough questions that weren't asked.
So let me be clear – this teen admits to leaving a party at 4:00 AM AFTER drinking – has another teen in his truck WITH ALCOHOL – runs over 24 mailboxes and he ISN’T charged with DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE?
What do you have to do to get charged with DUI – KILL SOMEONE?
Gwinnett Police did charge Rohrer with having “broken lens covers” and “failure to maintain working headlights” – I guess that was the result of RUNNING DOWN 24 mailboxes. They did charge him with “improper lane change” – I guess it is an “improper lane change” when you drive OFF THE ROAD to run down mailboxes. But the TOUGH question is WHY NO DUI?
It is troublesome to know that this teen was released from jail and can STILL operate a motor vehicle. In a county so concerned about public safety that discussions of requiring pit bull owners to run through hoops to keep their family pets simply because of a few isolated incidents involving pit bulls would not realize how many teenagers die from drinking and driving.
Why wasn't the person responsible for allowing underage teens to illegally drink and leave the aprty at 4:00 AM not charged as well? It is exceptable for adults to look the other way while our children are acting in such an irresponsible way? I think if you ask any parent who has lost a child or family member at the hands of someone driving drunk that answer would be obvious.
It has ALWAYS been troublesome for this writer to experience first hand the laxness our Recorder’s Court seems to have with drunk driving offenses as well. In the fifteen times I was in court for my dog barking offences NOT once was a drunk driver sentenced to 24 months probation like I was. In fact, Judge Muise is soft on drunk drivers typically handing out NO JAIL TIME – instead choosing to allow these potential killers to serve probation terms of six to twelve months.
Barking dogs don’t pose any danger to the community – Muise sentenced me to thirty days in jail because I CHOSE to own dogs that bark. Obviously, she is less concerned about people who CHOOSE to get behind the wheel of their vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The County Solicitor’s Office shares responsibility for this lax enforcement of our drunk driving laws.
It's time the politicians and public officials entrusted to keeping our community safe pull their heads out of the sand or wherever they have them and ENFORCE the law. Barking dogs and pit bulls are the least of our problems. The problem with our judicial system is pet owners are guilty until and if they can prove their pets innocent while drunken criminals aren't even charged.
Not only is she a lousy judge who doesn’t understand or care about the constitution (in favor of her own personal agenda) her rulings put all of us in danger. The citizens of Gwinnett deserve better then that.
With the holidays approaching let’s hope more families don’t have blood spilled, their dreams and lives destroyed at the hands of a drunk driver. We'll be staying off the roads - obviously, it's not safe out there.
SNELLVILLE - A Gwinnett teen has been charged with running over about two dozen mailboxes in Snellville and Loganville neighborhoods during an after-party vandalism spree, police said.
Phillip Rohrer, 18, of Snellville and a passenger reportedly took a destructive joyride in a 1997 Dodge Ram on Loganville’s Brusymill Court and Snellville’s Hidden Forest Drive, among other locations, about 4:30 a.m. Sunday.
Gwinnett police spokesman Cpl. Edwin Ritter said Rohrer is responsible for toppling and damaging 24 mailboxes in the spree
and from the Gwinnett Daily Post
SNELLVILLE — A Gwinnett teen has been charged with running over about two dozen mailboxes in Snellville and Loganville neighborhoods during an after-party vandalism spree, police said.
Phillip Rohrer, 18, of Snellville and a passenger reportedly took a destructive joyride in a 1997 Dodge Ram on Loganville’s Brusymill Court and Snellville’s Hidden Forest Drive, among other locations, about 4:30 a.m. Sunday.
Gwinnett police spokesman Cpl. Edwin Ritter said Rohrer is responsible for toppling and damaging 24 mailboxes in the spree.
A noise complaint led a patrol officer to the area, where the officer spotted the loud green truck barreling past with one headlight and a busted taillight, according to a Gwinnett police report.
The officer pulled the truck over and questioned Rohrer, who admitted to drinking at a friend’s party before destructive urges came over him, the report states.
“He said he was bored and decided to go run over people’s mailboxes for fun,” the officer wrote. “He said he went into a few neighborhoods and ran over mailboxes.”
Rohrer’s passenger, Graham Fidler, told police he was being taken home from the same party when Rohrer decided to “go joyriding,” the report says.
Police charged Rohrer with 10 counts of criminal trespass and ticketed him for a headlight violation and underage possession of alcohol. The Georgia Gwinnett College student was released on bond Tuesday.
Fidler, the passenger, was ticketed for underage possession of alcohol. Jail records list him as an Athens Tech student.
Tough questions that weren't asked.
So let me be clear – this teen admits to leaving a party at 4:00 AM AFTER drinking – has another teen in his truck WITH ALCOHOL – runs over 24 mailboxes and he ISN’T charged with DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE?
What do you have to do to get charged with DUI – KILL SOMEONE?
Gwinnett Police did charge Rohrer with having “broken lens covers” and “failure to maintain working headlights” – I guess that was the result of RUNNING DOWN 24 mailboxes. They did charge him with “improper lane change” – I guess it is an “improper lane change” when you drive OFF THE ROAD to run down mailboxes. But the TOUGH question is WHY NO DUI?
It is troublesome to know that this teen was released from jail and can STILL operate a motor vehicle. In a county so concerned about public safety that discussions of requiring pit bull owners to run through hoops to keep their family pets simply because of a few isolated incidents involving pit bulls would not realize how many teenagers die from drinking and driving.
Why wasn't the person responsible for allowing underage teens to illegally drink and leave the aprty at 4:00 AM not charged as well? It is exceptable for adults to look the other way while our children are acting in such an irresponsible way? I think if you ask any parent who has lost a child or family member at the hands of someone driving drunk that answer would be obvious.
It has ALWAYS been troublesome for this writer to experience first hand the laxness our Recorder’s Court seems to have with drunk driving offenses as well. In the fifteen times I was in court for my dog barking offences NOT once was a drunk driver sentenced to 24 months probation like I was. In fact, Judge Muise is soft on drunk drivers typically handing out NO JAIL TIME – instead choosing to allow these potential killers to serve probation terms of six to twelve months.
Barking dogs don’t pose any danger to the community – Muise sentenced me to thirty days in jail because I CHOSE to own dogs that bark. Obviously, she is less concerned about people who CHOOSE to get behind the wheel of their vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The County Solicitor’s Office shares responsibility for this lax enforcement of our drunk driving laws.
It's time the politicians and public officials entrusted to keeping our community safe pull their heads out of the sand or wherever they have them and ENFORCE the law. Barking dogs and pit bulls are the least of our problems. The problem with our judicial system is pet owners are guilty until and if they can prove their pets innocent while drunken criminals aren't even charged.
Not only is she a lousy judge who doesn’t understand or care about the constitution (in favor of her own personal agenda) her rulings put all of us in danger. The citizens of Gwinnett deserve better then that.
With the holidays approaching let’s hope more families don’t have blood spilled, their dreams and lives destroyed at the hands of a drunk driver. We'll be staying off the roads - obviously, it's not safe out there.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Death Row to the Jail House
A young scared three-month-old dog sits petrified on the euthanasia table not knowing his life is about to come to an end. What this young dobie/lab mix needs is obedience training and socialization. What he needs is the time to learn, but in this shelter his time is about up.
Over 3000 dogs a year are killed at Gwinnett’s Animal Shelter – their once healthy bodies turned to ashes. Over the years our animal welfare policy’s that are supposed to advocate and protect our community’s homeless pets has evolved into a policy of justifying the best we can do is “save a few” while giving the rest a gift of a humane death.
Ernie, with those sweet eyes, is about to be killed because our animal control policies have determined he is “un adoptable” (in the short five day period the law requires he be held). What Ernie needs is just a little more time to become all the dog he’s supposed to be. More time to find that perfect home – that perfect master – a family of his own.- a life with purpose - his life complete. Instead, in a few quick seconds that is about to be over.
This past spring the Society of Humane Friends partnered with the Gwinnett County Detention Center in “Operation Second Chance” to save “death row” dogs from Gwinnett’s Animal Shelter.
In this collaboration, the Gwinnett County Detention Center would function as a “foster home”, the inmates would care for and train the dogs and the Society of Humane Friends would then find them homes.
I had an opportunity to observe first hand an innovative new program that seeks to provide these dogs with a real second chance. My observations paint an entirely different picture indeed.
On this warm summer afternoon a miracle is about to happen. Space has opened up in this innovative new program for young Ernie, with his luck and time running out he is snatched from death’s door and whisked away to a waiting jail cell for his second chance.
Ernie’s New Leash on Life
Behind the walls of the county’s detention center inmates would discover a new sense of purpose working with dogs rescued from the local kill shelter. Instead of being killed, Ernie would become one of dozens of dogs who have benefited since the “Operation Second Chance” program’s inception earlier this year.
The Operation Second Chance program is collaboration between the Society of Humane Friends working with the county detention center to provide training and socialization for at risk shelter dogs utilizing inmates as trainers.
Dogs chosen for this program all share something in common – they have been labeled as “un adoptable” and sentenced to die for a crime of being unwanted.
.jpeg)
Sentenced to Salvation – Operation Second Chance
Behind the walls inmates, inmates find a renewed sense of purpose saving dogs who would be otherwise would be dead.
I witnessed Ernie when he first entered the cellblock 1-C. His lack of socialization was obvious but not surprising for a young dog fresh out of the shelter. Watching Ernie gain more and more trust with each day of training only reaffirmed how wrong it is to kill these dogs simply because they haven’t been trained properly.
This lack of training and/or social skills would not have been a death sentence in a shelter that had a No Kill philosophy where training would be provided to increase Ernie chances of being adopted.
They were animals facing a death sentence even though they’ve committed no crime, but they will be punished unless someone steps forward ands gives them that second chance. Those someone’s are young men living in confinement for reasons of their own – be it anger issues, drug abuse or other crimes who in time, are looking for that second chance of their own.
Once matched with a dog, the inmates are fully responsible for the dog’s care, feeding, grooming, housetraining, and most importantly obedience training. After a few short weeks or months of this round-the-clock care, dogs like Ernie are ready for adoption.
Both dog and inmate face isolation and rejection, but when their backs are to the wall they offer each other hope and salvation for each other.
It would take only a few days before this sweet boy would endear himself to everyone he met. Life was exciting with all his new friends.
It would only take a few short weeks before Ernie would be rewarded with a family of his own. Thanks to Operation Second Chance this sweet boy has a whole life of second chances in front of him.
Many a year has past and gone – many a gamble has been lost and won
In a small way the “Operation Second Chance” program operates on the same program techniques as a “No Kill” facility. It utilizes a fostering and training program directed off site through a licensed rescue group to completely change the results of a dog that would be killed to a dog who finds a new home.
.jpeg)
Who are these “convicted dogs” being rescued from death row and housed and rehabilitated in our detention center? They are the un adoptable – the damaged – the neglected – the abused – that society has historically chosen to provide “humane euthanasia” in an effort to save them from ourselves.
Meet some of the amazing Jail Dogs rescued from death row and the inmates who are their companions until they are adopted - presented by Karmalized Pictures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4825JHEJ_k
“Easy as it is to tell black from white – it’s also easy to tell wrong from right”
Their stories are heart wrenching – healthy dogs that enter our shelter with the hopes of finding a new home – a new family – a new beginning - are instead shamelessly slaughtered. The picture of survival for any pet entering our shelter is bleak with an animal welfare program that quickly and inaccurately labels these dogs as un adoptable thus sealing their doom.
Instead in a simple concept, prison inmates receive training to, in turn, train dogs from our local high kill animal shelter. The prisoners learn a joy, a compassion and a responsibility that can come only from raising and training a dog, as well as skills that can help them find a new passion and perhaps a job.
Repeated over and over – this program becomes a win-win-win program for the community. The county taxpayers win by killing one less healthy adoptable dog, the inmate wins by gaining new insight and confidence in their own ability to make a difference and the family wins by being rewarded with a wonderful lifetime family pet.
The dog, already scheduled to die, is the BIG winner as he settles in and becomes adoptable. Some lucky local family gets to adopt a well-trained dog that, just a few weeks before, would have been put to death merely for being unwanted. The shelter reduces the numbers of dogs killed every year (which totals in the thousands).
Meet Bonnie, a sweet, loving boxer mix. Bonnie has a long permanent scar that runs down the length of her back probably the result of an acid burn. Despite whatever abusive happened to this sweet girl in the past she holds no grudges towards humans. She certainly wasn’t bashful in sharing a whole bunch of kisses when extended a friendly hand.
The sad reality is the person who abused Bonnie was never caught and never punished, yet Bonnie faced an uncertain future on the streets and a predictable death at our county shelter. Fortunately, Sheriff Conway saw Bonnie walking down the road and brought her to cell Block 1-C where she too was given a “Second Chance”.
After completing her training Bonnie was adopted by her handler. Not only is Bonnie in a better place but her trainer has gained new insight on himself as well. Bonnie is now able to love and be loved – that’s all a dog really needs.
It’s tempting to think about whether the lives of these young men and women would be forever changed if the opportunity to volunteer for animal welfare programs had been promoted prior to their run ins with the law. Are we doing enough with helping our next generation find their rightful place in society rather then punishing them when they fall?
Many of these “un adoptables” include the misunderstood pit bull that has been maliciously exploited by the media, politicians and even the national animal rights groups as well. All have set standards, passed laws and made adoption requirements that are all but impossible to meet.
Many are the much-maligned “pit bulls” who Shelter Director Lt. Respess describes as the “most common breed at the shelter”. Sadly, they are also the first to be killed as well.
Over the years our animal welfare policies that are supposed to advocate and protect our homeless pets has evolved into a policy of justifying the best we can do is provide them with a humane death.
While not all dogs chosen for the program are pits, they do share a common trait of being targeted for failure with a faulty temperament-testing program implemented at the shelter.
Those who fail this test are labeled as un adoptable expediting their fate with a certain death. Gwinnett Shelter uses an overly broad, meaningless definition of “un adoptable” or places unrealistic demands on potential adopters who would take a pet that the shelter otherwise would kill.
They ignore the fact that people want to help saving the life of a pet who someone else failed to love and protect.
Jake is a border collie, red in color with white spots and white feet. Although blind in one eye this does noty stop him. Jake is full of energy, and is a very loyal dog who understands all his commands. Many of night Jake would his head on my lap and fall a sleep with one eye open.
Shelters with leadership or staff that is lazy tend to bend the unadoptable curve in the direction of how many dogs they simply want to kill. Eventually, the measurement becomes meaningless. Eventually good obedient dogs like Jake fall victims to this curve as well.
This systematic destruction is done under the guise of “public safety” but are these “killers” really the danger they are made out to be? Are these dogs “too dangerous” or not capable of being “socialized”?
Sadly the life saving programs not implemented by shelter management leave killing as the only viable but repugnant option for these dogs. Programs that would encourage moving trainable dogs into volunteer foster homes (off site fostering) or bringing in volunteers and experts for training to help socialize shelter dogs (improving adoptability) are noticeably lacking in the shelter’s “life saving” arsenal.
There is enough compassion, caring, kindness and love in our community to overcome the obstacles these special needs dogs face. Operation Second Chance” proves that kindness exists and that it does make the difference in placing these dogs back into the community rather then simply killing them.
We need to shift our community focus from excuses that kill to life saving solutions that nurture’s our compassion instead. With an emphasis on problem solving rather casting blame a goal of saving 100% of healthy dogs and cats can be a reality almost overnight.
Assisting and rehoming dogs and cats should be the only missions of shelters – especially those who function with the publics trust and tax dollars.
On sunnier days I envision a community that incorporates animal welfare programs that saves animal lives with volunteer programs directed at misguided young men and/or troubled young woman that help them visualize their future before they end up part of our penal system.
A system where our next generation saves the lives of animals facing death who in return save the lives of our next generation facing no future. They give each other hope – they become each other’s salvation as well.
Shelters need to be seen – not heard….
Animal advocacy and humane work have proceeded for years between the recognition of the need to be effective, enthusiastic outreach programs, and a tendency towards depressed and embittered self-isolation. We have been programmed not to speak ouit against the atrocities of killing in the hopes that a “few more” can be saved.
Unfortunately, throughout most of this time marked by the sounds of silence from the advocacy community has been drowned out by shelter management perceived or at least to accept – that sheltering responsibility includes an obligation to kill large numbers of animals, many healthy and young, others grievously neglected or abused. Transferring grief and guilt by blaming the public has become a time honored excuse to institutionalize the killing mechanism.
The “Second Chance” program proves that even the worst of the worst, like Ernie, like Bonnie, like Jake, are all adoptable if they are simply placed in a setting where their true qualities are accented.
While a fostering, training, adoption program like the Jail Dogs program will successfully place dozens of otherwise slaughtered pets into new homes an effective volunteer fostering program in our county could save hundreds perhaps thousands of pets that are currently STILL being slaughtered.
I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.
Thomas Jefferson
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett recognizes the significance of off site fostering, an inclusive volunteer program that rewards and encourages community participation while raising awareness of the thousands of wonderful pets needing rescue (from our own shelter system) and a renewed working partnership with the licensed rescue groups in our community. These are the basic steps needed to turn our county into a NO KILL community for our pets.
If untrained inmates can make such a dramatic difference for these jail dogs and give us new hope that with innovative programs aimed at our compassionate community of animals lovers can create life saving miracles too.
Our voices demanding change for ALL the dogs and cats still being slaughtered are needed. We must insist that we have an obligation to explore ALL the life saving options that are available before even considering killing as a last resort.
With the increase in shelter killing in our new shelter mistrust by the public remains endemic among citizens and pet lovers in our community. We don’t want to volunteer for a shelter that kills without rhyme or reason, we don’t want to donate money to a shelter that offers these dogs and cats little hope for survival, we don’t want to visit or adopt knowing that all we leave behind most likely will die.
Spirits are much higher when the public is given hope that these dogs will be rehomed – that there will be a “success story’ at the end. Americans love heroes and they love pets – the Jail House Dog program gives us both.
Stay turned, as We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett moves forward in arming an army of compassionate volunteers with the life saving tools we will use in the future as we build a No Kill Gwinnett for future generations to cherish.
To learn more about other successful jail dogs programs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We92yXNBv80&feature=related
Over 3000 dogs a year are killed at Gwinnett’s Animal Shelter – their once healthy bodies turned to ashes. Over the years our animal welfare policy’s that are supposed to advocate and protect our community’s homeless pets has evolved into a policy of justifying the best we can do is “save a few” while giving the rest a gift of a humane death.
 |
| Ernest T Bass |
This past spring the Society of Humane Friends partnered with the Gwinnett County Detention Center in “Operation Second Chance” to save “death row” dogs from Gwinnett’s Animal Shelter.
In this collaboration, the Gwinnett County Detention Center would function as a “foster home”, the inmates would care for and train the dogs and the Society of Humane Friends would then find them homes.
I had an opportunity to observe first hand an innovative new program that seeks to provide these dogs with a real second chance. My observations paint an entirely different picture indeed.
On this warm summer afternoon a miracle is about to happen. Space has opened up in this innovative new program for young Ernie, with his luck and time running out he is snatched from death’s door and whisked away to a waiting jail cell for his second chance.
Ernie’s New Leash on Life
The Operation Second Chance program is collaboration between the Society of Humane Friends working with the county detention center to provide training and socialization for at risk shelter dogs utilizing inmates as trainers.
Dogs chosen for this program all share something in common – they have been labeled as “un adoptable” and sentenced to die for a crime of being unwanted.
.jpeg)
Behind the walls inmates, inmates find a renewed sense of purpose saving dogs who would be otherwise would be dead.
I witnessed Ernie when he first entered the cellblock 1-C. His lack of socialization was obvious but not surprising for a young dog fresh out of the shelter. Watching Ernie gain more and more trust with each day of training only reaffirmed how wrong it is to kill these dogs simply because they haven’t been trained properly.
This lack of training and/or social skills would not have been a death sentence in a shelter that had a No Kill philosophy where training would be provided to increase Ernie chances of being adopted.
They were animals facing a death sentence even though they’ve committed no crime, but they will be punished unless someone steps forward ands gives them that second chance. Those someone’s are young men living in confinement for reasons of their own – be it anger issues, drug abuse or other crimes who in time, are looking for that second chance of their own.
Once matched with a dog, the inmates are fully responsible for the dog’s care, feeding, grooming, housetraining, and most importantly obedience training. After a few short weeks or months of this round-the-clock care, dogs like Ernie are ready for adoption.
It would take only a few days before this sweet boy would endear himself to everyone he met. Life was exciting with all his new friends.
It would only take a few short weeks before Ernie would be rewarded with a family of his own. Thanks to Operation Second Chance this sweet boy has a whole life of second chances in front of him.
Many a year has past and gone – many a gamble has been lost and won
In a small way the “Operation Second Chance” program operates on the same program techniques as a “No Kill” facility. It utilizes a fostering and training program directed off site through a licensed rescue group to completely change the results of a dog that would be killed to a dog who finds a new home.
.jpeg)
Meet some of the amazing Jail Dogs rescued from death row and the inmates who are their companions until they are adopted - presented by Karmalized Pictures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4825JHEJ_k
“Easy as it is to tell black from white – it’s also easy to tell wrong from right”
Their stories are heart wrenching – healthy dogs that enter our shelter with the hopes of finding a new home – a new family – a new beginning - are instead shamelessly slaughtered. The picture of survival for any pet entering our shelter is bleak with an animal welfare program that quickly and inaccurately labels these dogs as un adoptable thus sealing their doom.
Instead in a simple concept, prison inmates receive training to, in turn, train dogs from our local high kill animal shelter. The prisoners learn a joy, a compassion and a responsibility that can come only from raising and training a dog, as well as skills that can help them find a new passion and perhaps a job.
Repeated over and over – this program becomes a win-win-win program for the community. The county taxpayers win by killing one less healthy adoptable dog, the inmate wins by gaining new insight and confidence in their own ability to make a difference and the family wins by being rewarded with a wonderful lifetime family pet.
The dog, already scheduled to die, is the BIG winner as he settles in and becomes adoptable. Some lucky local family gets to adopt a well-trained dog that, just a few weeks before, would have been put to death merely for being unwanted. The shelter reduces the numbers of dogs killed every year (which totals in the thousands).
The sad reality is the person who abused Bonnie was never caught and never punished, yet Bonnie faced an uncertain future on the streets and a predictable death at our county shelter. Fortunately, Sheriff Conway saw Bonnie walking down the road and brought her to cell Block 1-C where she too was given a “Second Chance”.
After completing her training Bonnie was adopted by her handler. Not only is Bonnie in a better place but her trainer has gained new insight on himself as well. Bonnie is now able to love and be loved – that’s all a dog really needs.
It’s tempting to think about whether the lives of these young men and women would be forever changed if the opportunity to volunteer for animal welfare programs had been promoted prior to their run ins with the law. Are we doing enough with helping our next generation find their rightful place in society rather then punishing them when they fall?
Many are the much-maligned “pit bulls” who Shelter Director Lt. Respess describes as the “most common breed at the shelter”. Sadly, they are also the first to be killed as well.
Over the years our animal welfare policies that are supposed to advocate and protect our homeless pets has evolved into a policy of justifying the best we can do is provide them with a humane death.
While not all dogs chosen for the program are pits, they do share a common trait of being targeted for failure with a faulty temperament-testing program implemented at the shelter.
Those who fail this test are labeled as un adoptable expediting their fate with a certain death. Gwinnett Shelter uses an overly broad, meaningless definition of “un adoptable” or places unrealistic demands on potential adopters who would take a pet that the shelter otherwise would kill.
They ignore the fact that people want to help saving the life of a pet who someone else failed to love and protect.
 |
| Meet Jake |
Shelters with leadership or staff that is lazy tend to bend the unadoptable curve in the direction of how many dogs they simply want to kill. Eventually, the measurement becomes meaningless. Eventually good obedient dogs like Jake fall victims to this curve as well.
This systematic destruction is done under the guise of “public safety” but are these “killers” really the danger they are made out to be? Are these dogs “too dangerous” or not capable of being “socialized”?
Sadly the life saving programs not implemented by shelter management leave killing as the only viable but repugnant option for these dogs. Programs that would encourage moving trainable dogs into volunteer foster homes (off site fostering) or bringing in volunteers and experts for training to help socialize shelter dogs (improving adoptability) are noticeably lacking in the shelter’s “life saving” arsenal.
There is enough compassion, caring, kindness and love in our community to overcome the obstacles these special needs dogs face. Operation Second Chance” proves that kindness exists and that it does make the difference in placing these dogs back into the community rather then simply killing them.
We need to shift our community focus from excuses that kill to life saving solutions that nurture’s our compassion instead. With an emphasis on problem solving rather casting blame a goal of saving 100% of healthy dogs and cats can be a reality almost overnight.
Assisting and rehoming dogs and cats should be the only missions of shelters – especially those who function with the publics trust and tax dollars.
On sunnier days I envision a community that incorporates animal welfare programs that saves animal lives with volunteer programs directed at misguided young men and/or troubled young woman that help them visualize their future before they end up part of our penal system.
A system where our next generation saves the lives of animals facing death who in return save the lives of our next generation facing no future. They give each other hope – they become each other’s salvation as well.
Shelters need to be seen – not heard….
Animal advocacy and humane work have proceeded for years between the recognition of the need to be effective, enthusiastic outreach programs, and a tendency towards depressed and embittered self-isolation. We have been programmed not to speak ouit against the atrocities of killing in the hopes that a “few more” can be saved.
Unfortunately, throughout most of this time marked by the sounds of silence from the advocacy community has been drowned out by shelter management perceived or at least to accept – that sheltering responsibility includes an obligation to kill large numbers of animals, many healthy and young, others grievously neglected or abused. Transferring grief and guilt by blaming the public has become a time honored excuse to institutionalize the killing mechanism.
The “Second Chance” program proves that even the worst of the worst, like Ernie, like Bonnie, like Jake, are all adoptable if they are simply placed in a setting where their true qualities are accented.
While a fostering, training, adoption program like the Jail Dogs program will successfully place dozens of otherwise slaughtered pets into new homes an effective volunteer fostering program in our county could save hundreds perhaps thousands of pets that are currently STILL being slaughtered.
I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.
Thomas Jefferson
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett recognizes the significance of off site fostering, an inclusive volunteer program that rewards and encourages community participation while raising awareness of the thousands of wonderful pets needing rescue (from our own shelter system) and a renewed working partnership with the licensed rescue groups in our community. These are the basic steps needed to turn our county into a NO KILL community for our pets.
If untrained inmates can make such a dramatic difference for these jail dogs and give us new hope that with innovative programs aimed at our compassionate community of animals lovers can create life saving miracles too.
Our voices demanding change for ALL the dogs and cats still being slaughtered are needed. We must insist that we have an obligation to explore ALL the life saving options that are available before even considering killing as a last resort.
With the increase in shelter killing in our new shelter mistrust by the public remains endemic among citizens and pet lovers in our community. We don’t want to volunteer for a shelter that kills without rhyme or reason, we don’t want to donate money to a shelter that offers these dogs and cats little hope for survival, we don’t want to visit or adopt knowing that all we leave behind most likely will die.
Spirits are much higher when the public is given hope that these dogs will be rehomed – that there will be a “success story’ at the end. Americans love heroes and they love pets – the Jail House Dog program gives us both.
Stay turned, as We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett moves forward in arming an army of compassionate volunteers with the life saving tools we will use in the future as we build a No Kill Gwinnett for future generations to cherish.
To learn more about other successful jail dogs programs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We92yXNBv80&feature=related
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Blood on the Floor
Well, goodbye world
It's sad but true
Got a date with the hangman
I have to leave you
I barked at my Darlin
three times or more
The reason I'm going is blood on the floor
The days are so long
I'm in the jailhouse
Cause they say I done wrong
I don't say I'm sorry
I just say I'm sore
The reason I'm goin
is blood on the floor
Well, I came here one night
She was lyin'
with her hands around
a big blue gun
She saw me, started laughin
and I cried when I saw her gun
Goodbye world
I guess we must part
They're taking my life
cause I have no sweetheart
I don't say I'm sorry
I just say I'm sore
The reason I'm goin
is blood on the floor
The reason I;m goin
is blood on the floor
Thursday, August 12, 2010
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Breakthrough Thinking - A No Kill Gwinnett
Shelter's killing dogs and cats by the thousands... the rest of the story
To get a community on track requires a spark – sometimes borne of anger, other times of compassion, most of the time from a combination of the two – Nathan Winograd
Breakthrough Thinking - A No Kill Gwinnett
The key to any effective solution lies in the approach to the specific problem at hand. The essential, straightforward process of “Breakthrough Thinking” involves a meaningful organization of the purposes you seek to achieve.
If the shelter’s purpose is to efficiently kill homeless dogs and cats as a standard operating procedure then it could be determined that there is no problem that needs corrected for they are already quite efficient in that operation.
One question that remains unanswered is “what are the metrics or standard operating procedures that the police department uses to evaluate the shelter’s performance?
If the SOP calls for efficient use of killing to control costs then the leadership is performing there jobs admirably.
Breakthrough Thinking would seek to identify the purpose of animal services in the broadest possible purpose level, to not kill any healthy treatable dogs or cats, with development of a feasible target solution from a variety of alternatives.
Under breakthrough thinking the goal, not killing any healthy, treatable animals would always remain the same with only the targeted solutions changing. By working backward to develop a creative change (from killing over 60% of healthy, treatable animals) in the problem situation, you can evolve toward your solution goal.
Breakthrough thinking offers an exceptionally productive approach to problem solving and problem prevention. Its basic premise is that anyone can break out of self-defeating, traditional modes of reasoning (kill traditionalists) and break through to find revitalizing, consistent positive “No Kill” solutions to the problems he or she confronts.
What breakthrough thinking does require is a willingness to admit that there is a problem. If we want to stop killing healthy pets then we must first admit that killing healthy pets is wrong.
Once identified as a problem (killing) a solution or need for change becomes the dream or goal. At this moment, we face several problems – nine out of ten cats being killed, owner surrender’s being killed, dogs with socialization issues being killed, puppies and kittens being killed – that are not at all unusual nor daunting in complexity.
Life is an ongoing struggle. The purpose of solving problems and accomplishing legitimate dreams isn’t to remove them, but to give meaning and direction to the struggle.
Ours is a struggle for No Kill. It’s a struggle much too important not to succeed.
Yet simply talking about change, the future and emerging dreams does not ensure results. Everyone agrees that change is constant, that today’s choices create tomorrow’s future, and that we have many options in developing solutions to fulfill that dream. One thing is certain, if we continue using the same failed practices we can predict a future of only killing as well.
We have compelling reasons for following in the footsteps of other progressive communities that have successfully implemented No Kill parameters. We have seen the depths of frustration that our current shelter model delivers. Yet, there are reasons to be optimistic about the immensely productive changes that lie ahead.
Successfully implementing life saving procedures will make us feel good about ourselves – both as a community of compassionate pet owners and as people who respect all life as sacred.
The importance of “Breakthrough Thinking” cannot be overestimated. We will not solve the complex problems that have been allowed to accumulate through the years by attempting to fix blame. Every day we chase down these phantom causes we miss another opportunity in addressing the real problems instead. .
Our shelter has a duty to one thing only; the homeless animals being killed there.
It will be your voice, silenced no more, and your heart that will march our community into this promise land where the killing of the innocent will end.
Steps for No Kill Success
I. Feral Cat TNR Program – TNR refers to “Trap-Neuter-Release” or “Trap-Neuter-Return.” Gwinnett Animal Control is killing close to 100 cats a week – establishing a working trap/neuter/release program with the rescue community is crucial to establishing No Kill Success.
TNR is the only proven method for lowering the numbers of feral cats living in an area. Using TNR effectively sterilizes the cat colony.
The current policy on feral cats, “catch and kill”, is not only ineffective in lowering the feral cat population but is extremely expensive to implement. Shelter resources are squandered in a futile attempt to kill off the “ownerless” cats in our community.
What a “catch and kill” policy doesn’t do is answer the moral question of why “wild” cats are singled out for eradication while other wild animals such as squirrels and raccoons are not. Obviously with the number of cats being killed approaching 5000 a year this dismally unmoral policy has failed.
While feral cats by definition are not “adoptable”, that fact alone doesn’t translate into ferals as not having meaningful, healthy lives if they are maintained as a feral cat colony.
A compassionate community believes that even though these cats are not adoptable they do have a right to live. A responsible TNR program serves the community by lowering the colony’s population over time.
II. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter – Quality of Life Issue - Low cost, high volume spay/neuter will lead to fewer animals entering the shelter system, allowing more resources to be allocated toward saving lives. Current animal welfare policies do little or nothing to promote low cost spay/neuter resources in our community.
One is left to wonder whether we would have been better served by building a number of spay/neuter clinics with the several million that went into building what has in effect turned out to be our new state of the art kill shelter.
III. Rescue Groups – An adoption or transfer to a rescue group frees up cage and kennel space, reduces expenses for feeding, cleaning and while improving the rate of lifesaving. With the rampant rate of cats and dogs being killed at our new shelter there is no practical excuse for not working with licensed rescue groups.
Killing a dog or cat that otherwise would have a safe haven in rescue is a judgmental, vindictive form of animal cruelty at the hands of shelter management.
Our shelter must reach out to the rescue community and form a partnership that currently does not exist. The first step in reaching out must include naming a new rescue coordinator who will works towards nurturing and developing this partnership.
IV. Foster Care – Volunteer foster care is crucial to No Kill. This fact has been proven by the success of the “Jail House Second Chance Program”. Dogs that would have been killed at the shelter are being socialized and placed through this fostering program at the jail. This same program, if ramped up through volunteer foster homes, would all but eliminate killing at our shelter while reducing the costs associated with providing longer term care for dogs and cats with specialized issues.
Shelter management refuses to discuss any type of outside volunteer fostering program, instead preferring to hang on to the failed policy of killing for “space” animals that would be highly adoptable if only they had a little more time.
Saving lives becomes compromised by the tunnel vision policy of controlling an animal’s destiny inside a malfunctioning shelter that implements the expediency of killing instead.
Fostering programs are a low cost, often times no cost, method of increasing a shelter’s capacity, improving public relations while improving the shelter’s image, rehabilitating sick and injured or behaviorally challenged animals and saving more lives.
Our shelter must reach out into the community for volunteers to foster dogs and cats who simply need more time to blossom.
V. Comprehensive Adoption Programs – Quality of Life Issue - Adoptions are vital to a shelter’s lifesaving mission. The quantity and quality of shelter adoptions is in shelter management’s hands, making lifesaving a direct function of shelter policies and practice.
In practice, rescue groups are better prepared to conduct home inspections, hold off site adoptions, evaluate application options and matching up pets to new owners then public shelters because of volunteer resources available.
Our shelter would increase adoptions by merely making the shelter more assessable to working families and through off site adoptions that promotes shelter pets needing adoption.
VI. Pet Retention –Quality of Life Issue - Saving animals requires communities to develop innovative strategies for keeping people and their companion animals together. The more a community sees its shelter as a place to turn for advice and assistance, the easier this job will be.
Changing our focus from “Gwinnett Animal Control and Enforcement” to “Gwinnett Animal Services Unit” is more then mere semantics. It’s a cultural shift and enhancement of value structure our animal welfare policies have on those citizens who responsibly own pets.
VII. Medical and Behavior Programs – Quality of Life Issue - The shelter must put in place comprehensive vaccination, handling, cleaning, socialization, and care policies before animals get sick and rehabilitative efforts for those who come in sick, injured, unweaned, or traumatized.
Our compassionate community will support efforts to rehabilitate, rather then kill, our homeless pets. We witness this all the time with news stories – the public leads the cheers for those pets that are saved and mourns those who are not.
VIII. Public Relations/Community Involvement – Increasing adoptions, maximizing donations, recruiting volunteers and partnering with community agencies comes down to one thing: increasing the shelter’s exposure.
New ordinances and a focus on enforcement won’t solve animal related problems in our community – our people will – the very people who are being exploited by these draconian laws that often times include threats of impounding the family pet and sending owners to jail..
Public relations and marketing are the foundation of all a shelter’s activities and their success. To go No-Kill, the shelter must be in the public eye.
IX. Volunteers – Quality of Life Issue - Volunteers are a dedicated “army of compassion” and the backbone of a successful No Kill effort. There is never enough staff, never enough dollars to hire more staff, and always more needs than paid human resources. That is where volunteers come in and make the difference between success and failure and, for the animals, life and death.
With only 31 approved volunteers our current volunteer program is a failure.
Our shelter must proactively recruit more volunteers to help staff the shelter – walking dogs and promoting adoptions.
X. Proactive Redemptions – Quality of Life Issue - One of the most overlooked areas for reducing killing in animal control shelters are lost animal reclaims. Sadly, besides having pet owners fill out a lost pet report, very little effort is made in this area of shelter operation.
This is unfortunate because doing so—primarily shifting from passive to a more proactive approach—has proven to have a significant impact on lifesaving and allow shelters to return a large percentage of lost animals to their families as well as garner more public support and backing for the shelter.
XI. A Compassionate Director – A hard working, compassionate animal control or shelter director not content to regurgitate tired clichés or hide behind the myth of “too many animals, not enough homes.”
In the end, there may be an overpopulation problem but not the one traditionally linked to animal control. What we are suffering from that is actually killing a higher number of animals, it is an overpopulation of unqualified, jaded or simply worn out individuals entrusted in caring for our shelter pets, who fail at doing so.
It is the contention of this author that management’s “incorrect thinking” entrenched in killing is the single most cause of our shelter’s failure. With our leadership mired in negativity, implementing only the failed policies of the past, we have become complacent with the status quo of killing.
Those who are intoxicated with punishing the public while killing their pets magically dance through the fog of misrepresentations and deceit only to emerge as the irresponsible death seekers themselves.
Our shelter must put an end to the bureaucracy that needlessly administers lethal “blue juice” injections as an only solution for our homeless animals. They’ve become lost in this low hanging fog of the shelter’s deceit.
Killing Defined: Animals are only euthanized if they are too sick to be treated or too aggressive to be suitable for adoption. No-kill shelters reject euthanasia as a means of population control; all "adoptable" and "treatable" animals are saved.
This conversation on No Kill alternatives cuts through that fog for all pet owners to see that killing healthy pets as wrong because it will always be wrong to kill any healthy pet. It’s morally wrong and for pet owners to kill healthy pets and it’s morally wrong for the shelter’s management and their subordinates to kill healthy pets as well.
Our lack of life saving focus comes from the years of mismanagement of a shelter run by the Gwinnett Police Department. They alone have squandered the opportunity to change and save lives with repeated rhetoric of misplaced blame.
Effectiveness of any movement in reaching shelter goals and operations begins with competent leadership that holds it’s staff accountable for developing proven life saving programs and one that fosters good relationships in the community, none of which exists now.
We face a moment in history where on one side we have “Kill-Oriented” traditionalists and on the other “No Kill Advocates”. This “culture clash” has taken on new life as word spreads across the country off other community’s success in implementing “No Kill” alternatives.
The Blame Game
“I think of all the good things we have left undone
Suffer premonitions, confirm suspicions of the holocaust to come”
“Finally I understand the feelings of a few
Ashes and diamonds, foe and friend
We are all equal in the end” - Pink Floyd - The Final Cut
It’s not the public who is to blame when adoptions are low because the shelter makes it impossible for working families to visit. It’s not the public who is to blame when the shelter refuses to do “off site” adoptions. It’s not the public who is to blame when the shelter denigrates or downplays working with rescue groups in placing at risk animals.
It’s not the public who is to blame for rounding up and killing stay cats despite there not being a leash law for cats. It’s not the public who is to blame when our shelter kills feral cats because a Trap-Neuter-Release program is not being utilized.
It’s not the public who is to blame when pet owners are denied services to help overcome behavioral, medical or environmental conditions that cause them to relinquish animals because no pet retention programs are in place.
It’s not the public who is to blame when the shelter focuses on threats and intimidation enforcing the draconian animal ordinance passed in 2007.
It’s not the public who is to blame when animal control works closely with the courts enforcing a draconian animal ordinance with threats and intimidation that leads many responsible pet owners to surrender their cherished pets to avoid jail terms and exorbitant fines from the county solicitors office.
In the end it will be public support that will create No Kill – the same outraged public that will cry out for change that shifts the focus from animal enforcement to an era of providing top notch life saving services instead.
To reach that culture shift it only takes one shelter manager – one leader – who is committed to simply saying NO to KILLING while choosing to aggressively promote life saving alternatives instead.
How can we expect pet owners to act “responsibly” when our own animal control unit commits the ultimate act of cruelty ending a healthy pets life with a myriad of excuses seeking to justify their own incompetence.
This is a failure of leadership, nothing more – nothing less. A leadership addicted to the failed policies of “killing for expedience”.
It will be our voices that will be heard over the silent screams of death coming from our shelter.
“In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends = Martin Luther King
Breakthrough Thinking - A No Kill Gwinnett
The key to any effective solution lies in the approach to the specific problem at hand. The essential, straightforward process of “Breakthrough Thinking” involves a meaningful organization of the purposes you seek to achieve.
If the shelter’s purpose is to efficiently kill homeless dogs and cats as a standard operating procedure then it could be determined that there is no problem that needs corrected for they are already quite efficient in that operation.
One question that remains unanswered is “what are the metrics or standard operating procedures that the police department uses to evaluate the shelter’s performance?
If the SOP calls for efficient use of killing to control costs then the leadership is performing there jobs admirably.
Breakthrough Thinking would seek to identify the purpose of animal services in the broadest possible purpose level, to not kill any healthy treatable dogs or cats, with development of a feasible target solution from a variety of alternatives.
Under breakthrough thinking the goal, not killing any healthy, treatable animals would always remain the same with only the targeted solutions changing. By working backward to develop a creative change (from killing over 60% of healthy, treatable animals) in the problem situation, you can evolve toward your solution goal.
Breakthrough thinking offers an exceptionally productive approach to problem solving and problem prevention. Its basic premise is that anyone can break out of self-defeating, traditional modes of reasoning (kill traditionalists) and break through to find revitalizing, consistent positive “No Kill” solutions to the problems he or she confronts.
What breakthrough thinking does require is a willingness to admit that there is a problem. If we want to stop killing healthy pets then we must first admit that killing healthy pets is wrong.
Once identified as a problem (killing) a solution or need for change becomes the dream or goal. At this moment, we face several problems – nine out of ten cats being killed, owner surrender’s being killed, dogs with socialization issues being killed, puppies and kittens being killed – that are not at all unusual nor daunting in complexity.
Ours is a struggle for No Kill. It’s a struggle much too important not to succeed.
Yet simply talking about change, the future and emerging dreams does not ensure results. Everyone agrees that change is constant, that today’s choices create tomorrow’s future, and that we have many options in developing solutions to fulfill that dream. One thing is certain, if we continue using the same failed practices we can predict a future of only killing as well.
We have compelling reasons for following in the footsteps of other progressive communities that have successfully implemented No Kill parameters. We have seen the depths of frustration that our current shelter model delivers. Yet, there are reasons to be optimistic about the immensely productive changes that lie ahead.
Successfully implementing life saving procedures will make us feel good about ourselves – both as a community of compassionate pet owners and as people who respect all life as sacred.
The importance of “Breakthrough Thinking” cannot be overestimated. We will not solve the complex problems that have been allowed to accumulate through the years by attempting to fix blame. Every day we chase down these phantom causes we miss another opportunity in addressing the real problems instead. .
Our shelter has a duty to one thing only; the homeless animals being killed there.
It will be your voice, silenced no more, and your heart that will march our community into this promise land where the killing of the innocent will end.
Steps for No Kill Success
I. Feral Cat TNR Program – TNR refers to “Trap-Neuter-Release” or “Trap-Neuter-Return.” Gwinnett Animal Control is killing close to 100 cats a week – establishing a working trap/neuter/release program with the rescue community is crucial to establishing No Kill Success.
TNR is the only proven method for lowering the numbers of feral cats living in an area. Using TNR effectively sterilizes the cat colony.
The current policy on feral cats, “catch and kill”, is not only ineffective in lowering the feral cat population but is extremely expensive to implement. Shelter resources are squandered in a futile attempt to kill off the “ownerless” cats in our community.
What a “catch and kill” policy doesn’t do is answer the moral question of why “wild” cats are singled out for eradication while other wild animals such as squirrels and raccoons are not. Obviously with the number of cats being killed approaching 5000 a year this dismally unmoral policy has failed.
While feral cats by definition are not “adoptable”, that fact alone doesn’t translate into ferals as not having meaningful, healthy lives if they are maintained as a feral cat colony.
A compassionate community believes that even though these cats are not adoptable they do have a right to live. A responsible TNR program serves the community by lowering the colony’s population over time.
II. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter – Quality of Life Issue - Low cost, high volume spay/neuter will lead to fewer animals entering the shelter system, allowing more resources to be allocated toward saving lives. Current animal welfare policies do little or nothing to promote low cost spay/neuter resources in our community.
One is left to wonder whether we would have been better served by building a number of spay/neuter clinics with the several million that went into building what has in effect turned out to be our new state of the art kill shelter.
III. Rescue Groups – An adoption or transfer to a rescue group frees up cage and kennel space, reduces expenses for feeding, cleaning and while improving the rate of lifesaving. With the rampant rate of cats and dogs being killed at our new shelter there is no practical excuse for not working with licensed rescue groups.
Killing a dog or cat that otherwise would have a safe haven in rescue is a judgmental, vindictive form of animal cruelty at the hands of shelter management.
Our shelter must reach out to the rescue community and form a partnership that currently does not exist. The first step in reaching out must include naming a new rescue coordinator who will works towards nurturing and developing this partnership.
IV. Foster Care – Volunteer foster care is crucial to No Kill. This fact has been proven by the success of the “Jail House Second Chance Program”. Dogs that would have been killed at the shelter are being socialized and placed through this fostering program at the jail. This same program, if ramped up through volunteer foster homes, would all but eliminate killing at our shelter while reducing the costs associated with providing longer term care for dogs and cats with specialized issues.
Shelter management refuses to discuss any type of outside volunteer fostering program, instead preferring to hang on to the failed policy of killing for “space” animals that would be highly adoptable if only they had a little more time.
Saving lives becomes compromised by the tunnel vision policy of controlling an animal’s destiny inside a malfunctioning shelter that implements the expediency of killing instead.
Fostering programs are a low cost, often times no cost, method of increasing a shelter’s capacity, improving public relations while improving the shelter’s image, rehabilitating sick and injured or behaviorally challenged animals and saving more lives.
Our shelter must reach out into the community for volunteers to foster dogs and cats who simply need more time to blossom.
V. Comprehensive Adoption Programs – Quality of Life Issue - Adoptions are vital to a shelter’s lifesaving mission. The quantity and quality of shelter adoptions is in shelter management’s hands, making lifesaving a direct function of shelter policies and practice.
In practice, rescue groups are better prepared to conduct home inspections, hold off site adoptions, evaluate application options and matching up pets to new owners then public shelters because of volunteer resources available.
Our shelter would increase adoptions by merely making the shelter more assessable to working families and through off site adoptions that promotes shelter pets needing adoption.
VI. Pet Retention –Quality of Life Issue - Saving animals requires communities to develop innovative strategies for keeping people and their companion animals together. The more a community sees its shelter as a place to turn for advice and assistance, the easier this job will be.
Changing our focus from “Gwinnett Animal Control and Enforcement” to “Gwinnett Animal Services Unit” is more then mere semantics. It’s a cultural shift and enhancement of value structure our animal welfare policies have on those citizens who responsibly own pets.
VII. Medical and Behavior Programs – Quality of Life Issue - The shelter must put in place comprehensive vaccination, handling, cleaning, socialization, and care policies before animals get sick and rehabilitative efforts for those who come in sick, injured, unweaned, or traumatized.
Our compassionate community will support efforts to rehabilitate, rather then kill, our homeless pets. We witness this all the time with news stories – the public leads the cheers for those pets that are saved and mourns those who are not.
VIII. Public Relations/Community Involvement – Increasing adoptions, maximizing donations, recruiting volunteers and partnering with community agencies comes down to one thing: increasing the shelter’s exposure.
New ordinances and a focus on enforcement won’t solve animal related problems in our community – our people will – the very people who are being exploited by these draconian laws that often times include threats of impounding the family pet and sending owners to jail..
Public relations and marketing are the foundation of all a shelter’s activities and their success. To go No-Kill, the shelter must be in the public eye.
IX. Volunteers – Quality of Life Issue - Volunteers are a dedicated “army of compassion” and the backbone of a successful No Kill effort. There is never enough staff, never enough dollars to hire more staff, and always more needs than paid human resources. That is where volunteers come in and make the difference between success and failure and, for the animals, life and death.
With only 31 approved volunteers our current volunteer program is a failure.
Our shelter must proactively recruit more volunteers to help staff the shelter – walking dogs and promoting adoptions.
X. Proactive Redemptions – Quality of Life Issue - One of the most overlooked areas for reducing killing in animal control shelters are lost animal reclaims. Sadly, besides having pet owners fill out a lost pet report, very little effort is made in this area of shelter operation.
This is unfortunate because doing so—primarily shifting from passive to a more proactive approach—has proven to have a significant impact on lifesaving and allow shelters to return a large percentage of lost animals to their families as well as garner more public support and backing for the shelter.
XI. A Compassionate Director – A hard working, compassionate animal control or shelter director not content to regurgitate tired clichés or hide behind the myth of “too many animals, not enough homes.”
In the end, there may be an overpopulation problem but not the one traditionally linked to animal control. What we are suffering from that is actually killing a higher number of animals, it is an overpopulation of unqualified, jaded or simply worn out individuals entrusted in caring for our shelter pets, who fail at doing so.
It is the contention of this author that management’s “incorrect thinking” entrenched in killing is the single most cause of our shelter’s failure. With our leadership mired in negativity, implementing only the failed policies of the past, we have become complacent with the status quo of killing.
Those who are intoxicated with punishing the public while killing their pets magically dance through the fog of misrepresentations and deceit only to emerge as the irresponsible death seekers themselves.
Our shelter must put an end to the bureaucracy that needlessly administers lethal “blue juice” injections as an only solution for our homeless animals. They’ve become lost in this low hanging fog of the shelter’s deceit.
Killing Defined: Animals are only euthanized if they are too sick to be treated or too aggressive to be suitable for adoption. No-kill shelters reject euthanasia as a means of population control; all "adoptable" and "treatable" animals are saved.
This conversation on No Kill alternatives cuts through that fog for all pet owners to see that killing healthy pets as wrong because it will always be wrong to kill any healthy pet. It’s morally wrong and for pet owners to kill healthy pets and it’s morally wrong for the shelter’s management and their subordinates to kill healthy pets as well.
Our lack of life saving focus comes from the years of mismanagement of a shelter run by the Gwinnett Police Department. They alone have squandered the opportunity to change and save lives with repeated rhetoric of misplaced blame.
Effectiveness of any movement in reaching shelter goals and operations begins with competent leadership that holds it’s staff accountable for developing proven life saving programs and one that fosters good relationships in the community, none of which exists now.
We face a moment in history where on one side we have “Kill-Oriented” traditionalists and on the other “No Kill Advocates”. This “culture clash” has taken on new life as word spreads across the country off other community’s success in implementing “No Kill” alternatives.
The Blame Game
“I think of all the good things we have left undone
Suffer premonitions, confirm suspicions of the holocaust to come”
“Finally I understand the feelings of a few
Ashes and diamonds, foe and friend
We are all equal in the end” - Pink Floyd - The Final Cut
It’s not the public who is to blame when adoptions are low because the shelter makes it impossible for working families to visit. It’s not the public who is to blame when the shelter refuses to do “off site” adoptions. It’s not the public who is to blame when the shelter denigrates or downplays working with rescue groups in placing at risk animals.
It’s not the public who is to blame for rounding up and killing stay cats despite there not being a leash law for cats. It’s not the public who is to blame when our shelter kills feral cats because a Trap-Neuter-Release program is not being utilized.
It’s not the public who is to blame when pet owners are denied services to help overcome behavioral, medical or environmental conditions that cause them to relinquish animals because no pet retention programs are in place.
It’s not the public who is to blame when the shelter focuses on threats and intimidation enforcing the draconian animal ordinance passed in 2007.
It’s not the public who is to blame when animal control works closely with the courts enforcing a draconian animal ordinance with threats and intimidation that leads many responsible pet owners to surrender their cherished pets to avoid jail terms and exorbitant fines from the county solicitors office.
In the end it will be public support that will create No Kill – the same outraged public that will cry out for change that shifts the focus from animal enforcement to an era of providing top notch life saving services instead.
To reach that culture shift it only takes one shelter manager – one leader – who is committed to simply saying NO to KILLING while choosing to aggressively promote life saving alternatives instead.
How can we expect pet owners to act “responsibly” when our own animal control unit commits the ultimate act of cruelty ending a healthy pets life with a myriad of excuses seeking to justify their own incompetence.
This is a failure of leadership, nothing more – nothing less. A leadership addicted to the failed policies of “killing for expedience”.
It will be our voices that will be heard over the silent screams of death coming from our shelter.
“In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends = Martin Luther King
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)