As a community Gwinnett is at the brink of solving many of our long held animal welfare issues. With a proactive approach to problem solving the issues we must discover solutions for still includes recognizing that far too many young pit bulls from still being killed in our proactive shelter.
These are senseless killing as well - we can do better. But to do so we must get serious and address the much broader issues - breeder licensing and responsible pet ownership laws that address spay neutering our pets.
Addressing the issues of irresponsible unlicensed breeding does more than simply react to many of our current animal overpopulation issues - breeder licensing laws are consumer protection and safety issues which attacks animal issues at its core - those who add to the problem with incessant irresponsible breeding.
It is NOT the taxpayers of this county's responsibility to subsidize unlicensed businesses breeding and selling animals for pets in the community. In fact, you establish a dual standard unheard of with any other commodity we purchase by allowing unlicensed businesses to compete with licensed establishments including the many pet stores located throughout Gwinnett that have licenses, follow all the rules and regulations required by state and federal laws and pay local sales, inventory and property tax.
There is NO OTHER business sector that is treated this way. We do not allow vendors to sell appliances from the side of the road just down the street from licensed, established businesses. So why do we allow puppy vendors the same governmental courtesy?
As a consumer I am outraged that I have more consumer protection purchasing a lawn mower or a toaster from a local business than I do should my family decide to add a family pet. When I buy that toaster not only do I know the toaster was manufactured to governmental regulations for that product and was safe but in fact also comes with a warranty where it can be returned should I as a consumer find it doesn't meet my needs.
With puppies being sold on a governmental protected black market for puppies, consumers have no recourse returning these often times "defective" puppies which leads to consumers simply dumping the problem on our shelter and the taxpayers who fund it.
For those who argue that breeding puppies is a long established southern hobby my response is "so is playing golf or hunting" and I object to tax revenue being used to subsidize those hobbies as well.
More than a consumer safety issues buying puppies in an unregulated black market is a consumer safety issue as well. We hear all too often horrible stories of consumers being robbed, beaten and even killed simply trying to purchase a used IPhone on craigslist yet we send families to these same shucksters to buy their puppies.
Many of the pit bull puppies being marketed through advertising medians like craigslist are specifically bred for "customers" involved in the sale of illegal narcotics, gang members involved in felonious dog fighting and breeders who simply raise and train puppies to be aggressive which is NOT a trait conducive t family living.
What will it take before our politicians understand the implications of not protecting our consumers from these dangers? Hopefully we will not simply react do to a senseless loss of life in situations that should have been prevented in the first place.
We must do more than simply react to current issues. Gwinnett has the solid leadership in running and managing our animal issues in Chip Moore. We need to give Chip the tools to get the job done.
Those tools start with passing a local breeder licensing law in Gwinnett that requires those who want to breed to have a business license, pass a criminal background check - the same as we require our licensed plumbers to do, and pass yearly inspections by animal control assuring compliance with all of Gwinnett's animal welfare ordinances.
Licensing Breeders – a community and consumer safety issue
Why breeder licensing laws? Breeder licensing laws protect consumers from fraud and the criminal element involved in a highly profitable black market of breeding and selling puppies by closing off the loopholes that allow this "industry" to prosper.
It is simply indefensible for the community to allow people to breed dogs that can be used as weapons. It is indefensible that citizens can inadvertently purchase a poorly bred dog powerful enough to seriously injure or kill its owner, a family member or a neighbor.
The risk of raising and selling aggressive dogs that could endanger other citizens in the community is indefensible. Since pit bulls can be more dangerous to humans and other animals, and more difficult to handle then most dogs and more importantly since they attract “owners” who may want to exploit them – breeding pit bulls must be tightly regulated at a county level.
Gwinnett should lead the way on responsible oversight in the area of pet overpopulation by requiring all breeders be licensed, that licensing requirements include a criminal background check, that breeder’s maintain a city business license and have yearly inspections from animal control.
These requirements should be across the board for breeding and selling of companion animals and not breed specific.
Without laws and programs that severely reduce the number of pit bulls entering the shelter; especially those bred by an irresponsible backyard breeder market, adopting out enough pit bulls to dramatically reduce the number being killed only risk placing pits with social and behavioral issues or lowering the standards of pet owners who can and would care for their pits as pets.
Public policy of breeder licensing should NOT be set by breeders and fanciers, and certainly not by dog fighters who pose as breeders and even pretend to be rescuers. When so-called pit bull lovers and rescuers use language like “it is the right of every American to buy or breed whatever kind of dog they want” then they are obviously not animal advocates.
Breeding, buying, and/or selling pit bulls are all inconsistent with ending pit bull exploitation. .
An effective response to pit bull overpopulation is to target irresponsible unlicensed pit bull breeders and this must be done mandated legislatively by our county government, since the high profitability of the pit bull market has proved that pit bull breeders are resistant or opposed to any and all forms of gentle persuasion.
Only if these standards are achieved is there hope of achieving a no-kill sheltering model for all dogs regardless of breed. Unfortunately, behavioral issues cannot be ignored – whether the focus is the behavioral traits of pit bulls or the attitudes and behavior of the people who tend to keep pit bulls.
The community can no longer ignore or condone irresponsible breeding or ownership of pit bulls. Thus forming a coalition of responsible pit bull rescue partners to overlook placement and adoption criteria for all pit bulls is crucial in protecting not only the community but the breed as well.
Breed Specific Legislation is not the answer
Opponents of breed specific legislation (BSL) often argue that disproportional high rates of fatal and disfiguring pit bull attacks on humans and other animals are the fault of the pet owners of those particular pit bulls, and not representative of typical pit bulls.
This shortsighted thinking overlooks that pit bulls, like other breed is produced for a specific purposes and have been often times bred with a mindset and inclination to tear other animals to pieces. This has in turn made pit bulls attractive to the sort of people who have made them the dogs most likely to be violent abused and/or neglected: sadists, people with drugs and alcohol addiction, those involved in criminal activity, and people seeking to toughen their image to compensate for their own perceived negative self image issues.
The central behavioral issue involving pit bulls is not a matter of natural genetics per se but rather a product of inherently problematic dogs being acquired by inherently problematic people, who keep, train and often times neglect and abandon in a manner which multiplies the community’s risk factors.
It is the actions of the dog that makes a dog vicious, not the breed line. BSL does not work and will not work because the target of the laws – those irresponsible pit bull owners are often times the criminals, the drug dealers, the gangbanger’s, and those inclined to fight their dogs – these type of dog exploiters definitely would not be registering their dogs with any police agency that might stumble on their criminal activity or previous outstanding warrants.
Criminals will continue to own pit bulls irresponsibly and responsible pit bull owners who were role models in the community but feared registering would be outlaws as well. The cost of enforcing breed specific legislation and sorting out the new criminal element would be enormous.
Breed Specific Legislation, is not the answer, it does not solve the human issues involved and actually does more harm than good in accomplishing the cultural shift needed to encourage responsible ownership of pit bulls.
Investing in spay/neuter solutions
A unique opportunity for the county presents itself to selectively invest in programs that will continually lower our intake numbers moving us closer to ending all the needless killing of dogs and cats in our shelter.
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett encourages our elected officials into seeking programs that would mandate spay neutering on all pets - especially the widely abused pit bulls. The natural follow up to the crisis of “pit bull” pet over population would be the passage of a responsible pit bull owner resolution encouraging all pit bull pet owners to spay/neuter their pet.
Reducing the pit bull populations to a level kept safely in stable homes would require a responsible sterilization rate of 90%. Making those spay/neuter services available through low cost clinics or even free to income qualified pet owners has been successful in increasing the numbers of pit bulls who can not reproduce further adding to our already overpopulation issues on pit bulls throughout the Atlanta area.
Setting aside behavioral issues that should be minimized through responsible breeder licensing requirements, just looking at the numbers, a 90% sterilization rate is necessary if no kill sheltering for pit bulls is to become a theoretical possibility.
Spay/Neuter Policy Recommendations
Responsible citizens can all agree that pet owners need to be responsible to the community by spay/neutering their pets as a quality of life issue. Our community is a village of responsible pet owners; studies suggest that 90% of responsible pet owners are altered to prevent them from adding to the community’s pet overpopulation issues.
The focus on spay/neuter funding should be on the two largest contributors to shelter intake numbers – pit bulls and feral/domesticated cats. The community should adopt a policy of providing low cost or free spay/neuter for pit bull owners seeking to alter their pets.
Promoting investments in low cost spay neuter and release of feral cats in partnership with the feral cat rescue community will work towards long-term reductions and control of feral cat populations as well. Partnering with non-profits spay/neuter organizations that provide and promote affordable low cost spay/neuter services for all responsible pet owners is a quality of life solution.
Promoting with community outreach programs that educate our citizens on the critical importance of spay/neuter as a solution to reducing our shelter intake numbers is the mechanism for long-term success. However, focused attention on the irresponsible ten percent of pet owners who fail to alter their pets is also critical to a community’s long-term success as well.
In order to target irresponsible pet owners who not only fail to alter their pets but also fail to comply with the county’s animal ordinances as well is to “mandate” that all pets that enter the publicly funded animal shelter must be altered prior to being reclaimed by their owners.
This type of selective enforcement of a “mandatory spay/neuter” law would exempt all responsible pet owners who maintain control of their pets and comply with all the ordinances as they pertain to being responsible.
Excessive costs of trying to enforce a spay/neuter mandate through door-to-door enforcement that in itself raises constitutional and moral arguments to the issue. The issue is simple – those pet owners who can’t or won’t maintain control of their pets add to our community’s animal welfare problems. They need not be rewarded or ignored for those contributions to our shelter issues.
Task Force transformation in ideology takes root
We have compelling reasons for following in the footsteps of other progressive communities that have successfully implemented progressive sheltering parameters. We have seen the depths of frustration that our old sheltering model delivers. Yet, there are reasons to be optimistic about the immensely productive changes that lie ahead.
With the recent findings of Gwinnett’s “Animal Task Force”, the mechanism has been created for dramatically reducing the number of adoptable pets being killed in our shelter while developing a long term strategic plan to reduce governments role in that process.
The Gwinnett Animal Task Force builds the foundation for developing a compassionate but effective animal welfare policy that will serve the entire communities needs. It removes all obstacles that prevent responsible citizens from having oversight and participating in this process.
More importantly, it gives a huge voice to all of our community’s animals whose entire future rests in the balance. 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.
There could not be a better time for this county to reach out to it’s citizens for help in attaining our shared goals. Our county commissioners bold decision to tackle these issues with our newly formed “Animal Task Force” is a stepping-stone to that success. It is certainly is a better approach then to continue squandering the community’s trust instead.
"We the Pet Owners in Gwinnett" seek leadership with a vision to think outside the normal realm of solutions and take our county into a new frontier of best sheltering services provided to our compassionate community of pet lovers. We are served by some of the hardest working volunteers and civil servants. We are proud of their tireless efforts.
Armed with information and wisdom we can make this world a better place for our companion friends. We truly remain hopeful on the exciting future that lies ahead.
Building a model for truly responsible pet ownership in our community is a lofty goal worthy of our elected officials attention. I thank the commissioners in advance having the political courage to protect us all in considering these critical issues - BREEDER LICENSING and RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERS SPAY NEUTER LAWS.
Showing posts with label No kill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No kill. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Censor this
What retribution would that be? Plotting to send old hound dogs to a local shelter to be killed?
Those of you interested in listening to both sides of the controversial civil case No Kill Nation and Debi Day versus the Drats blog - here is my response to the court. We'll see how long it takes No Kill Nation's crack attorney to take this down too as being "defamatory" towards his client.
The Honorable Judge Eileen O’Connor
201 S.E. 6th Street
Room 930A
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
RE: "No Kill Nation et al v Miami Dade Rescue Railroad et al"
Case Number 11-27877(04)
Judge O’Connor
As the defendant in the above referenced lawsuit I am in receipt of plaintiff’s attorney Ryan Lehrer’s letter to the court dated February 5th, 2013 recapping statements and comments at the January 29, 2013 Show cause Hearing set by your court.
I disagree with Mr Lehrer’s assessment that I’m not working towards a resolution in this case. I’ll remind the court that during last weeks hearing I did in good faith offer to travel to Florida in the spring in order that these petty issues could be resolved. I respect the courts position that providing funding for indigent defendants isn’t possible. I am attaching financial documentation to the court on my current financial status as provided Georgia Department of Family Services.
Mr Lehrer’s suggestion that extradition is needed to resolve issues he has compounded is insulting on many levels. We are talking about a civil case where no evidence has been heard, no damages proven nor any "lies and defamatory" comments being tracked back to me personally. This case has gone past the point of seeking the truth over allegations that have not only not been proven but in fact that I have insisted no guilt to.
Since it appears the court is considering criminal charges in this case I am hereby requesting an attorney in south Florida to defend me as an indigent defendant.
Attorney Lehrer’s interpretation of the comments are wildly imaginative on with his view that "DeCarlo’s complete failure to abide by the Permanent Injunction, coupled with his statements to this court at the Show Cause hearing that he has no intentions of complying with the provisions of the Permanent Injunction prohibiting him from repeating the defamatory statements….." is blatantly false and seriously misleading.
Please find the following steps I have taken to comply with the court’s "permanent injunction" as supported by law.
I. Complying with Permanent Injunction on FaceBook statements
Per the injunction signed by this court "to remove statements from Facebook that refer to plaintiffs as "being frauds or scam artists, or that refer, directly or indirectly, to plaintiffs stealing donations or perpetrating charity fraud", those posts have been removed from the public domain.
In the Affidavit of Catherine Santomero dated February 4 2013 Santomero acknowledges that she "is only able to view statements going back approximately one week from the particular day ….." and therefore "unable to verify whether DeCarlo complied with the Permanent Injunction by removing the statements…". Since Santomero is in agreement that she can no longer see the "alleged statements" the requirements have been met.
To the best of my knowledge there are no statements on Facebook pages attributed to me in violation of the court’s injunction.
Santomero was also unable to view any of these statements in her original affidavit filed in November 2012 as well. These settings are consistent with privacy settings maintained since joining Facebook. Posts have never been available on the public domain after a length of time chosen by Facebook.
II Complying with Permanent Injunction on "Drats the Squirrels and Nuts" blog postings
Per the injunction signed by this court I am only ordered to remove statements from the "88" http://squirrelnuts.blogspot.com blogs that refer to the plaintiffs as "being frauds or scam artists, or that refer, directly or indirectly, to plaintiffs stealing donations or perpetrating charity fraud.
While it is true that Santomero affadavit lists "88 blogs" alleged to contain "defamatory statements" against No Kill Nation the fact is a vast majority of the blogs written have absolutely nothing to do with No Kill Nation or the plaintiff.
From Plaintiff’s Composition Exhibit A
Trip Down Yellow Brick Road dated May 24, 2011– Personal story, there are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Texas Action Alert SB 1451 Passes Senate" dated May24, 2011 is an article about Texas passing puppy mill reform SB 1451. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
No Kill – A Movement or a Cult dated May 23rd 2011. Op-ed piece discussing cults. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Temperament Testing – deciding which shelter dogs die dated May 2011. An article on temperament testing shelter dogs. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Miami Dade "Rescue Group Closing" dated May 20, 2011. Press Release info from MDAS. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Why Does Bett Sundermyer Oppose Puppy Mill Reform? dated may 19, 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
RPOA Press Release on Texas SB 1451 Puppy Mill Bill dated May 17, 2011. More on puppy mill issue. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Near The End dated may 16, 2011. Lyrics from the song "Near the End". There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Houston "we have a problem – the puppy mill nuts have taken over" dated may 1, 2011. Article on puppy mills. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Hey you, is there anybody out there? Dated May 16, 2011. Article on Nathan Winograd written as an op-ed. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Have we reached a point where the art of shared compromise is lost? dated may 13 2011. Writer’s personal observations. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
The Death of Hope’s Law dated May 2011. Observations on the failing of Nathan Winograd’s "Hopes Law" in Texas. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Voices from the night dated July 9 2011. Blog on opposition to planned protest at Miami Dade Animal Services. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
No Kill Nation Issues False Press report on MDAS Parvo Outbreak dated July 7 2011. Discusses parvo outbreak at MDAS. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Nathan Winograd’s "Blows Against the Empire" dated July 3 2011. Article on Nathan Winograd. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
The Grim Realty of No Kill Miami dated August 22 2011. Observations on perils facing a no kill Miami Dade. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Miami Dade – Is No Kill Possible? Dated August 21 2011. Observations on Miami Dade’s no kill resolution. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Winograd’s Parting Shot at Maddie’s Fund dated August 2011. Article on Nathan Winograd. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
A Tale of Four Cities but reality for one dated August 11 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
No Kill Nation – MDAS Out of the Darkness dated August 9 2011. Observations on MDAS shelter management transition. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Tompkins SPCA – the little shelter that couldn’t dated August 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Mike Fry – The Myth of the Myth of Pet Overpopulation dated August 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
No Kill Nation to negotiate a new tomorrow for MDAS dated August 6 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
What’s up at Memphis Animal Services? dated August 7 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
No Kill Nation’s Relentless Attack on MDAS – who really suffers? dated August 3 2011. Article addressing MDAS shelter and management policy. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
No Kill Sanctuary or Puppy Mill dated September 24 2011. Article on no kill sanctuary raided for hoarding. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Why Tompkins SPCA is not an Open Admission No Kill Shelter dated September 11 2011. Article on no kill sheltering and open admission policies. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Winograd – ASPCA’s Mission Orange does more harm than good? dated October 31 2011. Commentary on Nathan Winograd article. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
I can see very well dated October 25 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Animal Ark’s private war with AHS dated September 11 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
The Homestead Dogs dated October 24 2011. Blog on stray dog issues in the Everglades. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Is pet overpopulation a "myth" dated October 12 2011. Article on pet overpopulation. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Greatest Love of All dated October 11 2011. Article on my dogs. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
No Biscuit for Shirley dated October 6 2011. Article on no kill blogger Yesbiscuit. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Winograd – ASPCA’s Mission Orange does more harm than good? (repeat)
I can see very well (repeat)
Animal Ark’s private war with AHS (repeat)
The Homestead Dogs (repeat)
Is pet overpopulation a "myth" (repeat)
Greatest Love of All (repeat)
No Biscuit for Shirley (repeat)
Sometimes you can’t please anyone dated November 25 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Does a leadership void threaten the no kill movement? dated November 25 2011. Op ed article on no kill movement’s lack of leadership. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Digging through the no kill spin dated November 24 2011. Removed blog from public domain.
Can you hear me now? dated November 23 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Florida Rescue Act – what it doesn’t do – protect shelter pets dated November 22 2011. Article opposing FARA. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Donate to No Kill Nation? It all makes perfect sense dated November 2011. Removed from public domain.
Solving Our Pit Bull Problem dated November 14 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Do Draconian Dog Barking Laws add to shelter killing dated November 12 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Finding target audience in this nosy advocacy world dated November 9 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Good morning No Kill Nation dated November 7 2011. Removed from public domain.
Very Truly Up Yours dated November 1 2011. Removed from public domain.
No Kill Nation’s failed message of hate kills dated December 24 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Howliday Cheer to a no kill – "no suffering" nation dated December 23 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
No Kill Nation – "enough homes for all unwanted animals? dated December 22 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Nathan Winograd and his support team dated December 21 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Valerie "Gossip Girl" Hayes Rattles Her Craddle dated December 20 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Why the LIES from Chris Benson and Valerie Hayes? dated December 19 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
Who is responsible for shelter killing? dated December 18 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
NKN Lawsuit – A Battle of Words dated December 2011. There are no references to NKN being frauds or involved in charity fraud included.
In other words No Kill Nation's attorney and No Kill nation board officers Debi Day and Kathy Santomero knowlingly submitted a falsified affidavit in order to influence this case during a hearing that the defendant was not allowed to offer rebuttal testimony to the court. A clear violation of due process.
Here is a list of those blogs "censored" and banned under this court ruling.
From Google’s "Blogger Team"
We'd like to inform you that we've received a court order regarding your blog http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com. In accordance with the terms of the court order, we have removed content previously located at:
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/trip-down-yellow-brick-road.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/texas-action-alert-sb-1451-passes.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/no-kill-movement-or-cult.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/temperament-testing-deciding-which.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/miami-dade-rescue-group-closing.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-does-bett-sundermeyer-oppose-puppy.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/rpoas-press-release-on-texas-hb-1451.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/near-end.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/houston-we-have-problem-puppy-mill-nuts.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/hey-you-is-there-anybody-out-there.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/have-we-reached-point-were-art-of.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-hopes-law.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/07/voices-from-night.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/07/no-kill-nations-issues-false-press.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/07/nathan-winograds-blows-against-empire.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/08/grim-reality-of-no-kill-miami-dade.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/08/miami-dade-is-no-kill-possible.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/08/winograd-parting-shot-at-maddies-fund.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/08/tale-of-four-cities-but-reality-for-one.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-kill-nation-mdas-out-of-darkness.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/08/tompkins-spca-little-shelter-that.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/08/mike-fry-myth-of-myth-of-pet.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-kill-nation-negotiate-new-tomorrow.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/08/whats-up-at-memphis-animal-services.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-kill-nations-relentless-attack-on.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/09/no-kill-sanctuary-or-puppy-mill.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-tompkins-spca-is-not-open-admission.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/10/winograd-aspcas-mission-orange-does.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/10/i-can-see-very-well-theres-boat-on-reef.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/10/animal-arks-private-war-with-ahs.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/10/homestead-dogs.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/10/is-pet-overpopulation-really-myth.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/10/another-man.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/10/no-biscuit-for-shirley.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/sometimes-you-cant-please-anyone.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/does-leadership-void-threaten-no-kill.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/no-kill-nations-leadership-team-wants.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/can-you-hear-me-now.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/florida-rescue-act-what-it-doesnt-do.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/donate-to-no-kill-nation-it-all-makes.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/solving-our-pit-bull-crisis.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/do-draconian-dog-barking-laws-add-to.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/finding-target-audience-in-this-noisy.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/good-morning-no-kill-nation.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/11/very-truly-up-yours.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-kill-nations-failed-message-of-hate.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-kill-nation-howliday-cheer.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-kill-nation-enough-homes-for-all.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/nathan-winograd-and-his-support-team.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/valerie-gossip-girl-hayes-rattles-her.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-lies-from-chris-benson-and-valerie.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/who-is-responsible-for-shelter-killing.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/nkn-lawsuit-battle-of-words.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-kill-nations-fraudulent-craigslist.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-kill-nation-honeymoons-over-with.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/12/winograd-weighs-in-on-what-is-true.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-kill-nations-attack-on-mdrr.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/01/nathan-winograds-distorted-view-on.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-kill-nations-booming-rescue-business.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/01/tompkins-spca-officials-see-jump-in.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/01/welcome-to-debis-world.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/01/fur-is-flying-with-no-kill-nation.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/01/florida-rescue-act-why-should-rescue.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/01/message-about-nothing.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-kill-nations-flawed-florida-animal.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-kill-revolutions-steve-phipps-dirty.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/03/sgt-winograds-at-helm.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/03/no-kill-nations-quest-for-fame-and.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/its-hard-to-tell-good-guys-from-bad.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/when-is-no-kill-not-no-kill.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-kill-nation-law-suit-heats-up.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/are-political-obsessions-responsible.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/msn-analogy-on-breeder-no-kill-spin.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/can-you-spayneuter-your-way-out-of.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-kills-fantasy-world.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/step-back-in-time.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/hyprocracy-of-no-kill-hospice-care.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/redemption-and-letting-go-of-status-quo.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/hypocracy-of-no-kill-movement.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/winograd-sponsor-moans-about-hb1451.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-can-nkns-debi-day-not-know-who-naia.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/05/amused-to-death.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/05/is-debi-day-barking-mad.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/05/did-you-know.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/05/usda-proposed-regulations-would-crack.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/05/nathan-winograds-blind-allegiance.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/05/its-just-two-cents.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/05/death-of-miami-dade-rescue-railroad.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/06/senate-passes-farm-bill-no-kill-passes.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/06/only-pawn-in-shelter-reform-game.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/06/dumbing-down-no-kill-nation-with.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-kill-lost-in-haze-of-soft-middle-age.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/07/nathan-winograds-divisive-message-of.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/its-impossible-to-separate-players.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-kills-blind-dangerous-to-animal-abuse.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/positively-absolutely-debi-d.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/all-bloggers-are-not-created-eqaul.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/is-no-kill-nation-fleecing-rescue.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-kills-message-of-bigotry-bullying.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-kill-miami-can-we-afford-anotr.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-kill-nations-motion-to-compel.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/coming-soon-no-kill-nation-action-hero.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-kill-sells-out-post-war-dream.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-kill-news-killing-apologists.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/ryan-clinton-non-profits-are-big.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/nkn-lies-stonewall-demands-for.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-kill-nation-debi-days-mistruth-of-day.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/nkn-partnership-with-backyard-pit-bull.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/good-morning-lincoln-day.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/are-lies-and-censorship-killing-no-kill.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/demise-of-mdrr-its-about-power-money.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/08/nkns-ryan-lehrer-and-his-quest-for.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/no-kills-betrayal-of-puppy-mill.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/no-kill-nation-contempt-of-court.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/no-kill-nations-message-of-love.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-no-kill-nations-leadership.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/no-kill-nation-or-charity-fraud.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/no-kill-nations-greedy-war-on-rescue.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/running-away-from-our-egos.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-can-i-do.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/does-no-kills-apologist-agenda-support.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-no-kill-culture-war-or-big-business.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/09/lambriar-exits-puppy-mill-arena.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-kill-nation-v-miami-dade-rescue.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-kill-revolution-brain-of-squirrel-or.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/10/false-prophets-of-no-kill-or-friendly.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/06/life-liberty-and-pursuit-of-happiness.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/06/message-to-no-kill-nations-debi-day.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/06/is-nathan-winograd-truly-that-ignorant.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-back-pages.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/06/no-kill-nation-who-they-really-are.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2011/06/from-minds-of-babes-green-chesse-and.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/11/think-before-you-donate.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/12/no-kill-nation-private-war-on-rescue.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-case-against-debi-day-and-no-kill.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/12/no-kill-nation-thoughts-from-pickled.html
http://squirrelsnnuts.blogspot.com/2012/12/nkn-vs-drats-pertinent-facts.html
A copy of the court order we received is attached.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Gwinnett's Policy of Killing Owner Surrender's
Killing Owner Surrender’s
Current policy at animal control is to immediately kill owner surrenders that do not include documented vaccination records when surrendered. It is unacceptable under any humane context to kill a pet simply because the surrendering owner did not or could not provide proof if such vaccinations.
The current management excuse for this abusive abhorrent policy is that unvaccinated pets pose a "disease" issue for the shelter. Fact is stray pets picked up in the field do not come with vaccination records either.
This issue of senselessly killing "undocumented" owner surrenders has been discussed numerous animal advisory meetings and yet the policy is still in effect. How we adopted such a foolish excuse for killing owner surrenders has never been clear.
One reason given for killing owner surrenders who were not current on vaccinations was "this (owner’s surrendering unvaccinated pets) is not allowed because the public started using this service as a "sick" pet drop off to avoid veterinary care".
So, in other words, our shelter is punishing irresponsible "dead beat" pet owners who are too cheap to vet their dogs by killing the dog?
I first became aware of shelter’s policy on killing owner surrenders a few years ago when a citizen shared a story of an old beagle that had been dropped off at the shelter by her owner. This poor old girl was dragged back to the euthanasia room howling in fear only minutes after her owner left.
I can only imagine how frightened she was. Sentencing a dog to death for the actions of an irresponsible owner solves nothing, the dog is now dead and the owner is still irresponsible. The only difference is OUR SHELTER is irresponsible for participating in that killing.
If the issue in our community is pet owners who can’t afford to take their dogs to the vet then shouldn’t that issue be addressed rather than implementing a program that kills the dog who is already victimized?
Since the county doesn’t want or need to accept the responsibility of placing these pets we must establish a policy of making ALL owner surrender’s available to rescue partners as a first option rather than simply taking them into the shelter. All owner surrenders need to be transferred to licensed rescue partners groups for fostering and placement OR the shelter must vaccinate these pets while providing the same vigilance in seeking new homes as the strays are afforded.
Through an outsourcing partnership with the rescue community pet owners could work closely in finding these pets new homes without costing taxpayers in the process. In practice, rescue groups are better prepared to conduct home inspections, hold off site adoptions, evaluate application options and match up pets to new owners then public shelters.
A progressive animal services unit should be able to offer pet retention alternatives to help aid owners surrendering their pets at the shelter. A trained volunteer staff with strong people and customer service skills is needed to answer calls and counsel pet owners surrendering pets at the shelter on resources and rescue partner options that might be available instead.
The road to "no kill" should always include making the necessary changes in policy that stops the senseless killing "one dog" at a time.
To read more on the issues facing advocates as we revitalizing our animal welfare policies;
http://by20hounds.blogspot.com/2011/11/breaking-with-tradition-to-revitalize.html
Current policy at animal control is to immediately kill owner surrenders that do not include documented vaccination records when surrendered. It is unacceptable under any humane context to kill a pet simply because the surrendering owner did not or could not provide proof if such vaccinations.
The current management excuse for this abusive abhorrent policy is that unvaccinated pets pose a "disease" issue for the shelter. Fact is stray pets picked up in the field do not come with vaccination records either.
This issue of senselessly killing "undocumented" owner surrenders has been discussed numerous animal advisory meetings and yet the policy is still in effect. How we adopted such a foolish excuse for killing owner surrenders has never been clear.
One reason given for killing owner surrenders who were not current on vaccinations was "this (owner’s surrendering unvaccinated pets) is not allowed because the public started using this service as a "sick" pet drop off to avoid veterinary care".
So, in other words, our shelter is punishing irresponsible "dead beat" pet owners who are too cheap to vet their dogs by killing the dog?
I first became aware of shelter’s policy on killing owner surrenders a few years ago when a citizen shared a story of an old beagle that had been dropped off at the shelter by her owner. This poor old girl was dragged back to the euthanasia room howling in fear only minutes after her owner left.
I can only imagine how frightened she was. Sentencing a dog to death for the actions of an irresponsible owner solves nothing, the dog is now dead and the owner is still irresponsible. The only difference is OUR SHELTER is irresponsible for participating in that killing.
If the issue in our community is pet owners who can’t afford to take their dogs to the vet then shouldn’t that issue be addressed rather than implementing a program that kills the dog who is already victimized?
Since the county doesn’t want or need to accept the responsibility of placing these pets we must establish a policy of making ALL owner surrender’s available to rescue partners as a first option rather than simply taking them into the shelter. All owner surrenders need to be transferred to licensed rescue partners groups for fostering and placement OR the shelter must vaccinate these pets while providing the same vigilance in seeking new homes as the strays are afforded.
Through an outsourcing partnership with the rescue community pet owners could work closely in finding these pets new homes without costing taxpayers in the process. In practice, rescue groups are better prepared to conduct home inspections, hold off site adoptions, evaluate application options and match up pets to new owners then public shelters.
A progressive animal services unit should be able to offer pet retention alternatives to help aid owners surrendering their pets at the shelter. A trained volunteer staff with strong people and customer service skills is needed to answer calls and counsel pet owners surrendering pets at the shelter on resources and rescue partner options that might be available instead.
The road to "no kill" should always include making the necessary changes in policy that stops the senseless killing "one dog" at a time.
To read more on the issues facing advocates as we revitalizing our animal welfare policies;
http://by20hounds.blogspot.com/2011/11/breaking-with-tradition-to-revitalize.html
Monday, November 14, 2011
Breaking with Tradition to Revitalize Animal Services
The essential, straightforward process of “Breakthrough Thinking” involves a meaningful organization of purposes you seek to achieve and how to reach that point.
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 and break through to find revitalizing, consistent positive solutions to the problems that confront you.
Solutions put forth must adhere to community’s ideals yet remain revenue neutral In today’s economic environment solutions must work towards lowering the number of adoptable pets killed without raising the cost of animal control. These solutions identify wasteful spending and re-direct that funding into program investments that will reduce animal control costs long term.
Revitalizing Animal Services - A look into the future
We can think of all the good things left undone yet there is good reason to believe the community can succeed in both goals of lowering shelter deaths and reducing the costs of animal services as well.
The policy of stray cats
One area of huge cost savings is in the area of picking up stray cats (ferals). Not only was/is this policy unnecessary (there isn’t a law that requires cats to be restrained) but the combination of manpower costs associated with rounding up stray cats along with the fact over 90% are killed once they reach our shelter exemplifies wasteful spending.
There can be no economical justification for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each year on a failed “catch and kill” policy for feral cats that simply does nothing towards lowering future feral cat population numbers.
In 2010 that number dropped to 1,318 stray cats picked up or 110 cats each month,
In the first nine months of 2011 only 324 stray cats have been picked up or a rate of 35 cats each month (our goal should be zero).
Reversing direction to kill less – spend less
In 2009 the shelter handled a total of over 5,100 cats of which 4,588 were killed.
In 2010 that number dropped to a total of 3,800 (1,300 less) were handled with 3.232 killed.
Projections for 2011 show the shelter handling around 2,900 cats with approximately 2,400 or 80% killed.
The policy change of no longer picking up stray cats has resulted in a two-year reduction of 2,200 cats entering the shelter and a reduced number of 2,100 killed.
The combined cost savings from running a shelter that no longer performs a “catch and kill” methodology saves both lives and taxpayer money. If we want to continue to see cost savings along with more lives saved we must develop policies that support trap/neuter/release on feral cats and proactively invest in low cost spay/neuter programs for the rest.
These policy changes working in tandem with renewed partnerships with local cat rescue coalitions will ultimately reverse the trend of killing far too many cats simply because the shelter lacks a cohesive plan that saves lives.
Recommendations
Clearly, dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to control feral cat populations by rounding up and killing them by the thousands has never been a workable solution. In fact, it is government waste at it’s worst.
Conventional thinking long has been that about 70% of the cats killed in shelters are feral, but studies suggest that could be true only if the overwhelming majority of unweaned kittens who are killed were believed to be from feral mothers. Neonatal kittens actually appear to account for more than half of the cats killed in shelters.
We strongly encourage the task force committee study the alternate Trap/Neuter/Return programs. We must embrace a trap/neuter/release policy because it saves LIVES and MONEY.
An Animal People survey found that only 20% of limited admission shelters and 55% of open admission (public) shelters acknowledged accepting feral cats, except in emergency cases. Yet, 56% of the cats occupying shelter space were kittens and only 14% of those from feral moms.
An astounding 45 of open admission public shelters mention promoting neuter return as an alternative to accepting feral cats, usually working in partnership with feral nonprofit trap/neuter/return organizations.
The goal should be to eliminate stray cats entering the shelter by outsourcing all feral cats complaints to a new “feral cat rescue coalition”. At best a partnership that helps fund spay/neuter of feral cats and maintains nuisance free feral colonies is a far more humane and cost effective solution.
Policies that “outsource” feral cat issues also eliminate the need to house the un adoptable feral cats in our shelter allowing the shelter to focus on finding adoption and rescue options for those domesticated cats that are adoptable.
Policies on stray dogs
In 2009, animal control picked up 3,823 stray dogs or 320 a month of which 885 dogs or 75 a month (less then 25%) were reclaimed by their owners..
In 2010 that number dropped to 3,455 stray dogs (about 10%) or 290 a month were picked up of which 936 or 80 per month were reclaimed.
Third quarter (2011) results have 2,683 strays dogs or around 300 dogs per month entering the shelter of which 845 or 90 a month were reclaimed. These numbers project out to 3,600 for 2011 with 1,080 reclaims.
One of the most overlooked areas for cost saving and reduced killing in animal control shelters is lost animal reclaims. Sadly, besides having pet owners fill out a lost pet report, very little effort other effort is made to reunite lost pets with their owners.
It costs the county taxpayers money for each dog picked up as a stray. It costs even more money when that dog enters the shelter. Each dog returned in the field represents immediate cost savings to the taxpayers.
The goal of animal control should always be to protect the community but it should also be to do so in the most efficient cost effective way possible.
It is simply too costly and ineffective to not proactively seek solutions that return pets to their owners rather then impounding them into our shelter system. Not only is this a tremendous waste of resources but it leads to far too many pets being needlessly killed as well.
There is technology available that would allow an animal control officer to take a picture of dogs picked up in the field that could be uploaded on the county animal control website. The solution might be as simple as rewriting the SOP’s written to address stray’s picked up in the field.
Pioneering work in this regard already has been done in North Carolina, where Wake County and the surrounding counties of Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Granville, Harnett, Johnston, Orange, and Person joined together to form TriangleLostPets.com. Individuals with lost and found pets input comprehensive information about them into this user-friendly system (i.e., name, breed, type, age, gender, location lost/found, colors, description, and date lost/found) along with the individual’s contact information and a photograph of the animal.
Pet owners should be able use their smart phone to look for lost pets including if that pet has been picked up by animal control. Not only is this a service pet owners should expect from our county, ultimately it is a service pet that owner’s should demand because it saves the taxpayers money.
The issue of enforcing ordinances that requires pet owners to maintain control of their pets does not justify spending a tremendous amount of resources forcing pet owners to look for pets that clearly could be returned in the field.
Recommendations
The community must develop programs that encourage responsible pet owners to put both tags and/or microchips on their pets. Providing a ride home instead of a trip to the shelter helps return pets to their responsible pet owners. More importantly, it lowers shelter intake numbers, reduces the cost burden on taxpayers and allows the shelter staff to focus it’s resources on finding homes for the strays and owner surrenders that don’t have responsible owners.
Owner Surrenders – Turning problems into cost saving solutions
In 2009 pet owner’s surrendered 2,106 dogs at animal control. This represents 175 dogs each month needing shelter and new homes.
In 2010 that number dropped to 1,586 or 130 dogs a month. As in the case of stray dogs canine owner surrender’s dropped in 2010 as well. This drop represented a reduction of owner surrenders of 25%.
In 2011, the number of owner surrender’s stabilized with 1,168 owner surrenders or 130 dogs per month were surrendered at animal control. This projects out to about 1,500 for the year.
Recommendations
A progressive animal services unit should be able to offer pet retention alternatives to help aid owners surrendering their pets at the shelter. A trained volunteer staff with strong people and customer service skills is needed to answer calls and counsel pet owners surrendering pets at the shelter on resources and rescue partner options that might be available instead.
Partnering with rescue in finding life saving options
Over the last three years the combined result in canine intake numbers (strays and owner surrenders) dropped from 5,929 in 2010 to 5,041 in 2010. This represents a 15% reduction in dogs needing shelter services.
In 2011, the shelter is trending towards a total of slightly over 5,000 strays and owner surrenders entering the shelter. This becomes the baseline number of dogs that need new homes or rescue.
In 2009 there were 1,071 dogs and cats transferred to rescue partners.
In 2010 the number of dogs and cats transferred to rescue dropped to 1,016.
In 2011 the number of dogs and cats transferred to rescue partners is projected to be around 1,080.
These numbers represent a 40% drop in the number of pets sent to rescue from the 1,770 transferred to rescue in 2007 from the old shelter.
The number of pets sent to rescue continues to drop – adding to the shelter costs and killing.
Recommendations
The humane community must solidify a “rescue partners” coalition to immediately accept ownership transfer of surrendered dogs and cats though a shelter/rescue partners program.
The benefit to animal services is these pets no longer enter the shelter but instead are moved quickly into foster care where they can be placed back into the community.
Transferring dogs and cats to rescue is not only critical in the effort to improve the rate of dogs and cats saved but in cost savings as well. We must form the rescue partnerships needed to double the amount of dogs and cats saved by our rescue partners.
This rescue coalition in partnership with animal services must increase the exposure of our shelter pets to citizens and the rescue community through use of the social media networks including the use of Facebook and Twitter that highlight all of our adoptable pets.
Outsourcing Adoptions and Animal Services
The number of citizens visiting the shelter fell off in 2010 by 4,500 visits. That number is projected to climb slightly in 2011.
Citizens Visiting Shelter (2009) - 32,308
Citizens Visiting Shelter (2010) - 27,791
Citizens Visiting Shelter (2011) - 28.500 (projected)
The number of pets adopted from the shelter dropped as well. Adoptions fell by 25% from 2,093 in 2009 to 1,583 in 2010. This is disappointing as well.
In 2009, 3,164 dogs/cats or 260 a month were either adopted or transferred to rescue partners in the community.
In 2010 that number dropped to 2,599 dogs/cats or 210 a month were adopted or transferred to rescue.
In 2011, as of the end of September a total of 2,160 dogs/cats or 240 a month have been adopted or transferred to rescue. This number is up from 2010 but still trending down from the number adopted/rescued in 2009.
(Note – while the data is lumped together for dogs and cats data on these numbers should be specific for number of dogs and the number of dogs adopted and specific for the number of dogs transferred to rescue and the number of cats transferred to rescue.)
Recommendations
Outsourcing the adoption processes will not only improve the save rate but reduce shelter costs as well.
Shelter Euthanasia Policy
You can’t adopt your way out of shelter killing
Dogs killed 2009 3,020 or 250 per month,
Dogs killed 2010 2,475 or 200 per month,
Dogs killed 2011 1,422 or 160 per month (thru 9/30/2011)
Current policy at animal control is to immediately kill owner surrenders that do not include documented vaccination records when surrendered. It is unacceptable under any humane context to kill a pet simply because the surrendering owner did not or could not provide proof if such vaccinations.
The current management excuse for this abusive abhorrent policy is that unvaccinated pets pose a “disease” issue for the shelter. Fact is stray pets picked up in the field do not come with vaccination records either.
All owner surrenders need to be transferred to licensed rescue partners groups for fostering and placement OR the shelter must vaccinate these pets while providing the same vigilance in seeking new homes as the strays are afforded.
Through an outsourcing partnership with the rescue community pet owners could work closely in finding these pets new homes without costing taxpayers in the process. In practice, rescue groups are better prepared to conduct home inspections, hold off site adoptions, evaluate application options and match up pets to new owners then public shelters.
Solving the dilemma of the pit bull crisis
A 2011 Animal People survey an increase of 120,000 in the number of pit bulls killed raising the number killed to 930,000 nationally. That represents the highest number in three years and represents 60% of the total number of dogs killed.in U.S. shelters. Pit bulls represent 3.3% of the U.S. dog population but account for 30% of the dogs surrendered or impounded by animal control.
Despite an extraordinary national rate of more then 16% of pit bulls being adopted or transferred to rescue over 75% of the remaining shelter pit bulls arriving at shelters are killed, either do to dangerous behavior or simply because the shelter is receiving pit bulls in an ever-escalating numbers.
The trust and honesty of the no kill movement itself is at risk when animal advocates deny the reality of the pit bull crisis.
The offense for which the humane community is most culpable is thinking all pit bulls in shelter are adoptable.
Pit bulls rarely arrive at the shelter as unwanted litters. Typically they come to shelters at twelve months or older; having already had at least three homes: their birth homes, the home they were sold to, and one or more pass along homes that took the dogs after problems developed in the first home into which they were purchased.
About two thirds or more of the pit bulls entering the shelter are surrendered by their primary caretakers, many of whom are not voluntary caretakers. These caretakers simply end up with an unwanted pit bull after a family member or friend abandoned the dog or left it behind after moving. Many are picked up as strays as their previous owners/caretakers dump them in our neighborhoods.
Humane Societies and breed rescue promote what wonderful family pets pit bulls make but shelter dogs of any breed have a reputation perpetrated by a virtually unregulated breeding industry as “damaged” goods.
With the ever-increasing numbers of pit bull incidents in the press the public has grown weary of adopting a pit bull of unknown history, but the public tends to believe that pit bulls can be good pets if “raised right” from puppy hood.
Shelters typically do not have pit bull puppies. Pit bull puppies are in hot demand in backyard breeder markets; it isn’t until these puppies outgrow that cute puppy stage that they end up as confused dogs in our shelters.
Of critical importance is to realize that few pit bull births are accidental. Instead, almost every pit bull who contributes to this surplus of shelter pit bulls is the product of deliberate breeding, sometimes by dog fighters, but most often just someone engaging in speculative backyard breeding, capitalizing on a perceived value for pit bulls created at least in part by the physical mystique of the breed.
The end result is that even though the number of dogs killed in shelters continues to drop nationally the number of pit bulls killed continues to rise. Meanwhile, with all the factors related to pit bulls, the vigorous pit bull promotions of pit bull rescue groups appears to have hit it’s limits on just how many of one type of breed can be successfully adopted out.
Even if every pit bull had the positive qualities, and no problematic behavior, there are only so many families who want and can safely handle a big potentially powerful dog.
Fact is with all the negative new stories about problematic pit bulls even those families inclined to purchase a pit bull are lead to believe that the best source for “pet quality” pit bull puppies is from an unlicensed backyard breeder.
So, persuaded by ads from our humane shelters promoting pits as wonderful family pets, those seeking a pit bull puppy end up supporting backyard breeders who are not only not licensed but also do not pay any types of fees or taxes either. The community must close down the loopholes that allow unlicensed breeders to fill this market void.
Despite a record number of local humane licensed pit bull rescue groups throughout the greater Atlanta metro area there is no chance that the humane community can oversea and execute responsible placement or adopt it’s way out of killing pit bulls in what has historically been high volume until the numbers of pit bulls who are surrendered to shelters or are impounded, throughout the greater Atlanta and surrounding areas drop by at least 80%.
Licensing Breeders – a community and consumer safety issue
It is simply indefensible for the community to allow people to breed dogs that can be used as weapons. The risk of raising and selling aggressive dogs that could endanger other citizens in the community is also indefensible.
Since pit bulls can be more dangerous to humans and other animals, and more difficult to handle then most dogs and more importantly since they attract “owners” who may want to exploit them – breeding pit bulls must be tightly regulated at a county level.
Gwinnett should lead the way on responsible oversight in the area of pet overpopulation by requiring all breeders be licensed, that licensing requirements include a criminal background check, that breeder’s maintain a city business license and have yearly inspections from animal control. These requirements should be across the board for breeding and selling of companion animals and not breed specific.
Without laws and programs that severely reduce the number of pit bulls entering the shelter; especially those bred by an irresponsible backyard breeder market, adopting out enough pit bulls to dramatically reduce the number being killed only risk placing pits with behavioral issues or lowering the standards of pet owners who can and would care for their pits as pets.
Public policy of breeder licensing should NOT be set by breeders and fanciers, and certainly not by dog fighters who pose as breeders and even pretend to be rescuers. When so-called pit bull lovers and rescuers use language like “it is the right of every American to buy or breed whatever kind of dog they want” then they are obviously not animal advocates. Breeding, buying, and/or selling pit bulls are all inconsistent with ending pit bull exploitation. .
An effective response to pit bull overpopulation is to target irresponsible unlicensed pit bull breeders and this must be done mandated legislatively by our county government, since the high profitability of the pit bull market has proved that pit bull breeders are resistant or opposed to any and all forms of gentle persuasion.
Only if these standards are achieved is there hope of achieving a no-kill sheltering model for all dogs regardless of breed. Unfortunately, behavioral issues cannot be ignored – whether the focus is the behavioral traits of pit bulls or the attitudes and behavior of the people who tend to keep pit bulls.
The community can no longer ignore or condone irresponsible breeding or ownership of pit bulls. Thus forming a coalition of responsible pit bull rescue partners to overlook placement and adoption criteria for all pit bulls is crucial in protecting not only the community but the breed as well.
Breed Specific Legislation is not the answer
Opponents of breed specific legislation (BSL) often argue that disproportional high rates of fatal and disfiguring pit bull attacks on humans and other animals are the fault of the pet owners of those particular pit bulls, and not representative of typical pit bulls.
This shortsighted thinking overlooks that pit bulls, like other breed s produced for a specific purposes, have been often times bred with a mindset and inclination to tear other animals to pieces. This has in turn made pit bulls attractive to the sort of people who have made them the dogs most likely to be violent abused and/or neglected: sadists, people with drugs and alcohol addiction, those involved in criminal activity, and people seeking to toughen their image to compensate for their own perceived negative self image issues.
The central behavioral issue involving pit bulls is not a matter of natural genetics per se but rather a product of inherently problematic dogs being acquired by inherently problematic people, who keep, train and often times neglect and abandon in a manner which multiplies the community’s risk factors.
It is the actions of the dog that makes a dog vicious, not the breed line. BSL does not work and will not work because the target of the laws – those irresponsible pit bull owners are often times the criminals, the drug dealers, the gangbanger’s, and those inclined to fight their dogs – these type of dog exploiters definitely would not be registering their dogs with any police agency that might stumble on their criminal activity or previous outstanding warrants.
Criminals will continue to own pit bulls irresponsibly and responsible pit bull owners who were role models in the community but feared registering would be outlaws as well. The cost of enforcing breed specific legislation and sorting out the new criminal element would be enormous.
Breed Specific Legislation, is not the answer, it does not solve the human issues involved and actually does more harm than good in accomplishing the cultural shift needed to encourage responsible ownership of pit bulls.
Investing in spay/neuter solutions
A unique opportunity for the county presents itself to selectively invest in programs that will continually lower our intake numbers moving us closer to ending all the needless killing of dogs and cats in our shelter.
The natural follow up to the crisis of “pit bull” pet over population would be the passage of a responsible pit bull owner resolution encouraging all pit bull pet owners to spay/neuter their pet.
Reducing the pit bull populations to a level kept safely in stable homes would require a responsible sterilization rate of 90%. Making those spay/neuter services available through low cost clinics or even free to income qualified pet owners has been successful in increasing the numbers of pit bulls who can not reproduce further adding to our already overpopulation issues on pit bulls throughout the Atlanta area.
Setting aside behavioral issues that should be minimized through responsible breeder licensing requirements, just looking at the numbers, a 90% sterilization rate is necessary if no kill sheltering for pit bulls is to become a theoretical possibility.
Spay/Neuter Policy Recommendations
Responsible citizens can all agree that pet owners need to be responsible to the community by spay/neutering their pets as a quality of life issue. Our community is a village of responsible pet owners; studies suggest that 90% of responsible pet owners are altered to prevent them from adding to to the community’s pet overpopulation issues.
Focus on spay/neuter funding should be on the two largest contributors to shelter intake numbers – pit bulls and cats. The community should adopt a policy of providing low cost or free spay/neuter for pit bull owners seeking to alter their pets.
Promoting investments in low cost spay neuter and release of feral cats in partnership with the feral cat rescue community will work towards investing in long-term reductions and control of feral cat populations as well.
Partnering with non-profits spay/neuter organizations that provide and promote affordable low cost spay/neuter services for all responsible pet owners is a quality of life solution. Promoting and educating our citizens on the critical importance of spay/neuter as a solution to reducing our shelter intake numbers is the mechanism for long-term success.
However, focused attention on the irresponsible ten percent of pet owners who fail to alter their pets is also critical to a community’s long-term success as well.
In order to target irresponsible pet owners who not only fail to alter their pets but also fail to comply with the county’s animal ordinances as well is to “mandate” that all pets that enter the publicly funded animal shelter must be altered prior to being reclaimed by their owners.
This type of selective enforcement of a “mandatory spay/neuter” law would exempt all responsible pet owners who maintain control of their pets and comply with all the ordinances as they pertain to being responsible. It also avoids the
Excessive costs of trying to enforce a spay/neuter mandate through door-to-door enforcement that in itself raises constitutional and moral arguments to the issue.
The issue is simple – those pet owners who can’t or won’t maintain control of their pets add to our community’s animal welfare problems. They need not be rewarded or ignored for those contributions to our shelter issues.
Task Force transformation in ideology takes root
We have compelling reasons for following in the footsteps of other progressive communities that have successfully implemented progressive sheltering 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.
To reach that goal communities much determine what problems exist and focus resources on solving those issues.
With the recent announcement of Gwinnett’s “Animal Task Force”, the mechanism has been created for dramatically reducing the number of adoptable pets being killed in our shelter while developing a long term strategic plan to reduce governments role in that process.
The Gwinnett Animal Task Force builds the foundation for developing a compassionate but effective animal welfare policy that will serve the entire communities needs. It removes all obstacles that prevent responsible citizens from having oversight and participating in this process.
More importantly, it gives a huge voice to all of our community’s animals whose entire future rests in the balance. 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.
There could not be a better time for this county to reach out to it’s citizens for help in attaining our shared goals. Our county commissioners bold decision to tackle these issues with our newly formed “Animal Task Force” is a stepping-stone to that success. It is certainly is a better approach then to continue squandering the community’s trust instead.
Privatization, funding and investing in our future
One thing is certain, if we continue using the same failed practices we can predict a future of more failed results. What we can’t predict, however, is the escalating cost of these failures.
Government is not the solution for all of society’s problems. Running a successful animal services unit requires both; governmental oversight and control in providing animal services that protect the community and an animal services unit that promotes animal welfare policies including services offered pet owners that promotes responsible pet ownership and helps to rehome the community’s homeless pets.
Long Term Reform of our Animal Advisory Council
Much has changed in the field of humane animal services. We know how to end the killing of all healthy adoptable dogs and cats. We know how to implement cost effective, community supported feral cat programs, low cost spay/neuter services and proactive adoption and pet retention programs.
After an exhaustive study of the county’s animal advisory council it became apparent how this dysfunctional advisory system was broken. Detailed documents extracted through detailed documents of Animal Advisory Meetings show an alarming with issues that plaque our shelter.
It became apparent that the community not only needed to reform it’s animal welfare policies but more importantly how it develops animal welfare policies that best serve the citizens and pet owners in the community.
The current system of having a closed off dysfunctional animal advisory council which for years either acted in secrecy or closely guarded it's activity does NOT reflect the will of citizen pet owners in Gwinnett. The current animal advisory council is heavily weighted and controlled by local animal control and should be immediately disbanded and replaced by a group of advisors that reflects ALL pet owning constituents; including those who breed responsibly, rescue respoonsibly or are responsible pet owners in the community.
A newly appointed animal advisory council must be balenced and reflect the views and values of Gwinnett's pet owners. The board should represent all neighborhoods of the county, the general public and the stakeholders in Gwinnett's animal services programs.
The “Animal Advisory Council Reform Resolution” tackles that difficult process of how expert advise enters into our policy process in developing a long-term animal welfare program that not only meets the expectations of the community but more importantly looks at programs that will reduce the cots of animal control and services while reducing or putting an end to the killing of healthy dogs and cats that the shelter is supposed to protect.
The credit to this resolution goes to AAC members Carla Brown and Dr Tim Montgomery who worked diligently in finding common ground. This resolution should be up for consideration through the task force as a solution towards providing long-term quality advice to our county’s leadership.
The “Animal Advisory Reform Resolution” builds a foundation for developing a compassionate but effective animal welfare policy that will serve the entire community. It removes the obstacles that prevent responsible citizens from having oversight and participating in this process.
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.
Collectively as a community, we have talented and compassionate citizens that when provided the bricks, tools and mortar necessary to build the bridge to a compassionate, responsive animal services unit we can all be proud of. Once provided with facts and meaningful solutions our political leadership and courage will lead the way.
The Pet Owners of Gwinnett is committed to walking down the path towards the light as we seek to find our way out of the darkness by building a responsible community of pet owners and empowering our citizens to do the right thing for not only their pets but the neighborhood and community as well.
Monday, January 17, 2011
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett - Shelter Report 2010
A sand so white and sea so blue
Can’t match our tear stained eyes
How many moons and many June’s
Before we let them leave alive
The following spreadsheets are a compilation of six years of shelter statistics – including three years from the old shelter (2005-2007) and three years with our new shelter. The data represents only the live animals that entered the shelter. Since the shelter officially opened in the last quarter of 2007 some of the numbers for 2007 were skewed upwards
**********OLD SHELTER********* **NEW SHELTER***
**2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**
Felines Handled
Felines Strays 1707 1771 1981 2487 2836 1318
Felines Surrendered 2642 2257 2051 2343 2298 2486
Felines Total Incoming 4349 4028 4032 4830 5134 3804
Felines Killed 3084 3079 3169 4025 4588 3232
Felines Picked Up Owner 57 28 43 18 108 32
Total Canine/Feline In 9,868 9,107 9,174 10,437 11,063 8,845
Total Out Alive 4609 4136 4660 4049 4157 3567
Total Out Dead 5229 5399 5842 6991 7608 5707
After three years of a steady increase in “stray cats” the number of stray cats picked up in 2010 went from 2,836 in 2009 to 1,318 in 2010. While the number of cats surrendered at the shelter increased slightly from 2,298 in 2009 to 2,486 in 2010 the overall effect was a cat intake number of 5,134 in 2009 dropping to 3,804 in 2010 or a net decrease of 1,330.
That number mirrors the drop in cats killed from 4,588 in 2009 to 3,232 in 2010 or 1,356 that were saved by simply leaving them alone.
That in itself might be a feel good statement, but for taxpayers the “potential savings is in the range of between $120,000 and $150,000 (*** see note) in animal control costs.
Potential, because in order to capture those savings a management team familiar with the concept of changing with the communities needs is needed. Now, if that gets your attention read on, we CAN save more.
One might suggest not picking up strays cats placed the community or cats at risk thus justifying the huge yearly expenditures for the “catch and kill” enforcement model, yet, there isn’t any statistical data to support that.
***cost figures based on manpower, equipment needed for catch/impound, cost of intake handling, cost of care and manpower during housing, costs of killing and cost of disposing of waste.****
One would think that the “excess” cats would find their way to the highways as “road kill” yet, in 2010 the number of dead cats picked up off the road dropped as well from 263 in 2009 to 153 in 2010.
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett applaud this policy change and encourage the county to adopt a “Trap/Neuter/Release” program in partnership with the “Feral Cat Rescue Community” completely outsourcing forever the issue of feral cats in our county.
The goal should be zero for the number of stray cats picked up by animal control in 2011. Attaining that goal alone would result in another 1,300 cats not entering the shelter allowing the shelter to focus on providing shelter and top notch adoption/rescue opportunity thus relieving the county of the cost and negative stigma of simply killing these cats as well.
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett strongly encourages a task force committee study the alternate Trap/Neuter/Return programs. Madison County (GA) embraces a trap/neuter/release policy because it SAVES MONEY.
This “task force committee” approach is hallmark too success in business. There could not be a better time for this county to reach out to it’s citizens for help in attaining our shared goals. It certainly is a better approach then to continue squandering this trust instead.
Note: There wasn’t any increase in 2010 in the number of cats that were adopted or that went to rescue. That would have been another cost savings as well.
FACT - Despite killing 98 cats in December 2010 there were only SEVEN cats available for adoption when I visited the shelter on January 6th 2011.
I am also disappointed that ANY cats were killed in December of 2010 since little effort was made trying to promote adopting/rescuing these cats out AND there was plenty of empty cage space. It should be appalling to all citizens that our leadership in animal control places so little value with these cat’s lives.
No cat should be killed as long as there is ONE space available to keep it’s alive – that’s not providing shelter – that’s slaughtering an innocent cat.
Shelter numbers for dogs
Gwinnett Shelter Stats 2005 thru 2010
**********OLD SHELTER********* **NEW SHELTER***
**2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**
Canines Handled
Canines Strays 3026 3068 3095 3539 3823 3455
Canines Surrendered 2493 2011 2047 2068 2106 1586
Canines Total Incoming 5519 5079 5142 5607 5929 5041
Canines Killed 2145 2320 2673 2966 3020 2475
Canines Picked Up Owner 891 860 865 924 885 936
The number of dogs picked up as strays picked up from 3,823 in 2009 to 3,455 or a drop of over 10%. Likewise, owner surrender’s dropped from 2,106 in 2009 to 1,586 in 2010 or close to 25%. The combined result was a drop in canine intake numbers from 5,929 in 2010 to 5,041 in 2010.
Dogs killed 2009 3,020
Dogs killed 2010 2,475
Dead dogs picked up from the road 2009 320
Dead dogs picked up from the road 2010 249
We like to think that these numbers are the result is from the responsible pet owners feeling less intimidated into surrendering their responsibility under the threatening guidelines of the old animal “nuisance” ordinance that the county had the courage to correct.
We recommend offering low cost retention services like microchipping where pet owners would be guaranteed at least one “free ride home” for any pets picked up that whose owner can easily be identified.
We encourage the county to investigate expanding cost saving programs offering low cost spay/neuter services, low cost vaccination programs and pet retention consulting under a revamped and retooled animal services unit.
Partnering with the Rescue Community – A Dismal Failure
*********OLD SHELTER***** **NEW SHELTER***
**2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**
Animals Adopted 2326 1756 1982 1906 2093 1583
Animals Rescued 1335 1492 1770 1201 1071 1016
Citizens Visiting Shelter (2009) 32,308
Citizens Visiting Shelter (2010) 27,791
The number of citizens visiting the shelter fell off in 2010 by 4,500 visits. The number of pets sent to rescue continues to drop – adding to the cost of running the shelter.
The number of pets adopted from our new shelter dropped as well. Adoptions fell by 25% from 2,093 in 2009 to 1,583 in 2010. This is disappointing as well.
Clearly, we have not fully utilized or promoted our new shelter for the reasons it was built. The shelter was NOT built as a more efficient detention, disposal operation – it was built to service the needs of pet owners in our community.
Innovative shelter managers realize that moving a pet to rescue or finding a family to adopt ends the county’s responsibility and expense in handling that pet. .
It simply COST money to kill a pet and COST NOTHING to save it..
We call on the county to replace the current “Rescue/Adoptions Coordinator” with a qualified civilian applicant with the experience and motivation needed to build this partnership.
We encourage the county to expand on promoting shelter pets through the many social networks that other progressive shelters are using. Posting pets on Facebook saves lives and provides the rescue community with accurate information on URGENT pets. It also results in more pets being adopted and more going to rescue. That saves money.
Shelters competing for market share with other kill shelters in the region – Gwinnett chooses to NOT compete. This policy cost the taxpayers money.
When you look at the number of dogs and cats that still are being killed, you realize that if only we were “doing our best” we would reach goals on adoption/rescue that were our best efforts in the past. Those best numbers combined with fall into the 4,000 to 4,500 dogs and cats saved.
Simply by doing our best we would save from 1,500 to 2,000 pets are currently being killed by NOT doing our best.
When you add that number to the number of 1,300 stray cats that shouldn’t be being picked up in the first place and we now reduce the killing by 3,000 or more in 2011.
That is our goal. That is our target for saving lives.
Enforcement issues and warning Signs for 2011
There are warning signs from 2010 shelter report that are concerning as well.
For one, the number of complaints responded too in 2009 totaled 25,049. In 2010 animal control responded too 25,259 complaints.
Citations issued dropped off as follows:
Restraint 10-29 (2009) 685 - note – there were no warnings issued at all
Restraint 10-29 (2010) 440
License No Tag 10-43 (2009) 345
License No Tag 10-43 (2010) 171
Public Nuisance Animal 10-33 (2009) 500
Public Nuisance Animal 10-33 (2010) 290
Fact is, even citations issued for “nuisance animals” dropped as well in 2010.
Those numbers are tempered with new categories created with the revised barking/tethering ordinance passed in 2009
Barking (which used to be part of the nuisance section) 10-51B (2010) 54
Duty to be a responsible owner (2010) 140
So, while those numbers remain constant – under the new law NONE of these pet owners add to the number of pets entering our shelters but instead are resolving there pet issues through mediation or fines – just as it should be.
Vicious Animal 10-37 (2009) 39
Vicious Animal 10-37 (2010) 5
Biting Animal 10-38 (2009) 44
Biting Animal 10-38 (2010) 5
Animal Control has a huge responsibility in keeping our community safe from vicious or dangerous dogs. Despite all the media hype about ‘pit bulls” in our county being a “clear and present danger” the numbers don’t bear that out either.
Even the number of bite cases dropped from 44 in 2009 to again FIVE in 2010.
Doesn’t sound like a problem HUGE enough to pass new laws that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to enforced, especially if we’re trying to move that number from FIVE to ZERO?
A Transformation in ideology takes root
Animal Control killed 3,455 dogs and 3,232 cats in 2010. Our goal for 2011 is too reduce that number by 3,000 moving us that much closer to becoming Georgia’s first No Kill Community.
Solving our longstanding and expensive animal control issues was the foundation for which “Animal Advisory Reform Resolution” was built on. We acknowledge and support the work of Dr Tim Montgomery and Superior Court Judge Carla Brown for their role in writing this proposed resolution. We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett appreciate being given the opportunity to participate in that process.
This resolution has the overwhelming support of citizens in our community as well.
Collectively as a community, we have provided the bricks, tools and mortar necessary to build the bridge, but need the political leadership and courage to lead the way.
We respectfully request once again an UP or DOWN vote on this issue that has been held hostage for TOO LONG.
A unique opportunity for the county presents itself to selectively invest in programs that will continually lower our intake numbers moving us closer to ending all the needless killing of dogs and cats in our shelter.
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett have provided and will continue to provide a blueprint for that success. All of our proposals will be short term budget neutral with long term cost savings of lowering intake built in.
We seek the leadership in our government, our shelter and our animal welfare community that SHARES that vision. Can we count on YOU?
We encourage our elected officials to give strong consideration to a long term strategy for it’s animal welfare issues. The focus remains to control costs and provide the citizens with the quality of animal services they and their family pets deserve.
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett are committed to building a responsible community of pet owners by empowering our citizens to do the right thing for not only their pets but the neighborhood and community as well.
This is about working together as a community in solving our animal problems, that’s how a democracy works.
Follow:
No Kill Gwinnett on Twitter
http://twitter.com/#!/by20hounds
No Kill Gwinnett on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/No-Kill-Gwinnett/126165217428735?v=info
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#!/pages/We-the-Pet-Owners-of-Gwinnett/146231598744336
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)