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

The long and winding road to Animal Advisory Reform

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.

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.

A Gift of Death to an Extreme Animal Rights Movement

I wrote "A gift of death to an extreme animal rights movement" in December of 2008 on my "Trailed by 20 Hounds" blog.  In this article the foundation of pet ownership philosophy was examined.  More so, the foundation of deceit coming out of the leaders in the animal rights movement was also put under the spotlight.

From the article "This philosophy of defending policies of humane euthanasia while professing to protect animal rights is a contradiction that can not be explained. One would assume that at the point an animal is killed any right or lack of it the animal might be entitled to becomes a mute point."

Shelter reform advocates have stopped questioning how shelters choose to kill dogs and cats entrusted to their care with instead asking on what moral authority do we kill at all?  In the absence of implementing life saving programs this one single question remains unanswered today.  There is no moral support for killing any dog or cat that isn't suffering with a terminal illness.

Owning and enjoying pets is always about choice and responsibility. The nucleus for moderate animal advocacy must include opposition to pet limit laws, BSL, mandatory spay/neuter and nuisance animal laws that include provisions that allow for impounding and killing as a sentencing guideline.

To read more:
http://by20ounds.blogspot.com/2008/12/gift-of-death-to-extreme-animal-rights.html

Neighborhood Bully under seige

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

Gwinnett County Seeks too Tighten the Noose on Pit Bulls

A Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 19, 2010 at the Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center. 884 Winder Hwy, Lawrenceville. The meeting starts at 7:00 PM. 

Items included on the agenda include the year old discussion of a shelter "urgent list", a disaster plan and a new item added - a discussion on revising the dangerous dog ordinances to include pit bull licensing registrations, including tags, microchips, insurance ect.

It also includes a requirement that all pit bulls be on a leash at all times unless in an approved enclosure - in other words, your dogs could not be off leash even if supervised on your property.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett opposes any BSL types of restrictions that would only lessen the number of homes for good pit bulls needing rescue and would only increase the number of good pit bulls being surrendered and killed at our already "too high" kill shelter.

We oppose this type of approach for two reasons - as a pet owner, there is no evidence that breed-specific laws make communities safer for people or companion animals.  Those who own and care for pets responsibly are typically not part of the problem and yet are punished nonetheless.  Those who own any type of dog irresponsibly typically won't comply with the laws already on the books so enforcement is counter-productive.

As taxpayers these types of ordinances which attempt to mandate pet care are costly and difficult to enforce.  As we should learned from the "2007 Dog Barking Folly" - pet owners faced with losing their pets, facing huge fines or compliance costs might find it less tedious to dispute any infractions through the courts.  Not only is this a very expensive way to litigate these cases but it is disengenous of the county to further burden taxpayers with these additional expenses as well.
We need to put an end to this senseless approach at tossing a net over small problems that put unnecessary restrictions on those who responsibly own their dogs - including pit bulls.

What isn't on the agenda is equally troublesome. There are no discussions planned on how the shelter might implement many of the No Kill programs that have the support of pet owners throughout the county. There will be no discussion on the process needed to implement no kill here in Gwinnett. Just more of the same - blame and punish approaches that have failed our community in the past.

Pet owners, taxpayers and voters are encouraged to attend.   Just say NO to growing "bigger" governement.

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.

Ernest T Bass

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.

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.

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.

Meet Jake

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



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 nights are so lonely
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 

What is all this No Kill talk?

"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy author Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001).

If today is typical of any other day at Gwinnett Animal Control today will be the last day on earth for a dozen or so dogs and cats who's "number" has come up.

The decision to end a pet's life falls entirely on shelter managements lap. They alone have the ability to choose life by sparing that pets life while exploring every opportunity of finding safe refuge instead. Part of that process is putting into effect policies that promote life rather then focusing on blaming others, including this writer, for their own failed policies.

Since the shelter opened in late 2007 shelter killing has increased by over 30%. In effect, the new management team, led by Gwinnett’s Police Chief Charles Walters, squandered the legacy of departing manager Sam Jeannes by gutting programs and relationships that were already in place.

Lt Respess

Statement from the county web site "With pet overpopulation on the rise, we're proud to report a decrease in incoming animals and an increase in animals placed to individuals and rescue groups through our shelter."

This statement is not only inaccurate but dishonest in the appraisel of our shelter's performance to the public.  Shelter intake is not on the decrease and in fact adoptions and the number of pets going to rescue has dropped dramatically.

Instead of continuing on a path of working closely with the rescue community in helping to find resources for the pets that went through the shelter, the new management "team" decided to go after those involved in rescue, especially those who had "more animals" then management felt was appropriate.

Armed with a recently passed draconian animal ordinance that differed in scope with the community's values, it became open season on pet owners. Gwinnett has always been a county where pet owners were only limited with the number of pets they could own by the ability to provide responsible care for each and every one of those pets.

These policies implemented by the new shelter management team are not only increasing the number of animals killed at our shelter but they are a costly, inefficient and ineffective use of tax funding used to support our animal welfare programs.

For the last two years I have been addressing the same issues that plague Gwinnett's Animal Control with policies that only fueled more killing, not less. For two years our political process has squandered any chance of reversing these disturbing trends by failing to address the problems with the changes needed to implement success.

Gwinnett's $8,000,0000 New Shelter

Now, we are facing a cultural difference were the issue has been raised why our shelter management chooses to kill any healthy pet when there are proven alternatives available. That cultural difference is at the heart of a “no confidence” decision for shelter management endorsed by We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett.

The only long term solution to solving this cultural disagreement over WHY we allow our animal control to kill without reason is to push for a change in management, whether that change be though efforts to privatize the shelter or whether that effort simply involves finding a more competent management team.

This process is going to be difficult - there are going to be naysayers who defend the current managements positions that allow them to kill without being questioned. The naysayers will point fingers and place blame – some have even pointed fingers in this author’s direction.

These naysayers will suggest we go back to square one and negotiate with shelter management to try and “do better” or “do more” or even worse “save a few more”, but this writer is no longer willing to settle for saving a few more while with a systematic breakdown has that allows animal control to kill far too many.

As I wrestle with my conscience (yes, I do have one) it has become obvious that the solutions are to demand that the killing of healthy animals must stop. This is not about saving a few more – it’s about saving ALL of the healthy animals that go though our shelter. That is the only animal welfare policy that should be endorsed by a community of compassionate people who understand the role that animals have in our lives.

In reality it is animal controls responsibility to improve their operations so those lucky ten live. It’s our responsibility as advocates to be resolute in fighting for saving ALL the healthy pets. There can be no compromise.

The current director has had plenty of opportunity to change on her own. She has had THREE YEARS to implement her own "life saving" policies and to hold employees accountable for doing their jobs and in that effort she has failed.

She has refused to open up the shelter to volunteers; she has refused to implement an intake procedure that places information and pictures of the animals being killed on the Internet for citizens to see. She has refused to hold her employees accountable for being respectful of citizens who enter the shelter.

She has refused to implement any policies that would lower the dreadful death rate for cats entering the shelter – as if their lives are meaningless. She has refused to meet with all members of the rescue community to provide assurances and support to contradict her early heavy-handed enforcement activity that has effectively prevented many rescue groups from partnering with our shelter.

Instead of an honest dialog on improving the results at the shelter we have received nothing but excuses and dishonest rhetoric. When excuses and dishonest rhetoric fail to quiet those demanding a more responsive life saving results she resorts to the illegal use of threats and intimidation to hide the truth.

Others disagree with my assessment - that is their right. Nonetheless, our group "WE the Pet Owners of Gwinnett" will continue in our role of educating other pet owners on the issues. The fact is, after two years of discussions with shelter there is no common ground where we can agree on to move forward.

Any promise to do better at this late hour is “too little – too late”. We cannot wait in the hopes that things will get better next year or the year after. Thousands of dogs and cats will die in the interim – something we advocates must consider before accepting a compromise that only moves the ball forward a few inches.

An offer to work “more” with rescue or to allow “more” volunteers into our shelter is only something that we are entitled to in the first place. It should be the shelter’s responsibility to work closely with rescue and to have an open transparent volunteer program that allowed for community oversight in the process.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett will continue to advocate for the rights of rescuers to follow their passion without fear of retribution or retaliation from animal control. Our decision not to work with current management certainly can't be viewed as part of the problem. We didn't create this problem but do remain steadfast in ending it.

“Indeed, as I suggested earlier, I think we’re in a period of profound change. Governments are going to have to rethink their roles and responsibilities. And the people we serve are going to have to rethink their expectations of government.”
Chairman Bannister’s comments January 2010 “State of the County” speech

Yes, Chairman Bannister, we are going through a period were citizens are demanding profound change. As leaders, your role is to remove the obstacles that prevent us from succeeding in attaining our dreams.

Change never comes easy, it requires the courage to admit that the process is broken and must be fixed. Yet, the reason we elect officials to govern for us to to be resilient in bringing about the change that improves the standards of our lives and makes Gwinnett a better place to live. Failure doesn’t live in Gwinnett – success does.

The question we pose is “why wouldn’t the community be better served with a new shelter manager who is willing to work openly with all responsible pet owners in the community? Aren’t we entitled to the same high standards in lour animal welfare programs as we are to other services supplied by our county?


One of the issues still on the table is the reform of our county’s Animal Advisory Council that will for the first time give a voice to citizens who own pets in making recommendations to improve our animal welfare policies. If you want and expect the private sector to help solve some of the county’s problems then you need to provide them the tools to do that job.

Everyone who has looked at this issue agrees that the current animal advisory council doesn’t serve the interest of the community but instead functions only to buffer and excuse poor policies and lack of service that results.

Support No Kill Gwinnett by using your voice in demanding more from our political authorities who continue to look the other way while thousands and thousands of animals continue to die.

It’s one thing to use a promise of lowering our shelter’s kill rate as a political platform but it’s entirely different to ask our politicians to have the leadership backbone to introduce resolutions that require these life saving programs to be put in place.

You improve NOTHING if you do NOTHING – if there’s one thing we all can agree on is our political process has failed the animals in Gwinnett.

If you can’t change the process of failure then you need to change the people who were elected to fulfill those processes. There shouldn’t be any politicians who should feel secure in getting the pet owners votes without listening and acting on our concerns.

Until we change the culture into simply saying NO we won't kill for No reason this senseless killing will continue. As long as the killing continues, “We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett” will continue to advocate for a cultural change to end this senseless practice – that’s what No Kill is all about.

Leave Those Cats Alone

This poor kitten has little chance of survival

Regardless of whether the cat is the most beloved and pampered pet or the wildest outcast, shelter policies that claim to be based on humane policies view cats without a human home to protect them as feral. Since they have no owner is it better to take them to the shelter and kill them rather then to allow them to survive on their own?

The palace of mirrors were cats are selected
The endless road, cold bloody moons and the wailing of the chimes
The empty rooms were their memories are protected
The angels voices whisper to souls departed from better times

Eden is burning

Either brace yourself for the night

Or your hearts must have the courage

For the changing of the guard - Bob Dylan

Information obtained through open records paints an even more dismal outlook of survival for cats in Gwinnett County. In June of 2010, Gwinnett Animal Control & Enforcement took in 480 cats killing 468 of them. Only 12 cats survived the shelters slaughter.

In other words, the shelter was only “able” to save less then THREE PERCENT of the cats entrusted to their care in the month of June.

Yet, despite these dismal, pathetic numbers there was no discussion whatsoever on addressing this issue at the July 2010 animal advisory meeting. The fact our shelter manager doesn’t consider this wholesale slaughter a “problem” is troubling. The fact that she offers no alternatives paints but another bleak picture of incompetent leadership.

A Glance Back at Feline Death by Numbers


Year End       2007     2008     2009

Clayton          1867     2095     2258

Cobb              3394     4058     4000

Dekalb           1077      1896     1843

Fulton               464        400      565

Gwinnett         3169      4025    4588

Over 10,000 cats have been slaughtered by this animal control administration since opening our new EIGHT MILLION DOLLAR shelter in the fall of 2007.

I use the word slaughter for a reason – any healthy animal who is trapped, captured or stolen and subsequently put into an environment where death is the only outcome has not been rescued, it has not been humanely euthanized – it has been cruelly slaughtered.

I first wrote in June of 2008 about the issue of a rabid shelter plan that aggressively went out picking up wandering cats only to bring them to slaughter in our shelter. My hope was that by raising awareness the compassionate voices in our community would holler and scream for this killing to stop.

Instead, even those voices claiming a stake in protecting cats, including ferals, has been uncharacteristically silent. Instead of condemnation there was but another rash of excuses that not only condoned the killing but allowed it to grow by 50% by year end 2009.

Now, we have reached a point were over 97% of the cats are being killed in one month alone – still no outrage. At what point do we as “No Kill Advocates” justify cutting deals “to save a few more” while turning our backs on the thousands who will die in the process?

Are we so afraid of failure that we have lost our moral voice? This author would rather fight for moral high ground rather then crawl through the dirt and dead carcasses to negotiate with the “terrorists” who are responsible for this slaughter.

Isn’t that what NO KILL ADVOCACY is all about? How do you advocate for “some” or a “few” of the animals? Only Allison Cauthen would do that.

Offering up the key to life and death for so many animals (dogs and cats) simply to grandstand and promise something that is morally offensive while ignoring the silent screams of those who are slaughtered is nothing short of repulsive.

It’s a sell out and one should question the motivation that makes these lives expendable. Can you imagine a situation where a negotiator agreed “give me a few and kill the rest”? This author can’t and won’t.

Frightened by what looms ahead?

Until this shelter administration answers the question “why do we kill healthy animals” this battle for No Kill will continue. The reason they won’t answer is because there isn’t a morally acceptable response to that question except that we don’t have the moral authority to continue taking innocent lives.

What is a feral cat?

You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.
You that never done nothin'
But work to destroy – Masters of War

Though feral cats are members of the domestic cat species and are protected under state anti-cruelty laws, they are typically fearful of people. They are NOT a danger or health risk to the community.

The question that needs to be raised is does our local policy of picking up and killing stray feral cats violate the state’s anti cruelty laws meant to protect them “in their habitats”? We don’t get questions answered by being silent an d looking the other way – we get answers by confronting the abusers and holding them accountable for THEIR actions.

Feral cats live and survive outdoors, yet have no chance of survival and are killed once they reach the shelter.

Of course, there is no moral justification for killing a cat simply because the cat lives in the wild. This fact is backed up with a national opinion poll that shows 81% of Americans who believe it is more humane to leave a stray cat outside to live out her life then have her caught and killed.

Intentionally killing any cat is a criminal offense in all fifty states, regardless of ownership. Yet, when animal control picks up a stray or feral cat knowing that it will be killed upon entering the shelter shouldn’t that be criminal (sanctioned by the very entity empowered to enforce the anti cruelty laws) as well?

Many times these “feral” cats become friendly with the caregiver and decide to come inside after they trust the person. In addition, many cats we help are actually abandoned stray cats who wind up outside through no fault of their own.

The cats that are friendly are the ones we put up for adoption and work hard to find them loving homes. The other truly feral cats are not happy being inside. They prefer to live in their cat colony or environment where they exist.

There are an estimated 50 million feral cats in the United States living in groups known as colonies. Dedicated individuals and organizations practice a non-lethal strategy known as Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) to reduce their numbers and improve the health and safety of cats and communities. With TNR, cats no longer reproduce, and nuisance behaviors are reduced or eliminated.

Without TNR, the majority of feral kittens do not survive to adulthood, and almost 100 percent of the feral cats brought to shelters are killed because they cannot be adopted as pets. –
Feral Cat Program of Georgia


To learn more about the “Feral Cat Program of Georgia”

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/fcpga.html

Do feral cats have a “right” to live?

Behaviorally speaking the answer again appears to be that feral cats are wild animals and should be treated by animal control as such. We no more have the right to address feral cats through "trap and kill" policies as we do to the wholesale slaughter of other wild animals such as birds, rabbits, squirrels or raccoons.

If a pet cat is abandoned or runs off and gets lost in the woods, has kittens and the kittens that grow up wild because they have no contact with people, are they wild or domestic? Technically, they would be domestic because of domesticated parentage but don't all domesticated cats ultimately come from the wild?

The concept of “rescuing” a cat that has been abandoned by killing it is not only repulsive but immoral. Defining a feral cat as a "nuisance" in the absence of any nuisance behavior is simply an excuse to justify this ignorant behavior.

Society goes to great length to protect "wild animals" with great efforts being placed on "allowing" man to live amongst them. Why are feral cats not afforded those same protections?

The reality is that all animals living in the wild face hardship—and feral cats are no exception. Since no animal groups support the trapping and killing of other wild animals—raccoons, rabbits, fox—why do we reserve this fate for feral cats?

Current shelter policy not only allows for the trapping of cats but animal control condones, supports and encourages this illegal trapping by supplying the traps. Citizens can bait these traps therefore encouraging cats to enter their property where they are captured and delivered to animal control to be killed.

We can argue semantics about whether the cats should be contained but the fact remains for animal control to condone and encourage the illegal trapping and subsequent killing of these cats is not only irresponsible but should be viewed by the community as abuse of power that sanctions animal cruelty.

At the point that OUR animal control participates in the rampant slaughter of any species they lose all credibility in enforcing any of our laws that are designed to protect animals.

The fact remains that the leading cause of death for cats in Gwinnett is not irresponsible pet owners, it’s not pets who die from neglect or abuse but it’s the killing of healthy cats at the hands of the very entity entrusted to protect them from this abuse – animal control.

Since animal control makes no effort to determine whether these cats being turned into the shelter have owners or are truly homeless or are truly feral, a system is put in place that allows and encourages people who dislike cats with an easy option to kill them.

The right to choose death as a “humane alternative” for wild animals?

No time to choose when the truth must die
No time to lose or say goodbye
No time to prepare
For the victims that die
No time to suffer or blink
No time to think

Socialism, Hypnotism, Patriotism, Materialism
Fools making laws for the flapping of jaws
The sounds of the keys as they go clink clink
But there’s still no time to think - from Dylan's No Time to Think

One of the excuses used for killing feral cats is that these animals suffer by being “forced” to live their lives in the wild. Think about that, animal control is ending an animal’s life so it might potentially spare it from future suffering?

In fact, the shelters current “rescue coordinator” has been quoted as saying that “she has no problem with killing all the feral cats that come through the shelter”.

Determining that feral cats can’t lead meaningful lives is not an opinion (since it isn’t a fact it can only be an uneducated opinion) shared by others in the community, especially the dozen of feral cat rescue groups who work diligently to save these precious lives. What gives anyone the right to negotiate away this compassion for saving lives – even feral cats – including those who wave a No Kill Banner?

What chance does this cat have when this is the best our shelter can do in promoting her life?

Kill them she does – that much is a fact. Cats that enter the shelter must pass a unscientific, unproven “temperament test” which identifies their characteristics as domesticated or feral. With the shelter consistently reporting killing nine out of ten cats in either group there doesn’t appear to be much difference in the survival rates of domesticated or feral cats.

The fact remains, those cats determined to be “feral” are killed immediately as opposed to a domesticated cat being held the state mandated period for stray animals. This policy of labeling a cat un adoptable simply because the shelter has determined it is feral defies a state law that states “all stray animals are to be held in order that their owners might reclaim them.

The result of applying this unsupportable policy is that cats misidentified as feral are killed immediately. Thus cats that might have owners, who “test” as feral, are also being illegally killed. There are documented cases where citizens have had their domesticated (yet outside) cats killed simply because they failed an unscientific temperament test administered by an animal control officer who has predetermined that all “wild cats” are better off dead.

The Secret War to Kill Feral Cats

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm dumb
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though you claim I'm dumber than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do. – Bob Dylan

Even the wildest cat can learn to live around humans and may even exhibit pet like behavior to the person who feeds him. Those locally who care for feral cat colonies cats witness cats who rub up against their legs and even perhaps purr, just like pet cats. Don't mistake their aloofness as being a symptom of a dangerous nuisance animal.

Contrary, even the most pampered house cat that escapes and runs loose in the wild can survive with the deftness of the most voracious raccoon, rabbit, squirrel or other wild animal. Wouldn't that cat deserve the same respect and rights of survival as any wild animal?

We cannot continue with punitive enforcement that includes rounding up feral cats. This only discourages compassionate citizens from caring for these homeless cats. It also drives caretakers “underground” making them harder to reach and help.

If a person is feeding feral or homeless cats, they will be loathe to turn to the shelter for low cost spay/neuter help, rabies vaccinations or other support because doing so not only the entire feral colony of risk even though doing so does not violate any of the counties leash laws, pet limits or licensing requirements.

Why does Gwinnett Animal Control view an un-owned cat’s life as a series of brutal experiences? Are our policies enforced to "protect" these cats from future suffering? How do we justify using our animal control policies to systematically slaughter animals who are guilty of nothing more then being animals surviving in the wild?

Ultimately, while there are no leash law requirements for cats, there are state and local laws that protect animals that live in the wild from citizens who might choose to capture and kill them – yet – our animal control policies not only condone and participate in these “acts of cruelty” but perform the final act of taking an animals life at the very shelter financed with our tax dollars.

A law that should protect them from acts of cruelty was ignored over 4,500 times in 2009 alone. While the numbers are staggering the concept of visualizing the size involved in stacking 4,500 dead cats is mind boggling – and depressing.

Ninety cats EVERY week were killed in 2009 alone.

The palace of mirrors were cats are selected
The endless road, cold bloody moons and the wailing of the chimes
The empty rooms were their memories are protected
The angels voices whisper to souls departed from better times

Eden is burning
Either brace yourself for the night
Or your hearts must have the courage of the changing of the guard - Bob Dylan

To be effective, cat lovers and No Kill advocates, must confront those responsible – rather then ignore the excuses that legitimize this killing.

With a 50% increase in feline killing from 2007 to 2009 we can no longer ignore the excuses used to slaughter cats in our community. While this author is NOT a cat person the numbers alone scream out for reform. We must put an end to the feline policies that allow this mass killing to continue. This open season on cats can’t be negotiated away – it must be stopped.

The Economics of Running a Slaughterhouse

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
War can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the blood
That runs down your drain.


You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you sit back and watch
When the death toll gets higher
You hide in your shelter
As the innocent blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.


You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to allow feral cats
To exist in this world
For threatening their babies
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins. – author’s adaptation of Dylan

We have a shelter management team that enjoys killing – is addicted to the power that killing represents – that is why things never get any better at our new EIGHT MILLION dollar shelter that should be called what it is – a slaughterhouse for displaced animals.

There are more sinister reasons for the excessive slaughter of cats in our county.

It’s all about funding, job security and the county making a profit off the suffering of innocent animals. Think about this – if we weren’t able to substantiate – or pump up our kill numbers coming out of our new shelter wouldn’t we citizens demand downsizing the animal control staffing and budget?

It is that “fear” of downsizing that drives our current management team – run by the Gwinnett Police Department - that refuses to even acknowledge that killing isn’t even necessary. What size budget would be needed to handle an animal control services unit that welcomed volunteers, welcomed partnerships with the rescue community and worked diligently towards rapidly moving animals out of the shelter ALIVE rather then turn them into ashes and dust?

Since we have an absence of proactive management that seeks to improve operations, we are left with a lazy unsupervised staff that works hard at doing nothing to save lives or save the taxpayers money. Not only do we taxpayers receive lousy or no service for our tax dollars. We are repeatedly punished and accused of being part of the problem.

A few months ago the Gwinnett Police Department put in for a rate increase for those who surrendered an animal to the shelter. In our compassionate community this rate increase would have been welcomed IF the result was the animals being surrendered were offered opportunities to be adopted or placed into qualified rescue groups. Instead, we have a policy were owner surrenders are routinely killed almost immediately after arriving at the shelter. It has become profitable or a cost savings to kill these pets as soon as possible so that the money collected can go into the police department’s general fund.

Think about how much money is collected by duped pet owners who think their contribution will help their pet find a new home? It’s outrageous that these animals are killed for no good reason except we have policies in effect that reward expedient killing for profit.

"We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett" demand an end to the policy of killing ANY owner surrender until every effort at placing them safely has been explored. If they enter the shelter without shot records the shelter should use the money paid by pet owners to vaccinate these pets and make them available for adoption or rescue.

“Regardless of whether or not you’re a “cat person”, taxpayers around Atlanta spend over $15 Million taxpayer dollars each year dealing with homeless animals. Research proves that killing animals does not effectively reduce the number of homeless pets, including feral cats. Only spay/neutering and in the case of feral cats “Trap-Neuter-Release” has been the only proven success in controlling feral cat population numbers.” - Alley Cat Rescue

With a substantial portion of our animal control budget being allocating at “cracking down” on “stray cats” this is an area where long term cost savings can be realized by simply implementing a more effective, HUMANE feline cat policy.

That is why “We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett” advocates for ALL animals to have an equal right to live. We will not accept saving a few while ignoring the critical masses simply because current management is feeling the heat of our criticism and complaints.

This is all about “too little – too late”, we no longer have any confidence that the current leadership can be trusted to work in any honest partnership with the rescue community. We not only support “regime change” but will aggressively push for that needed change. There are compassionate leaders in our animal welfare community who share our dreams and goals that this killing must and can stop.

Working side by side with a killing mentality is not an option we will support. Through education we will arm an army of compassionate soldiers to engage in this change. It is this author’s belief that once the citizens of Gwinnett are presented with the facts they alone will make the right compassionate choice on how our community moves forward in our relationship with our homeless pets.

We must unify and must speak out loudly demanding NEW MANAGEMENT. No more excuses – no more wholesale slaughter of the innocent.

While the shelter industry claims to be in continuous development,
So are the tempers of it’s citizens. – I said that

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul. - Dylan


Please use YOUR voice to defend the lives of the innocent who continue to be slaughtered.
Citizens in our community who agree with my comments are encouraged to let their voices be heard by contacting their elected commissioner - here's the contact information.  Phone messages work too.

Gwinnett Police Department
Chief Charlie Walters
770 513 5000
Charles.Walters@gwinnettcounty.com

Animal Advisory Board 
Gail Leberge Chairperson and Lawrenceville Kennel Club

outland@laberge.org
Shelter Manager
Mary Lou Repress New Shelter Director

Mary.Respess@gwinnettcounty.com
Gwinnett County Commissioners
Commission Chairman:

Charles Bannister
770.822.7010
Charles.Bannister@gwinnettcounty.com

District 1 Commissioner: Shirley Lassiter
770.822.7001
Shirley.Lassiter@gwinnettcounty.com

District 2 Commissioner: Bert Nasuti
770.822.7002
Bert.Nasuti@gwinnettcounty.com

District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau
770.822.7003
Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com

District 4 Commissioner: Kevin Kenerly
770.822.7004
Kevin.Kenerly@gwinnettcounty.com