Urgency of Death has No Honor

With Death Awaiting this sad soul

All animals that enter our shelter deserve a process where each has a chance of either being reunited with their family or placed in the safety of a new home.  That safety net could be through adoption right out of the shelter or by finding a suitable rescue group willing to take them in.

In today's multi tasking environment rescue groups work tirelessly on the goal of saving shelter pets from high kill shelters located throughout the state.  With so many homeless pets in the Atlanta area critically needing help - time and space are at a premium. 



Rescue groups learn how to wisely use their time and resources in order to benifit as many as pets as possible.  With the new role that the Internet and social networking play in our business and private affairs the rescue community has come to rely on these communication mechanism's as well to "get the word out."

Two of the most widely used sites are Facebook and Petfinders.  In working with either or both of these venue's progressive shelters are able to rapidly communicate a shelter's "urgent" needs, especially when it comes to dogs or cats that are facing death.  These are called an "Urgent List".

To accomplish this minimal goal of promoting a shelter pet throughout the community certain standards must be written into a shelter intake and exit procedures.  Every dog and cat that enters the shelter, whether it be a stray or owner surrender, should have an ID number assigned, a pen or kennel location, a picture for identification and information about that pet, sex, approximate age and size along with any other information that might help with the placement process.  The reality is if you perform this step right and provide useful information on either Petfinders or Facebook others can pass that information on through "crossposting".  This gives a shelter and the pet maximum coverage.

Nine out ten cats will die

That would be the goal or Breakthrough Thinking (which would move the community closer towards a "No Kill Gwinnett) that would develop a process where these standards were met, not just some of the time, but each and every time a pet entered the shelter. 

Ultimately, this process would not only provide pet owners with the service they are entitled to but would lower the costs associated with animal control as well.

Currently, Gwinnett animal control uses two data bases to list the dogs and cats held at the shelter. One listing is the Gwinnett County Animal Control website (maintained by the county) and a Petfinders site maintained by animal control.  Neither are remotely accurate, alike or kept up to date. What the consumer is left with is a confusing malfunctioning process that leads to more killing. 
While the county site has more information, pictures and the date available - that information is suspect because there doesn't seem to be a process of removing pets that aren't at the shelter and the website itself is out of date.  Petfinders is easier to access but critical information like a picture and release date are lacking.  It too seems to have many pets who aren't even at the shelter anymore.

Gwinnett's dysfunctional animal advisory council (GAAC) has studied this issue for sixteen months without any sense of urgency.  For the thousands of dogs and cats senselessly killed during this period, this couldn't be further from the truth.

The Urgency of an Urgent List

The issue of developing an urgent list for pets needing reclaim or adoption was first addressed at the  Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council's (GAAC) April 21, 2009 meeting.

GAAC board member, Carla Brown, talked about "increasing cooperation with rescues" by creating an urgent list (to compete with all the other shelters who do) of dogs and cats at the shelter, and providing details of available dogs and cats on Petfinders.  With the number of pets going to rescue having dropped by over 30% this would be a crucial step needed to bring more rescue groups into our new shelter.

July 21, 2009 GAAC meeting

Council (GAAC) members agreed there is a need for creating a list of animals, with their information and picture, that are scheduled to be killed in a few days. This list needs to be visible by network to reach more people and organizations that could adopt or take one or more of these animals. The information needs to be sent to the organizations or people or accessable rather then having them having to come to the shelter.

This list should also provide timely information for local pet owners as well seeking to find lost pets as well.  In attendance was shelter rescue coordinator Officer Chris Hughes.

GAAC Chair Gail Laberge recommended a committee be set up consisting of Carla Brown, Dennis Kronenfeld and Rescue Coordinator Officer Hughes to get the urgent list up and running. 

The purpose of any committee should be to identify a problem but more importantly to seek out a solution.  All three accepted the task.

Dekalb Animal Control puts out this information on it's pets awaiting reclaim or adoption.

Hello. My name is Sunshine. I am a beautiful and sweet young male orange and white cat. I am about 7 months old. I was turned into the shelter by my former owner who was moving and said she could not take me with her. The people at the shelter said that deserve someone who will love me forever and take me with them no matter where they go. I am a great boy. Please consider adopting me.

Sunshine's intake date: 4/16/2010

Lost and stray animals are held at Dekalb Animal Services for five (5) business days in order to give their owners a chance to reclaim them. After that time period, adoptable animals are held as long as space allows.

Gwinnett's Broken Process leads to broken dreams

The GGAC meeting scheduled on October 21 2009 was canceled due to a mix up in scheduling - there was no quorum, however Officer Hughes was in attendance.

A solution would have to wait until the next year.

January 19, 2010 GAAC meeting

Discussion of urgent list - Dennis Kronefeld, Carla Brown, Chris Hughes

Dennis Kronefeld, who represents feline interests, commented that he didn't see an urgent list working for Gwinnett Animal Shelter. With the shelter killing nine out of ten cats that enter the shelter Dennis offered nothing in it's place.  This is an interesting surrender to change a broken process especially in light of his own rescue group's reliance on Petfinders to place their adoptable pets.

Officer Hughes did not attend the meeting nor was there any indication that she offered any input on the issue.  Her absence and lack of interest was not explained, nor should it have been acceptable for a critical aspect of her job responsibility that is so obviously lacking.

Carla Brown, who works closely with others in the rescue community, commented she thinks it can work and would bring recommendations to the called meeting on March 2nd (2010).

Such a defeatist and lackadaisical attitude by two crucial members of this committee before seriously researching the issue is telling with the need to reform the GAAC.  This attitude does not explain how other shelters like Fulton County are able to provide a mountain of timely information about all of it's dogs and cats needing rescue.  The fact is Gwinnett is one of few major county's that doesn't provide access to this crucial information.

With support from only one of the three committee members, with the other two bored with the discussion,  things would only get worse for the dogs and cats urgently needing an urgent list..  The "Urgent List" was about to die a horrible death.

March 16 2010 GAAC meeting

Urgent list - Carla Brown is putting together and will give to Chris Hughes (once again Hughes was not in attendance even though she still was assigned to this committee). Carla also commented that beginning May 1st (2010) Gwinnett AC will receive new software that will make an urgent list easier to implement and maintain.  Dennis Kronefeld offered had no input on the discussion.

April 20 2010 GAAC meeting

Urgent list - Carla is working on an email format with a cute picture of the animal and a detailed description of the animals personality and facts about the animal.  Carla suggested that volunteers could come to the shelter and take several shots of the animals in a variety of locations, other then cages to better capture their personalities.

Once again, Dennis offered no comments or suggestions and Officer Hughes didn't bother to attend. 

Will YOU help me - do YOU care?

Since successful implementation would require input and cooperation from her department her failure to show an interest in this discussion dooms any process that the council might recommend.   With no explanation or excuse coming from her boss, the shelter director, one can assume that the issue of providing timely information to the community on pets needing rescue is urgent with management either.  The reality is this crucial step should be part of any intake procedure performed not by volunteers, but by the person in charge of checking animals in.

The bottom line is that not only do these lists increase the number of pets rescued but they save the taxpayers money.  It costs LESS money to send pets back to their owners or to rescue then it does to hold and kill them.  This is one of many reasons why "We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett" has no confidence in the shelter's current management team.

July 20 2010 GAAC meeting

The lack of urgency in developing a communication tool for pets facing death at our shelter dies a horrible death as the "Urgent List" is dropped from the GAAC meeting agenda.  This despite a shelter report of over 60% of all dogs and cats being killed at the shelter in the previous month. 

This wouldn't be the first time that GAAC Chair Laberge dropped a shelter discussion issue that didn't effect her "AKC world view" of our county's animal welfare issues. Laberge represents breeders in our community who in effect compete for the same homes that as shelter pets - is it any wonder why she's not enthused about promoting competition?

The GAAC admits defeat, agrees that the solution others have implemented is far too complicated for our shelter and that the alternative of killing these nameless pets is an attractive alternative.

The fact that management can not see the connection of extremely pathetic kill numbers and a lack of urgency in providing minimal information on the animals THEY are killing suggests they simply have accepted killing as a logical conclusion for a majority of pets they are entrusted to care for. 

This low level of service is not only unacceptable by any community standards but costly and wasteful of the resources provided as well - including our county's multi MILLION dollar investment in a new shelter..  What's really sad is in the old shelter under the previous shelter manager we provided more information and more cooperation with the community then what we have now.

So, we are left with the age old question - what are the metrics of communication provided by those operating our animal control department.  From the county's web site it is stated:

The Gwinnett Police Department operates the Animal Shelter to enforce animal control laws and to shelter animals that have strayed, gotten lost, or been turned over for adoption. 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. 

The problem with this statement is not only is it downright inaccurate - the shelter is NOT reporting a DECREASE in incoming animals (as reported in Dismantling the Killing Machine) the number of cats entering the shelter is UP by 50% and the number of dogs entering the shelter is UP by 20% from our old shelter.

There is NOT an increase in adoptions and the number of animals placed in rescue is DOWN by over 30 % for the last three years .  If the shelter can't be honest with it's appraisal on these critical issues why should we believe them with any statements they make?

Breakthrough Thinking - the solution is obvious

Please, before it's TOO LATE?

Breakthrough thinking doesn't require reinventing the wheel to solve every problem a shelter might face.  In fact, in this case, the solution might be as simple as evaluating the current process for intake and outtake on animals that go through the shelter to determine whether that process is being followed.  If the process needs to be rewritten then the answer might be as simple as contacting other shelters like Dekalb or Fulton (or a number of other shelters) and asking for their process and input on implementing an Urgent Notification system. 

Breakthrough Thinking requires a willingness to ADMIT that there are problems - problems that are easily overcome.  A basic premise that anyone can break out of self-defeating, traditional modes of reasoning once these accept that change is inevitable.  We will not change nor will we see improvement until we recognize the urgency for this change.

Still The Band Played On

Still The Band Played On

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe, she was upset because I hurt her feelings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sittin' and starin' out of the hotel window.

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

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

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

Words from Grateful Dead – “Trucking”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your typical city involved in a typical daydream

Hang it up and see what tomorrow brings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breakthrough Thinking - A No Kill Gwinnett

Shelter's killing dogs and cats by the thousands... the rest of the story

To get a community on track requires a spark – sometimes borne of anger, other times of compassion, most of the time from a combination of the two – Nathan Winograd

Breakthrough Thinking - A No Kill Gwinnett

The key to any effective solution lies in the approach to the specific problem at hand. The essential, straightforward process of “Breakthrough Thinking” involves a meaningful organization of the purposes you seek to achieve.

If the shelter’s purpose is to efficiently kill homeless dogs and cats as a standard operating procedure then it could be determined that there is no problem that needs corrected for they are already quite efficient in that operation.

One question that remains unanswered is “what are the metrics or standard operating procedures that the police department uses to evaluate the shelter’s performance? 

If the SOP calls for efficient use of killing to control costs then the leadership is performing there jobs admirably.

Breakthrough Thinking would seek to identify the purpose of animal services in the broadest possible purpose level, to not kill any healthy treatable dogs or cats, with development of a feasible target solution from a variety of alternatives.

Under breakthrough thinking the goal, not killing any healthy, treatable animals would always remain the same with only the targeted solutions changing. By working backward to develop a creative change (from killing over 60% of healthy, treatable animals) in the problem situation, you can evolve toward your solution goal.

Breakthrough thinking offers an exceptionally productive approach to problem solving and problem prevention. Its basic premise is that anyone can break out of self-defeating, traditional modes of reasoning (kill traditionalists) and break through to find revitalizing, consistent positive “No Kill” solutions to the problems he or she confronts.

What breakthrough thinking does require is a willingness to admit that there is a problem. If we want to stop killing healthy pets then we must first admit that killing healthy pets is wrong.

Once identified as a problem (killing) a solution or need for change becomes the dream or goal. At this moment, we face several problems – nine out of ten cats being killed, owner surrender’s being killed, dogs with socialization issues being killed, puppies and kittens being killed – that are not at all unusual nor daunting in complexity.

Life is an ongoing struggle. The purpose of solving problems and accomplishing legitimate dreams isn’t to remove them, but to give meaning and direction to the struggle.

Ours is a struggle for No Kill. It’s a struggle much too important not to succeed.

Yet simply talking about change, the future and emerging dreams does not ensure results. Everyone agrees that change is constant, that today’s choices create tomorrow’s future, and that we have many options in developing solutions to fulfill that dream. One thing is certain, if we continue using the same failed practices we can predict a future of only killing as well.

We have compelling reasons for following in the footsteps of other progressive communities that have successfully implemented No Kill parameters. We have seen the depths of frustration that our current shelter model delivers. Yet, there are reasons to be optimistic about the immensely productive changes that lie ahead.

Successfully implementing life saving procedures will make us feel good about ourselves – both as a community of compassionate pet owners and as people who respect all life as sacred.

The importance of “Breakthrough Thinking” cannot be overestimated. We will not solve the complex problems that have been allowed to accumulate through the years by attempting to fix blame. Every day we chase down these phantom causes we miss another opportunity in addressing the real problems instead. .

Our shelter has a duty to one thing only; the homeless animals being killed there.

It will be your voice, silenced no more, and your heart that will march our community into this promise land where the killing of the innocent will end.




Steps for No Kill Success

I. Feral Cat TNR Program – TNR refers to “Trap-Neuter-Release” or “Trap-Neuter-Return.” Gwinnett Animal Control is killing close to 100 cats a week – establishing a working trap/neuter/release program with the rescue community is crucial to establishing No Kill Success.

TNR is the only proven method for lowering the numbers of feral cats living in an area. Using TNR effectively sterilizes the cat colony.

The current policy on feral cats, “catch and kill”, is not only ineffective in lowering the feral cat population but is extremely expensive to implement. Shelter resources are squandered in a futile attempt to kill off the “ownerless” cats in our community.

What a “catch and kill” policy doesn’t do is answer the moral question of why “wild” cats are singled out for eradication while other wild animals such as squirrels and raccoons are not. Obviously with the number of cats being killed approaching 5000 a year this dismally unmoral policy has failed.

While feral cats by definition are not “adoptable”, that fact alone doesn’t translate into ferals as not having meaningful, healthy lives if they are maintained as a feral cat colony.

A compassionate community believes that even though these cats are not adoptable they do have a right to live. A responsible TNR program serves the community by lowering the colony’s population over time.

II. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter – Quality of Life Issue - Low cost, high volume spay/neuter will lead to fewer animals entering the shelter system, allowing more resources to be allocated toward saving lives. Current animal welfare policies do little or nothing to promote low cost spay/neuter resources in our community.

One is left to wonder whether we would have been better served by building a number of spay/neuter clinics with the several million that went into building what has in effect turned out to be our new state of the art kill shelter.

III. Rescue Groups – An adoption or transfer to a rescue group frees up cage and kennel space, reduces expenses for feeding, cleaning and while improving the rate of lifesaving. With the rampant rate of cats and dogs being killed at our new shelter there is no practical excuse for not working with licensed rescue groups.

Killing a dog or cat that otherwise would have a safe haven in rescue is a judgmental, vindictive form of animal cruelty at the hands of shelter management.

Our shelter must reach out to the rescue community and form a partnership that currently does not exist. The first step in reaching out must include naming a new rescue coordinator who will works towards nurturing and developing this partnership.

IV. Foster Care – Volunteer foster care is crucial to No Kill. This fact has been proven by the success of the “Jail House Second Chance Program”. Dogs that would have been killed at the shelter are being socialized and placed through this fostering program at the jail. This same program, if ramped up through volunteer foster homes, would all but eliminate killing at our shelter while reducing the costs associated with providing longer term care for dogs and cats with specialized issues.

Shelter management refuses to discuss any type of outside volunteer fostering program, instead preferring to hang on to the failed policy of killing for “space” animals that would be highly adoptable if only they had a little more time.

Saving lives becomes compromised by the tunnel vision policy of controlling an animal’s destiny inside a malfunctioning shelter that implements the expediency of killing instead.

Fostering programs are a low cost, often times no cost, method of increasing a shelter’s capacity, improving public relations while improving the shelter’s image, rehabilitating sick and injured or behaviorally challenged animals and saving more lives.

Our shelter must reach out into the community for volunteers to foster dogs and cats who simply need more time to blossom.

V. Comprehensive Adoption Programs – Quality of Life Issue - Adoptions are vital to a shelter’s lifesaving mission. The quantity and quality of shelter adoptions is in shelter management’s hands, making lifesaving a direct function of shelter policies and practice.

In practice, rescue groups are better prepared to conduct home inspections, hold off site adoptions, evaluate application options and matching up pets to new owners then public shelters because of volunteer resources available.

Our shelter would increase adoptions by merely making the shelter more assessable to working families and through off site adoptions that promotes shelter pets needing adoption.

VI. Pet Retention –Quality of Life Issue - Saving animals requires communities to develop innovative strategies for keeping people and their companion animals together. The more a community sees its shelter as a place to turn for advice and assistance, the easier this job will be.

Changing our focus from “Gwinnett Animal Control and Enforcement” to “Gwinnett Animal Services Unit” is more then mere semantics. It’s a cultural shift and enhancement of value structure our animal welfare policies have on those citizens who responsibly own pets.

VII. Medical and Behavior Programs – Quality of Life Issue - The shelter must put in place comprehensive vaccination, handling, cleaning, socialization, and care policies before animals get sick and rehabilitative efforts for those who come in sick, injured, unweaned, or traumatized.

Our compassionate community will support efforts to rehabilitate, rather then kill, our homeless pets. We witness this all the time with news stories – the public leads the cheers for those pets that are saved and mourns those who are not.

VIII. Public Relations/Community Involvement – Increasing adoptions, maximizing donations, recruiting volunteers and partnering with community agencies comes down to one thing: increasing the shelter’s exposure.

New ordinances and a focus on enforcement won’t solve animal related problems in our community – our people will – the very people who are being exploited by these draconian laws that often times include threats of impounding the family pet and sending owners to jail..

Public relations and marketing are the foundation of all a shelter’s activities and their success. To go No-Kill, the shelter must be in the public eye.

IX. Volunteers – Quality of Life Issue - Volunteers are a dedicated “army of compassion” and the backbone of a successful No Kill effort. There is never enough staff, never enough dollars to hire more staff, and always more needs than paid human resources. That is where volunteers come in and make the difference between success and failure and, for the animals, life and death.

With only 31 approved volunteers our current volunteer program is a failure.

Our shelter must proactively recruit more volunteers to help staff the shelter – walking dogs and promoting adoptions.

X. Proactive Redemptions – Quality of Life Issue - One of the most overlooked areas for reducing killing in animal control shelters are lost animal reclaims. Sadly, besides having pet owners fill out a lost pet report, very little effort is made in this area of shelter operation.

This is unfortunate because doing so—primarily shifting from passive to a more proactive approach—has proven to have a significant impact on lifesaving and allow shelters to return a large percentage of lost animals to their families as well as garner more public support and backing for the shelter.

XI. A Compassionate Director – A hard working, compassionate animal control or shelter director not content to regurgitate tired clichés or hide behind the myth of “too many animals, not enough homes.”

In the end, there may be an overpopulation problem but not the one traditionally linked to animal control. What we are suffering from that is actually killing a higher number of animals, it is an overpopulation of unqualified, jaded or simply worn out individuals entrusted in caring for our shelter pets, who fail at doing so.

It is the contention of this author that management’s “incorrect thinking” entrenched in killing is the single most cause of our shelter’s failure. With our leadership mired in negativity, implementing only the failed policies of the past, we have become complacent with the status quo of killing.

Those who are intoxicated with punishing the public while killing their pets magically dance through the fog of misrepresentations and deceit only to emerge as the irresponsible death seekers themselves.

Our shelter must put an end to the bureaucracy that needlessly administers lethal “blue juice” injections as an only solution for our homeless animals. They’ve become lost in this low hanging fog of the shelter’s deceit.

Killing Defined: Animals are only euthanized if they are too sick to be treated or too aggressive to be suitable for adoption. No-kill shelters reject euthanasia as a means of population control; all "adoptable" and "treatable" animals are saved.

This conversation on No Kill alternatives cuts through that fog for all pet owners to see that killing healthy pets as wrong because it will always be wrong to kill any healthy pet. It’s morally wrong and for pet owners to kill healthy pets and it’s morally wrong for the shelter’s management and their subordinates to kill healthy pets as well.

Our lack of life saving focus comes from the years of mismanagement of a shelter run by the Gwinnett Police Department. They alone have squandered the opportunity to change and save lives with repeated rhetoric of misplaced blame.

Effectiveness of any movement in reaching shelter goals and operations begins with competent leadership that holds it’s staff accountable for developing proven life saving programs and one that fosters good relationships in the community, none of which exists now.

We face a moment in history where on one side we have “Kill-Oriented” traditionalists and on the other “No Kill Advocates”. This “culture clash” has taken on new life as word spreads across the country off other community’s success in implementing “No Kill” alternatives.

The Blame Game

“I think of all the good things we have left undone
Suffer premonitions, confirm suspicions of the holocaust to come”
 “Finally I understand the feelings of a few
Ashes and diamonds, foe and friend
We are all equal in the end” - Pink Floyd - The Final Cut


It’s not the public who is to blame when adoptions are low because the shelter makes it impossible for working families to visit. It’s not the public who is to blame when the shelter refuses to do “off site” adoptions. It’s not the public who is to blame when the shelter denigrates or downplays working with rescue groups in placing at risk animals.

It’s not the public who is to blame for rounding up and killing stay cats despite there not being a leash law for cats. It’s not the public who is to blame when our shelter kills feral cats because a Trap-Neuter-Release program is not being utilized.

It’s not the public who is to blame when pet owners are denied services to help overcome behavioral, medical or environmental conditions that cause them to relinquish animals because no pet retention programs are in place.

It’s not the public who is to blame when the shelter focuses on threats and intimidation enforcing the draconian animal ordinance passed in 2007.

It’s not the public who is to blame when animal control works closely with the courts enforcing a draconian animal ordinance with threats and intimidation that leads many responsible pet owners to surrender their cherished pets to avoid jail terms and exorbitant fines from the county solicitors office.

In the end it will be public support that will create No Kill – the same outraged public that will cry out for change that shifts the focus from animal enforcement to an era of providing top notch life saving services instead.

To reach that culture shift it only takes one shelter manager – one leader – who is committed to simply saying NO to KILLING while choosing to aggressively promote life saving alternatives instead.

How can we expect pet owners to act “responsibly” when our own animal control unit commits the ultimate act of cruelty ending a healthy pets life with a myriad of excuses seeking to justify their own incompetence.

This is a failure of leadership, nothing more – nothing less. A leadership addicted to the failed policies of “killing for expedience”.

It will be our voices that will be heard over the silent screams of death coming from our shelter.

“In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends = Martin Luther King

Dismantling the Killing Machine

Shelter’s killing dogs and cats by the thousand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shelter “Death by Numbers”


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canines don’t fare much better……..


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

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

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

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

The Killing Machine Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Totals                            2005           2006       2007       2008       2009

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Road to No Kill has it's detractors

No Kill sheltering has been supported in a battle for public opinion long before no kill sheltering existed in any significant way. While the battle and "war of words" with entrenched animal shelter management is still underway, increasingly it is irrelevant to tens of thousands of volunteer rescuers, donors, and upstart shelter founders, who have taken the work of saving animals into their own hands.

With decades of blaming “irresponsible” pet-owners for problems, animal control agencies and humane societies are facing activists who are now claiming responsible roles and questioning the irresponsible decision making that the animal sheltering industry uses to support what has become a contentious high kill reality.

While established organizations continue to clash over the term “No-Kill,” the most urgent challenge to the entire sheltering community is making effective use of increasing public involvement. The amateurs and newcomers have ideas and energy, and if recruited into shelter work, expect to have a voice in how the shelters are run.

Those shelters who are so firmly entrenched in killing resist, impede or oppose opening up shelter operations to this new wave of volunteers fearful of the oversight that would follow.

As long as shelters can continue to mislead the public on the role that high kill shelters provide by "killing with kindness" because those animals who only face a lifetime of future abuse, then the killing can continue.

However, more and more the public is questioning whether the real abuse or cruelty is at the hands of shelter management who finds it too easy and more convenient to implement mass killing as a solution rather then implementing programs that would save lives.

The decision to end a healthy pet's life has always been a flashpoint for conflict, more than ever this decision making process is being contested––and the disputes are increasingly often taken to the outside world.
                                    
The media, in it's role, has found a receptive audience that cheers on the underdog's - our community's homeless pets - and is increasingly beginning to question why we kill when there are successful programs that greatly reduce the killing that aren't being implemented or even talked about in the sheltering community at large.

Opposition to No Kill has it's supporters in surprising animal rights arena's as well. The large and powerful animal rights groups like HSUS, PETA and the ASPCA are skeptical of the successes and have yet to publicly acknowledge No Kill as the future for America's homeless pets.

Part of the philosophy driving the political distancing from the No Kill Movement is the huge financial rewards these groups bring in under the current system of "catch, kill and blame".  High kill sheltering has become extremely profitable for these groups, many might suggest there existence depends on the images of killing shelter pets as well..

This author might suggest that there is a "fear factor" that the millions in donations would dry up, or be diverted towards No Kill, if the public becomes aware of programs that actually save lives replacing years of sheltering policies that only use killing as a solution.

Some groups, like Best Friends, have grown more than 600% in 10 years, with more programs, personnel, and annual revenue than PETA. While PETA, the fastest-growing national animal advocacy group during the preceding 15 years, has seen much slower growth, partly because it is the last major national organization to overtly oppose no-kill sheltering, supports BSL, the killing of Pit Bulls and opposes trap/neuter/return for community's seeking solutions for feral cats.

Yet, the public is not forgiving when it comes to groups like Best Friends, who recently opposed a law in New York that would have standardized care and policies for publicly funded shelters including a provision requiring shelters to release dogs and cats to request groups upon request.

The Tide is Turning..... pet advocates come full circle

No-kill came of age in 1998, when PeopleSoft founders David and Cheryl Duffield put Richard Avanzino in charge of Maddie’s Fund, endowed with more grant-giving clout than all other foundations serving the humane community combined.

Maddie’s Fund introduced an ambitious attempt to encourage the entire U.S. to follow the San Francisco model. To apply for funding, a community must assemble a coalition including all of the shelters serving it, of whatever mission.

Community's that refuse to acknowledge the role of No Kill sheltering also refuse the funding available for implementing spay/neuter programs for the poor and a number of other programs that have been successful in turning the tide against increased income numbers which drive up shelter kill rates as well.

Avanzino in 2004 presided over drafting the Asilomar Accords, a pact meant to help attract cooperation from conventional shelters and animal control agencies by standardizing statistical reporting methods.

Although the Maddie’s Fund mission statement explicitly embraces “creation of a No-Kill nation,” the Asilomar Accords do not use the term “No-Kill,” and were widely viewed as an agreement to abandon potentially divisive language.

To be successful No Kill proponents had to find an effective way to stop pit bull terrier proliferation, confronted at every turn by aggressive alliances of fanciers, breeders, and rescuers opposed to any breed-specific response.

The Michael Vick case opened up new wounds with the positions taken by large animal rights groups like who supported a position that pit bulls seized in dog fighting raids had to be killed because of the danger these dogs placed on the community.

History would write an entirely different chapter when animal rescue groups like "Bad Rap" and Best Friends instead were able to retrain and socialize even the "worst of the worst" cases of Vick's abuse. The Vick dogs revitalized the No Kill movement by pointing out to the public how the perceptions formulated by the media and large animal rights groups couldn’t have been more wrong.

Groups like HSUS, PETA and the ASPCA, who all used Vick’s dogs in fundraising schemes, now faced the wrath of advocates who demanded a change in posturing on pit bulls seized in dog fighting raids. Advocates demanded an end to the stereotyping that leads many high kill shelters from simply killing off pit bulls to a position where each dog be treated individually with training and re socialization replacing what was a certain death sentence instead.

Groups like HSUS are being forced to re-evaluate their position on pit bulls out of fear of alienating members and donors for their organization. PETA has remained steadfast in it’s mission to eradicate pit bulls from society and will be judged accordingly.

As in any social movement that our country has taken on, the No Kill movement has had it's obstacles and vocal opponents as well. Part of this opposition comes from those seeking to protect the status quo, not much different then those who opposed eliminating slavery because they had slaves themselves.

Those who truly advocate for our homeless pets must be willing to plow the fields of dissent. Only by planting the seeds of No Kill can we reap the harvest it will produce. We plow those fields by speaking out in our community against those who seek only to kill – the anti thesis of No Kill.

Expecting support from a shelter industry hooked on killing is irrelevant to the movement itself. The movement has had to confront many of the problems associated with plowing a new frontier in sheltering philosophy.

Many of the newly founded "No Kill" agencies were expected to save every healthy animal before the numbers of incoming healthy animals were reduced to anywhere near the numbers that their communities could absorb through adoption. Successful No Kill communities were able to define these new found problems with solutions that included an increased use of volunteers to support shelter operations, do off site adoptions and commit to off site fostering of special needs cases.

Partnerships were formed and foundation of support were built with an established rescue community as well.  Reminiscent of the days of transformation from slavery an increased number of "Rescue Railroads" spouting up in across the country, where volunteers moved homeless pets from areas were there weren't enough adoption possibilties to areas screaming for dogs and cats to adopt.  Flexibilty became the standrard determining life saving viability.

True to America’s love affair with our pets, families were all too willing to support rescuing a pet in distress.

The pet industry cashed in on this love affair as well when pet food suppliers like Petsmart and Petco started providing space and support for rescue groups to display and adopt out these homeless pets. Even manufactures like Pedigree have focused their company missions on supporting “adopt a shelter pet” in their advertising campaigns.

Adopting and providing a loving home has become the “politically correct” mantra for pet owners across the land. Not only has the social conscience recognized the importance of adopting homeless pets but more importantly the relevance of how immoral it has become to kill healthy pets is emerging as well. We are now witnessing a social change that questions why we kill healthy pets under any pretext, especially when there are other progressive communities who are not.

Because No-Kill shelters and rescues have typically been founded in reaction against high-volume killing, those involved in running these operations tend to mistrust and resist inclusion in any system that might be controlled by the conventionals.

Likewise, many directors of conventional shelters are on record as skeptics and critics of no-kill approaches. Many frankly resent the no-kill challenge. Thus the seeds of a culture clash sown.

Some see no-kills as rivals for funding, though the economic data demonstrates that the growth of public financial support for No-Kill sheltering has actually brought new money into the cause, while funding for conventional sheltering has also steadily increased.

Some just don’t like the implication that No-Kill shelters exist opposite to “Kill” shelters, and that conventional shelter staff are therefore “animal killers.”

That conflict is not going to go away. Despite the Asilomar Accords, and other efforts by national humane organizations to get no-kill shelters to quit using the term “No-Kill,” it's use will remain because the public likes it, understands it and demads it.  It has and will continue to replace the use of “euthanasia” when it involves shelters that continue to kill healthy animals.

Shelter managers can expect to face increasing pressure to make use of low cost “spay/neuter” programs as opposed to supporting any attempt to mandate and punish those who do not.  Promoting adoption techniques advanced by the No-Kill Movement will become the norm   A generation of animal lovers raised with the expectation that shelters should aspire to go No-Kill is not about to abandon the belief that every healthy animal can be saved.

The major gain in the last decade has been the increased “market share” of those who adopt as opposed to a declining market for those who acquire pets through breeders and pet stores. The adoption “market share” of pet acquisition has increased by half, the longevity of pets in homes has increased by half or more, and more than 70% of pet-keepers sterilize their dogs and cats in most parts of the U.S., with more than 90% of all pet dogs and cats sterilized in some cities. This data refutes the shelter industry mantra that seeks to blame killing on the “phantom” irresponsible pet owner.

There will always be a small number of pet owners who are irresponsible, even cruel with their pets but that number is less then 4% of the number of pets entering our shelters. The fact remains that for many pets the first time they are neglected or even abused is when they find themselves in the very shelters that are supposed to protect them.

Of course, the ultimate act of cruelty is committed everyday when a shelter manager decides to end a pets life simply because they lack the moral conscience to implement programs that protect lives.

Still, the stereotyping image of no-kill sheltering remains tainted by hoarders. The national organizations most involved in sheltering perpetuate the hoarder stereotype, partly because many senior staff have had experience with hoarding cases and have become jaded by their own experience.

The number of rescuers in trouble increased by almost the same percentage as the number of breeders declined, possibly reflecting the migration of ex-breeders into rescue.  Possibly reflecting an increased number of new people getting into rescue without supporting infrastructures to assist them.  Either of which can’t be blamed on the growing No Kill movement that has evolved.  All are issues which must be addressed regardless what sheltering philosophy emerges.

Since the proportionality of “rescuer” hoarders to all others does not appear to have increased by more than can be explained by other factors, the No-Kill movement can not be not responsible for the increase in hoarding cases.

Rather, hoarders appear to be raided and prosecuted more often because of increased awareness of the hoarding problem.

Yet that does not mean hoarding is representative of the No-Kill cause. No Kill recognizes the needs for standards of care not only for those who own, rescue or run a No Kill facility but more importantly for publicly funded shelters as well.  It is simply not part of the No Kill Movement to move animals from an abusing public shelter to an abusive setting in either a No Kill facility or in rescue.

As No Kill gains in popularity, so will the need for standardizing care and developing suitable standards for high volume adoptions, care for life hospice care and non sheltering rescue groups.

There will always be irresponsible people to deal with, but that spectrum of irresponsibility exists in all areas of pet ownership, the rescue community and more importantly in our outdated sheltering system that screams out for reform.

Gwinnett's Dismal June Shelter Report

Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council – Shelter Report for July 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://by20hounds.blogspot.com/

Dog Barking Case Ends With 30 Day Jail Sentence

Controversial Dog Barking Case Ends With 30 Day Jail Sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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