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.

The Fallacy of “Fates Worse Than Death”

For those seasoned rescuer's we are often exposed to the worst of what mankind has to offer with our experiences with shelter dogs. But have we lost the ability to step back and see the lighter side that dogs bring to our lives. Dogs who ply, dogs who seem not to have a care in the world, why should we be the one's to choose whether ending a shelter dog's previous suffering is a excuse that overlooks a dogs amazing abilty to respond to just a small measure of love, care and consideration.

In January of 2007 I was asked to take in a beagle named Camilla from Northeast Georgia Animal Shelter. Camilla was about five plus years old and was suffering from a severe skin condition which caused her to lose over half of the hair on her body. One would assume that if rescue was about saving dogs from a "Fate Far Worse Than Death" the logical disposition for Camilla would be a humane ending to life as she knew it.

Rather then make this judgment call myself I decided to let Camilla make that choice. Despite her obvious suffering from what was a skin condition that didn't seem to respond to the many treatments we tried camilla remained stoically a beagle at heart, spending her days in search of a scent and ultimately in search of food for her belly. Despite her suffering she never seemed to stop wagging that tail or ignoring your every command. Yet, still, Camilla was still by definition "un adoptable (in her present condition) and a perfect candidate for a "no kill sheltering" for the rest of her life.

While we never gave up on finding a cure for her illness often times realty was to simply try and help Camilla hold her own. She would have good weeks and some that were not so good. Through it all I became tremendously attached to this little girl and by the summer of 2008 considered Camilla as one of my own.

However, this love for Camilla was not shared by our local animal sheltering world. Flexing the muscle's developed with the "steroid" bill we call our local animal ordinance of 2007 animal control and our local animal rights leaning solicitor's office zeroed in on beagles like Camilla by suggested she be included as one of ten beagles I surrender to appease the county over our dog barking ordeal.

Fate would decide that Camilla and others would become the local poster dogs for why poorly thought out laws can set a dangerous precedent where the courts, not the pet owner or rescue caretaker, hold the ultimate judgment of the Fate of Death which would be far worse then life itself for these innocent victims.

Despite assurances from insiders working with animal control who assured me ALL the hounds I surrendered would be turned over to rescue why would any reasonable person believe this when the shelter had such a dismal record with the healthy dogs that went through the shelter. The reality was that a dog suffering from the abuse of a previous owner would simply be moved from a home where she was cared for, loved and kept safe and become a statistic on a monthly spreadsheet instead.

Fortunately, our case went better then we expected, the judge refused to order surrender of any pets and as the news head lines leaked out the "hounds were elated". I still took beagles like Camilla to adoptions every weekend even though there was little chance anyone would share my commitment to this sweet but medically challenged little hound. Then along came that special person....

A little more then six weeks after our trial a woman approached the cages where the beagles were, well acting like beagles and ask if "that beagle was still available." Even though she pointed at Camilla I started pointing out the other more healthy beagles but she cut me off withy "no, I want THAT beagle - the one who's speaking to me..." Low and behold Camilla was speaking to her, wagging her tail and working real hard to get her attention". After a lengthy discussion about Camilla's health issues she was adopted.

From time to time over the next few months I would see Camilla on her trips to Petsmart. You really couldn't tell who was happier Camilla or her new proud mom. But what you could see was a gradual improvement in Camilla's overall health. Six months and over $1,200 in vet bills later Camilla is no longer Camilla in name or body. Her new name is Georgia and she has completely recovered from her illness.

Georgia has a beautiful beagle coat, has added six pounds to her once skinny frame and serves as a perfect example why we shouldn't be so quick to judge whether there ever is a fate far better then death. Certainly you would have a difficult time convincing Georgia or her mom of this ridiculous assumption.

From Nathan Winograd's blog:

The Fallacy of “Fates Worse Than Death”
April 28, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd

Recently, I read a letter from a woman who has spent half a century doing animal rescue work. Her description of her experiences over the years, including the heartbreaking rescue of a near-dead kitten abandoned near a dumpster, makes it clear she cares deeply about animals. And yet, she opposes No Kill. She opposes No Kill because she believes that “there are fates worse than death.” And she cannot conceive of a No Kill nation because she sees a crisis of uncaring in the U.S., a conclusion drawn from decades of experience seeing abandoned, neglected, and abused animals. She knows this, she says, not from “percentages, data, and studies,” but from “what she has seen with her own eyes.”

Sadly, she, and other animal rescuers who share these views, have been in the trenches of rescue work so long, that they have become myopic, and as a result, they have come to believe that the world of animals is little more than pain and suffering. They have been led to believe in the inevitability of certain outcomes, and the things they witness seem to confirm this point of view for them. In addition, the large national organizations which they turn to for guidance reaffirm their beliefs: people don’t care, irresponsibility is rampant, there are too many unwanted animals, and the only available choices for a majority of these animals are a quick death in a shelter or suffering on the streets. Because they lack personal experience at progressive shelters which would debunk these views and have trained themselves not to see evidence to the contrary all around them, they have actually come to believe that “killing is kindness” and the alternative is worse. But they could not be more wrong.

And what is driving these misplaced perceptions is a lack of perspective—perspective which comes from a larger view, a global vision, a top-down image they cannot see and which the animal protection movement historically has failed to provide. They have a distorted view of reality. If they took a step back, if they allowed themselves to see what is happening nationally, if they kept an open mind and stayed informed about the emerging success of the No Kill movement, they would see something else entirely, as many other rescuers do. They would see the “big picture”—which reveals that there is a way out of killing and that a No Kill nation is not only possible, it is well within our reach.

There are roughly eight million dogs and cats entering shelters every year, a small fraction compared to the 165 million in people’s homes. Of those entering shelters, only four percent are seized because of cruelty and neglect. Some people surrender their animals because they are irresponsible, but others do so because they have nowhere else to turn—a person dies, they lose their job, their home is foreclosed. In theory, that is why shelters exist–-to be a safety net for animals whose caretakers no longer can or want to care for them. And the majority of animals who enter these shelters can, and should, be saved.

Based on dog bite extrapolation data, an analysis of intakes at shelters, and the results of the best performing shelters in the country, about 90% of all animals would be adopted if our shelters where compassionate places run by animal lovers dedicated to saving lives. Indeed, imagine if this were actually realized. Imagine if shelters provided good care, comfort, and plenty of affection to the animals during their stays at these way stations funded through tax and philanthropic dollars by a dog- and cat- loving culture. And imagine if all shelters embraced the No Kill philosophy and the programs and services which make it possible. We would be a No Kill nation today. Because while roughly four million dogs and cats are needlessly killed every year, there are also three times as many people—upwards of 17 million—who are looking to get a new companion animal next year and who have not yet decided where that animal will come from. And, as communities across the country have proven, a great many of them could very easily be persuaded to adopt a shelter animal.

For the rest of the story.....

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

Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council – Making Policies Founded on Fear?

The Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council (GAAC) met on Tuesday, April 21, to consider proposed changes to the county’s animal ordinance. A spirited discussion, shrouded in contemptuous overtones that pervaded for two plus hours, focused on nuisance dog barking and tethering restrictions. From this writer’s perspective, representing "We, the Pet Owners of Gwinnett" a grassroots group of concerned pet owners, the feeling tone set by GAAC is reflective of a common malady: fear of change.

Nonetheless, considerable progress was made in that GAAC and We, the Pet Owners of Gwinnett each made compromises in revising nuisance dog barking and tethering guidelines. As a result, a modified animal ordinance was crafted, to be submitted to the Gwinnett County Commission for their recommendations and approval. GAAC member Carla Brown worked diligently to resolve contentious issues and deserves the community’s thanks for her efforts

Although the proposal presented by We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett wasn't adopted in its entirety, consensus was reached regarding several key provisions within the proposed revised ordinance. Changes included in the new ordinance are listed below under the subject categories.

Nuisance Dog Barking

Sentencing guidelines no longer include jail and/or probation.

Pets of an owner cited with a barking violation will not be removed from the home.
An owner can be cited just once (per incident) for a barking violation, rather than multiple times based on the number of dogs he or she owns, as is currently enforced.

The new ordinance requires two complainants from individuals who live at addresses close to the disturbance (rather then one as in the current law). This complaint expires after thirty days meaning the process would have to start all over.

Removed was the language that excluded barking when vocalizations are given as a warning to the "presence of a person trespassing on the property were the animal(s) are present. This section alone would be a deal breaker in any new ordinance, the county will go back to the current language that vocalizations do not apply "as a warning to the presence of an intruder".

The new law will incorporate a mediation process in resolving conflicts.

However, AAC Chair Gail Laberge refused a change that would reduce the maximum fine from it's current "up to $1,000" level to a more realistic fine of "up to $100". While Laberge never said the fine was a "reasonable" amount one can assume her refusal to put limitations in place demonstrates her opinion excessive fines are not unreasonable.

Laberge, who represents the Lawrenceville Kennel Club, went on to claim that the wording says the judge MAY give a fine not to exceed $1,000 but allows the judge to give a fine from $0.00 to $1,000. Of course, putting reasonable restraints on the court process that would lower that range to $0.00 to $100 and still allow the same discretion.

Laberge has a disconnect with the court process. After all, it was under her leadership that the current draconian ordinance was passed in 2007. Judge's are not required to levy fines for convictions under Recorders Court rules.

The problem with allowing excessive fines for minor offenses is in how those guidelines are used to intimidate pet owners into relinquishing their pets without even going through the court system. The issue of maximum sentencing is being abused by the county solicitor's office during what should be "good faith" plea negotiations.

Further, animal control is able to use the threats of "potential" sentencing limits to convince pet owners who are not even charged with a crime to surrender their pets in lieu of being cited. Animals who are surrendered thus become part of a much larger issue of escalating intake and kill numbers at the county shelter.

"We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett" will continue to lobby for fines that fit the offense. There is no reasonable explanation for excessive fines that punish responsible pet owners in the process. Pets are part of our culture and deserve to be treated as such.

Tethering Guidelines

Slight modifications were made to the total ban on tethering and approved which will allow for short term tethering when the pet owner is present. Once those changes are finalized I will "blog" them for public discussion.

Progress made thus far in hammering out an animal ordinance satisfactory to Gwinnett County government officials, pet owners, animal control employees and GCAA represents the culmination of nine months of intensive efforts. While it is encouraging, progress far beyond “putting a good animal control ordinance in place” begs for attention.

Legislation is often thought of as a quick solution to high rates of shelter killing. For those "animal advocating" attorneys who write these laws and claim to be motivated by saving lives, there is a more powerful driving force in play: a desire to punish. Ultimately, it is the animals they claim to want to save who are punished by losing their lives in the process.

Experience paints a different picture of saving more lives - communities like Gwinnett that have passed such draconian laws instead find themselves moving in the opposite direction. Shelter intake rises which translates into more killing, not less. More killing translates into additional animal control funding needed and the process spirals.

We will never lower our shelter intakes and kill numbers without enhancing proven life-saving strategies instead. If we are ever going to realize change we must stop ignoring the excuses of blame that lead to shelter failure. Every dog and cat killed is a shelter failure.

You can't eliminate public irresponsibility but you can stop using it as an excuse to kill. There is more then enough compassion, caring, kindness and love for our pets in Gwinnett to overcome the much smaller amount of human irresponsibility. What is needed is a shift in thinking that moves away from excuses to solutions instead.

Additional discussions during the Animal Advisory Meeting addressed:

Volunteer Program

The current "volunteer" program is non functional. The failure to implement a volunteer spirit in the community, a failure to organize a working foster care program, a failure to increase exposure for pets needing homes through off-site adoption events, a failure to implement "trap,neuter release" policies for feral cats, a failure to maintain a customer friendly shelter environment, a failure to offer affordable services that nurture responsible pet ownership in the community all feed into a failing animal welfare policies of killing more at our shelter.

Instead our current volunteer program requires a thorough criminal background check thus stifling most citizens from the program. Even this program is closely guarded as there are no links on the county web site that would advise volunteers on how they can participate.

The Animal Advisory meeting included a discussion about the application and background check process that quite probably is discouraging community volunteer participation. Until we get over a philosophy of running the public animal shelter like a prison that problem will persist.

Thus, we have a dismal number of less then twenty volunteers who currently participate.

Clearly, that is not enough participation to make a noticeable difference in helping to advance "these" pets chances of being adopted back into the community.

Life saving programs that need volunteers include:

Help with off site and special adoption events.
Fostering dogs and cats thus expanding the number of pets being made available for adoption.
Educational programs in the community that promote the shelter and responsible pet ownership.
Pet councilors that offer resources that help pet owners avoid relinquishing their pets.
Maintaining the shelter's "Petfinders" listing to vastly improve a pets chances at being adopted or being transferred to rescue.

Without unpaid volunteers programs like off site adoption, special adoption events at the shelter and many of the other services that volunteers can offer in helping to keep the public informed about pets needing help go unresolved.

Partnerships with the Rescue Community

A significant issue that needs to be addressed is the dramatic drop in dogs and cats being transferred to area rescue groups in 2008. That number dropped a staggering 35% in one year alone.

Shelter Director Mary Respress commented that many of the rescue groups the shelter approaches are not taking in animals because they are full. The sad reality is many long time very responsible rescue groups do not pull from Gwinnett because they feel like they are not treated as partners in the shelters success.

Hopefully, putting an end to the repressive enforcement of the county's animal ordinance might help reduce that tension but it is also imperative that the shelter realize there are serious issues that need to be addressed in order for rescue to openly embrace pulling from Gwinnett.

Rescue groups or foster homes who reside in Gwinnett will not risk the judgmental thinking that could endanger their personal pets and current fosters when there are pets available in nearby shelters who are not so intrusive. That is not an opinion - it is a reality.

Building and expanding a partnership coalition with the rescue community is imperative in moving towards finding rescue solutions for many of the dogs and cats who are left with no other options..

Revamping the Animal Advisory Council

The current structure of GAAC is, in my opinion, dysfunctional and primarily serves the special interest that blocks change. This structure is heavily weighted in support of local breeder and kennel club interest who compete in the marketplace with shelter pets.

GAAC Chair Laberge, who represents the AKC, countered with "I do not believe the GAAC is dysfunctional nor do I believe it blocks change. The GAAC tries very hard to look at all issues brought to the GAAC and recommend what is best for the community and the animals."

Yet, Laberge is hard pressed in explaining her support of the 2007 Animal Ordinance Revisions that allowed the county to jail pet owners and take away their family pets for minor ordinance infractions. She hard pressed in explaining the lack of a volunteer program, she's hard pressed in explaining the shelter's policy of "trap and kill" for ferals which resulted in a huge increase in the number of cats being killed.

Clearly, the best interests of the community and the animals were not served with those sentencing guidelines - nor are the best interests of the taxpayers who foot the bill for all of this excessive killing.

Laberge tried to clarify her comments with "There are seven members of the GAAC and we don't always agree. I have only one vote and sometimes I am in the minority on a decision, an example was the regulation to ban all tethering. I stated at the time that I thought that was a mistake and it has proven true, but the Council voted and the majority of members at that time wanted to ban all tethering."

In reality, there were no dissenting votes in approving this flawed bill which now has been corrected. If Laberge lacks the backbone to vote her conscience then she should not be in a leadership position.

A true paradigm shift is called for in that we must get past the mind set that “killing the excess is what we have to do.” We must find the ways and means to improve current programs and implement additional programs that we know save lives.

WE MUST get past this current thinking of justifying the excuses for killing a pet and push on to ways and methods for saving lives. The history and voting record of this GAAC, many of whom are long time members, will not be resolved without changes in the makeup and will of the council. We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett support a proposal that would have added in local pet owners from each commissioner's district.

GAAC Chairperson Laberge has removed this proposal from the GAAC agenda. There have been no discussions or an up or down vote that addresses changing the makeup of the board to be more inclusive for local pet owners.

In her explanation she explains "just because the topic of the GAAC was not on the April agenda does not mean the topic has been removed for future meetings. But I will remind you that in the end, the Commissioners decide the makeup of the GAAC. The Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council (GAAC) does not have the authority to expand the size of the GAAC. Enlarging the membership of the GAAC can only be done by the Gwinnett County Commissioners and the Commissioners are the only ones who can do the by-laws for the GAAC."

That does not explain her efforts to halt discussions on this proposal. The GAAC does have a responsibility to discuss, vote on and send forward any proposals for board considerations. She is correct, however, in the end it will be up the BOC who answer to the voters to determine whether our animal advisory council includes voices from the pet owning community or continues to disenfranchise them instead.

With the next meeting scheduled for July 21st, we will once again face the sad reality that "the business of killing our community's pets" is our animal welfare policy for the balance of 2009. This is clearly not acceptable to those demanding change.

Tomorrow's DOA Meeting CANCELED

One of the advocates planning on attending tomorrow afternoon's meeting of the Department of Agriculture's "Companion Animal Advisory Board" has been informed by Mary Green's office the meeting is "canceled".

According to Susan Berryman, who works in Mary Greene's office, Mary is in Savannah for the weekend and she seemed to think that the May 2nd date was a "typo". She claims the meeting was scheduled for May 12th, but overheard that has been canceled (was erased from Mary Greene's calendar.

The May 2nd date was given to me on the telephone when I originally consulted with the Department of Ag office weeks ago. It was verified as a response to my open records request by return mail PRIOR to my announcing that date to the various rescue groups and advocates who were planning on attending.

One is left to guess whether this was a deliberate attempt to keep this group's activity out of the public eye which would be an egregious violation of the open meeting act this group is required by law to follow.

For those of us who now have to reschedule OUR weekend at this late hour my suggestion is to make our voices heard loud and clear - "this lack of professionalism is NOT acceptable" for a group who exists to serve the public's needs - not their own.

At this point the "meeting" has been rescheduled for August 11th BUT I certainly wouldn't take THAT to the bank.

Contact list to demand an explanation as to why this group feels it is above following the law. -

Carolyn Danese Companion Animal Advisory Board Chairperson Carolyn.Danese@turner.com

Gail Laberge Companion Animal Advisory Board Vice-Chairperson outland@laberge.org

Mary Greene mgreene@agr.state.ga.us phone 404-656-4914

Obviously, this group needs a much more extensive investigation into how it operates and why it seems intent on remaining so secretive.

Reminder - Dep of Ag "Companion Animal Advisory Board" Meeting Sat May 2nd

If your involved in rescue, if you care about puppy mills that seem to skip from one warning to the next, if your concerned about why some shelters still gas, if your concerned about why there isn't any plan for bringing shelters into the same compliance requirements that rescue groups are held to the you really need to show up for Saturday's Dept of Ag's "Animal Advisory Board" meeting.

This meeting will be held at 1:00 PM, 19 Martin Luther King Jr Drive SW, Atlanta, Ga 30334. It's open to the public.

My attempts at getting a copy of the meetings agenda failed despite "open meetings" requirements that the agenda be posted. In fact, it seems that for years now this group has "governed" or offered advise on "governing" for years now bypassing the laws requirements of transparency to the public.

I was able to discover - "I think" that the group is chaired by Carolyn Danese and Co-chaired by AKC's Gail Laberge. This group is critical in moving any statewide agenda that addresses puppy mill enforcement, shelter operations, the gassing issue or a number of other companion animal issues in Georgia. For years it too has been a closely guarded "boys and girls" club that operates at the pleasure of Tommy Irvin. The decisions made here trickle down to bad policies that effect each and every county in the state.

You can read more in my recent expose at:

http://by20hounds.blogspot.com/2009/04/georgia-department-of-ag-companion.html