The Past is Prologue

No Kill Conference 2010 brought hundreds of animal lovers from 39 states and four countries to the George Washington School of Law in Washington D.C. where the most successful shelter directors, animal lawyers, and shelter reformers nationwide shared insights and strategies to end the systematic killing of animals in our nations pounds and shelters. The attendees heard from directors of open admission shelters with save rates between 92% and 96%. They heard from lawyers who have passed laws making it illegal for shelters to kill animals in a wide variety of contexts and who have successfully saved the lives of animals who shelters were determined to kill. And they heard from reformers who have succeeded in passing laws to end the needless killing of animals in their community. In the keynote address, after a brief introduction welcoming attendees, sharing our movement’s successes, the increase in No Kill communities throughout the United States and indeed the world, and laying out the vision of the conference, I talked about the future…

This conference is about the future. What it can hold if we commit ourselves wholeheartedly to building the infrastructure necessary to create and sustain a No Kill nation. To do that, we must demand the immediate implementation of the model that has ended the killing in communities across the nation so we can end the killing right now, today—the No Kill Equation. And then we must institutionalize that model to end the killing forever. That is why we are here. Not just at the No Kill Conference, but in Washington D.C., the seat of government; at a law school; in a conference that combines sheltering and law; in a room full of lawyers and law makers.

There is no doubt the No Kill movement has come into its own. The “adopt some and kill the rest” paradigm which has dominated our country for so long is being replaced. But to fully destroy it, to ensure it never rears its ugly head again; to ensure a more humane future, we must first take a backwards glance. We must put our cause in historical context in order to better understand who we are, what we should be fighting for, and how we should go about it.

We need more than leadership. We need more than directors willing to implement the No Kill Equation. Our goal is to build a more compassionate society for animals; to end their killing in “shelters” now and forever. That goal is new and different from social movements of the past, but the struggle to create a just and compassionate society is not. In that, we have a lot in common with other social movements and we can learn from them in order to achieve our goals.

The struggles they faced are often the same struggles we face. Regardless of whether your politics are to the left, to the right, or to the middle, how they overcame many of the same obstacles we face and how they achieved the ends they were seeking provides a roadmap for us to follow. History is our guide. Because all those movements shared an understanding that in order to create and sustain the changes they were seeking, they must ultimate change the legal landscape of our Republic. They must change the law.

Today, other than strays, most shelters can kill every single animal who comes through their doors. It doesn’t matter if they are healthy or sick, young or old, beautiful or ugly, friendly, scared, or aggressive, the choice is up to them. If the animal was surrendered by a family, he or she can be killed within minutes of arriving. No meager holding period. No chance at adoption. No food, water, or shelter. Just a trip from the front counter to the gas chamber or to be poisoned with an overdose from a bottle marked “Fatal-plus.”

If the animal came in as a stray, he or she will be held from 48 hours to 10 days depending on the state, and then they too can be put to death with no opportunity or chance for adoption. Just a one-way ticket to the morgue. In places like Reno, Nevada, and Charlottesville, Virginia, and some other communities, they’ll be held until they find a home. But nationally, shelters will only find homes for roughly half of them. And except for public pressure, it all depends on where the shelter is, on who is in charge, on how much they care, on how committed they are.

We’ve made tremendous progress, to be sure. No Kill communities exist throughout the nation and No Kill is on the agenda of local and state governments across the country. But in too many communities, we still have this:

I tried to adopt from my local shelter, but they weren’t open on the weekend, it was almost impossible to reach them on the telephone and when I did, I was treated rudely. Nonetheless, I raced down there one day after work, and the place was so dirty. It made me cry to look into the faces of all those animals I knew would be killed. But I found this scared, skinny cat hiding in the back of his cage and I filled out an application. I was turned down because I didn’t turn in the paperwork on time, which meant a half hour before closing, but I couldn’t get there from work in time to do that. I tried to leave work early the next day, but I called and found out they had already killed the poor cat. I will never go back.

It doesn’t have to be that way. We can make that reality a thing of the past; an anachronism just like other movements have. And we do that by passing laws. The aim of every social movement in our nation’s history is legislation to gain and then protect the rights of its members or the focus of its efforts, a legacy which reaches back to the very founding of our Republic.

The year is 1776. It is a time in world history when nations were governed by a privileged few. A few great thinkers dared to imagine something altogether different: a more compassionate society, a democracy, the ability to end injustice through self-rule as codified in law. Our forefathers fought a war for these ideals, and once the war ended, they sought to institutionalize those ideals with laws—great change, a revolution, codified in law.

It is a legacy that is at the core of who we are and how we effect change: a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Our system of government was designed not only to solidify the ideals of the American Revolution, but to change with the changing times. As envisioned by James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, “In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce.”

No matter what the issue is: the fight for democracy as epitomized by Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams; the abolition of slavery as epitomized by William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and Frederick Douglass; the struggle for women’s suffrage as epitomized by Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and the great Alice Paul; civil rights as epitomized by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Harvey Milk; an end to child labor as epitomized by Lewis Hine; or disability rights as epitomized by Justin Whitlock Dart, Jr. and Richard Pimentel; all these movements culminated in the passing of laws.

The goal was not to get promises and commitments that we would strive to do better as a society. The focus was always on changing the law to eliminate the ability to do otherwise, now and for all time. The suffrage movement wasn’t just seeking discretionary permission from elections officials to vote, an ability that could be taken away. Its goal was winning the right to vote, a right guaranteed in law. The civil rights movement wasn’t just seeking the discretionary ability to sit at the front of the bus or to eat at the same lunch counters or be given equal protection and equal opportunity. Its goal was winning the right to do so, a right guaranteed in law. Because without legal rights, one’s fate is contingent on who the election official is, who the restaurant owner is, who the mayor is, and in our case, who the shelter director is.

We have—and embrace—voting rights acts, environmental protection laws, and laws against discrimination based on gender, race, and sexual orientation. Ultimately, such laws are essential to ensure that fair and equal treatment is guaranteed, not subject to the discretion of those in power.

We shouldn’t just want a promise that shelters will try to do better. We already have such promises—and millions of animals still being killed despite readily available lifesaving alternatives show just how hollow such promises are. We must demand accountability beyond the rhetoric. And we shouldn’t simply be seeking progressive directors willing to save lives. We should demand that the killing end, now and forever, regardless of who is running the shelters. And we get that in only one way: By passing shelter reform legislation which removes the discretion of shelter directors to ignore what is in the best interests of animals and kill them.

And nothing drives home the point more than the tragedy of Oreo. As many of you already know, Oreo was abused, thrown off a Brooklyn rooftop and left for dead. But she did not die. She was “rescued” by the ASPCA and dubbed the “miracle dog.” But they did not save her. She was subsequently killed by them despite readily available lifesaving alternatives; despite the offer of a sanctuary to take her, to give her the second chance and love she deserved; the opportunity to live which was her birthright.

In so many ways, it is a tragic story: her abuse, her short life, the betrayal by those who were pledged to protect her, the wasted opportunity for redemption. Tragically, we could not bring Oreo back and give to her the second chance the ASPCA denied her. But we could have lessened the futility of her death if we learned from it and altered our society in such a way as to prevent such a betrayal from ever happening again. That is what Oreo’s Law sought to do.

Oreo’s Law would have made it illegal for a shelter to kill an animal when another non-profit (rescue group) was willing to save that animal’s life. It sought to level the playing field between the big non-profits which have all the power and the small non-profits who are prevented from fulfilling their lifesaving mission when these larger organizations refuse to collaborate with them in order to save more lives. In this way, Oreo’s Law sought to reform our broken animal shelter system; to end injustice through the force of law.

The public overwhelmed the legislature with calls and e-mails of support. Some 10,000 calls and e-mails in a matter of days shutting down the New York State Assembly servers more than once. But the ASPCA ensured Oreo’s Law did not pass by using their power to defeat the bill even though the public embraced it enthusiastically.

In fact, we have seen what happens when the large organizations are not involved, what happens when the public’s values are not hindered. While Oreo’s Law was being undermined by the ASPCA and its acolytes, another state was also considering shelter reform legislation, and they succeeded. Like Oreo’s Law sought to do, the state of Delaware sought to make it illegal for any shelter to kill an animal if a rescue group is willing to save that animal’s life. But Delaware reformers didn’t stop there, because they went further: shelters cannot kill an animal if there are empty spaces in the shelter, if animals can share a space with other animals, if foster homes are available. The law requires them to post animals online and much more. It is the most progressive, comprehensive shelter reform legislation in the country and because not a single national group knew about it, there was no controversy. No fear mongering about hoarders. No fear mongering about dog fighting. No fear mongering about overcrowding. No fear mongering about costs. No fear mongering about notice requirements being unfair to small rural shelters. In fact, no fear mongering of any kind.

The bill mandates that animals be given every opportunity for life, and no one thought that would be a bad or controversial idea. That is why it passed unanimously in both houses of the legislature, with not one single vote in opposition. In fact when I was interviewed by the Dover Post about it, and I told them I was grateful that it passed, the reporter said to me: “Yes, well of course, who could possibly be against it?” I bit my tongue.

To the animal lovers in Delaware, to the rescue groups, to the legislators, and to the reporters, who in their right mind could possibly be against legislation to save animals? Who could be against a law mandating common sense policies the public would be shocked to learn aren’t willingly being done anyway? Imagine the National Resources Defense Council opposing legislation to make sure the BP oil spill disaster didn’t happen again, Greenpeace opposing a law to stop whaling, or the Sierra Club opposing a law to limit deforestation. It is unthinkable. But that is the humane movement we have inherited. Today, we have to fight the very groups founded to protect animals. And so we must fight until we prevail.

The obstacles movements in history faced were great ones. Not only did they have to fight the status quo, they also had to fight the public’s prejudice which sustained it. In other words, they first needed to win the hearts and minds of the American public. And still they prevailed. This is an obstacle we do not face.

We spend more and more every year on our companion animals, topping fifty billion dollars last year. We give hundreds of millions more to animal related charities. We miss work when our animals get sick. We cut back on their own needs to meet the needs of our animal companions. Evidence of this caring is all around us:

• When people who adopt rescued animals send us thank you letters telling us how much they love these animals;
• When we see people at the dog park or on our morning walks through the neighborhoods;
• At our veterinarian’s office—the waiting rooms always filled, the faces of scared people wondering what is wrong, the tears as they emerge from the exam rooms after saying good bye for the last time;
• The best-selling books about animals that touch us very deeply and very personally;
• The success of movies about animals as a reflection of our love people for them; and,
• No Kill success throughout the country being a result of people—people who care deeply.

More importantly, in communities which have ended the killing of savable animals, it is the public which has made the difference: in terms of adoptions, volunteerism, donations, foster care, and other community support. These communities have proved that there is enough love and compassion to overcome the irresponsibility of the few. So we need to put to bed, once and for all, the idea that dogs and cats—animals most Americans now consider cherished members of their family—need to die in U.S. shelters because people are irresponsible and don’t care enough about them. People love animals. And if we give them an opportunity to express that love; if we introduce laws to end the killing, as groups like Faithful Friends, Safe Haven, and others did in Delaware, people will support them because the public is already on our side.

I am not a religious person, but that does not mean I am a man without faith. The faith I hold is in the remarkable capacity of my fellow humans for change and compassion. As a species we aspire to do better, to be better. We want to leave the darkness of the cave and come into the light. And when someone comes along who illuminates a path towards that light as the figures in history did for our ancestors, history vindicates us because we follow them into a brighter future.

I understand that my love for animals and your love for animals is not so unique as we’ve been led to believe. It resides in most people. Most people want to build a better world for animals. And they are waiting for us to show them how, to give them the means to do so. In our movement, the battle is not against the many, but the few; those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Right now, a small handful of people—the regressive directors in our nation’s kill shelters and the heads of the large national organizations—continue to hold us back. They hold us back from the great success we could achieve and the millions of lives we could save if only we find the courage to stand up to them together: loud, unified, uncompromising, demanding legislative changes that would put an end to the ruling power of the pretenders in our midst; that would force them by the rule of law to no longer kill or allow others to kill the animals they are pledged to protect.

We, the people in this room, the rescuers and reformers nationwide, and all animal-loving Americans outnumber them by the millions. As a movement, we must stop deferring to leaders who fail us and the animals time and time again. We must summon the determination to begin this vital process and the fortitude to challenge those who would dare hold us back. That is our mission and our challenge for the coming decade. And that is our most urgent and solemn duty.

As you move confidently into that future, prepared to meet the challenges, ready to fight when that is what the situation calls for, your allegiance never wavering from the animals, know that you are not alone. Know what was once called “impossible,” and then “improbable,” is now “inevitable.” To see what the future holds requires nothing more than a motivating backwards glance to see that you are truly standing on the shoulders of giants. We are continuing the struggle to build a more perfect union. And we’ve already come so far.

At this bright new dawn, let us seize the day…

On the Heels of Defeat, a Great Victory

For the last several months, I’ve been like a little kid, bursting to tell a very exciting secret. Today, thankfully, I can let the cat out of the proverbial bag: This morning, the Governor of Delaware signed into law the most sweeping, progressive companion animal protection legislation in the United States. The law was modeled on the No Kill Advocacy Center’s Companion Animal Protection Act and spearheaded by the non-profit No Kill shelter Faithful Friends, in Wilmington, Delaware.

Like Oreo’s Law sought to do, the Delaware Companion Animal Protection Act mandates collaboration between shelters and rescue groups. A shelter cannot kill an animal if a rescue group is willing to save that animal’s life. But that is just the beginning. It also makes convenience killing illegal—shelters can no longer kill an animal when there are available cages or the animals can share a cage or kennel with another one. Specifically, the Delaware CAPA states:

Animal shelters shall ensure that the following conditions are met before an animal is euthanized:

(i) The holding period for the animal required by this chapter is expired;

(ii) There are no empty cages, kennels, or other living environments in the shelter that are suitable for the animal;

(iii) The animal cannot share a cage or kennel with appropriately sized primary living space with another animal;

(iv) A foster home is not available;

(v) Organizations on the registry developed pursuant to §8003(d) are not willing to accept the animal; and

(vi) The animal care/control manager certifies that the above conditions are met and that he/she has no other reasonable alternative.

The law also requires posting “all stray animals on the Internet with sufficient detail to allow them to be recognized and claimed by their owners,” requires shelters to maintain registries of rescue groups willing to save lives, and requires shelters to post statistics (intake, adoption, reclaim, transfer and killing rate).

It is groundbreaking, revolutionary legislation which will save the lives of thousands of animals every year. And not only proves that No Kill advocates can successfully legislate shelter reform, but that we can do so without a single large animal protection organization being involved, a fact which begs the next logical question: why haven’t I talked about this important legislation before?

While the No Kill Advocacy Center worked with supporters on the language of the bill, we did not discuss it publicly, fearing that the large animal protection groups would work to undermine its passage, just as they did in New York, just as they did in San Francisco, just as they tried to do in California in 1998 (Hayden), and just as they try to do everywhere reform advocates are trying to end the systematic killing of animals in their communities.

We knew that the merits of the bill would be immediately obvious, in fact, common sense, to Delaware legislators, who would be inclined to pass it were there not supposed “animal protection leaders” insisting that saving animals rather than killing them is a bad idea. And we were right: because the Delaware Companion Animal Protection Act passed the legislature unanimously. I repeat: there was not a single vote in opposition, not one. Why?

To legislators, to the Delaware animal loving public, to the shelters and rescue groups who participated in the passing of this bill, there was nothing controversial about it. No fear mongering about hoarders, no fear mongering about dog fighting, no fear mongering about overcrowding, no fear mongering about costs, no fear mongering about notice requirements being unfair to small rural shelters, no fear mongering about anything. The bill mandates that animals be given every opportunity for life, and no one thought that would be a bad or controversial idea. In other words, there was no HSUS, no ASPCA, and no Best Friends. It seems that in order for shelter reform legislation to be allowed to pass, the supposed leaders of the animal protection movement itself can’t be involved.

While the law is now the most progressive companion animal protection legislation on record in this country, and can only be considered an unqualified victory for the No Kill movement, some of the No Kill Advocacy Center’s recommendations were not accepted. Nonetheless, Delaware, the first state to ratify our nation’s constitution, continues to lead the way in embracing the legislative framework necessary to ensure justice. And we will build upon this framework in the coming years to strengthen protections for animals even more.

Kudos to you, Faithful Friends, for being true to your name, and our deepest gratitude to the animal loving citizens and legislators of the great state of Delaware. One down, 49 to go.

To arms, my fellow activists, to arms! It is time to storm the state capitols with the power of our ideas, a belief in the righteousness of our cause, and the understanding that only through legal protections for shelter animals can we ever hope to end their needless killing, sustain it indefinitely, and finally build a truly humane society.

Where Have You Gone Best Friends?

It has been nine days since Oreo’s Law was defeated in this session of the New York State legislature. Nine days since several of the largest, most influential “animal protection” organizations in the country banded together to defeat a bill that had the potential to save thousands of lives by empowering their less wealthy, less powerful colleagues to do so. And I’ve written nothing about its defeat.

I assume I am regarded as a person who is rarely at a loss for words. And truth be told, I do have much to say regarding the bill’s demise and the obvious lessons the fight for Oreo’s Law has imparted. But this blog nonetheless has not come as easily as the others have, and every day since the bill’s defeat, I have sat before my computer, staring at a blank screen and struggling to find the words to express what needs to be said, to reiterate in part, that which to me and I hope to my readers has by now become so evident that stating it feels simply gratuitous: the enemy is within.

Yes, I am talking about the ASPCA which claims to champion the animals but advocates for their slaughter; and yes, I am talking about groups like the Mayor’s Alliance and the Animal Law Coalition that do the same. And as groups mirror the decisions of their leaders, I am talking specifically about Ed Sayres, Jane Hoffman, and Laura Allen. But those have become the obvious ones and I’ve written no less than 17 blogs and articles about their duplicitous and indefensible role in this saga. And if that was all there was to be said, I would have done it on June 16, the morning after Oreo’s Law was tabled by the legislature.

What has caused me to stare at a blank screen, unable to find the words is trying to put into context the actions of a group which I’ve worked with in the past and whose conferences I’ve been speaking at since their inception. Last week, as thousands of animal lovers throughout New York State flooded Albany with e-mails of support for Oreo’s Law, shutting down the mail server not once, but twice, ASPCA lobbyist Debora Bresch combed the halls of the capitol, working to defeat the bill with lies, misrepresentations and the powerful weight of the ASPCA’s century-old reputation. Covering her back were not only those organizations financially beholden to the ASPCA or those equally threatened by the upset of power which Oreo’s Law would accomplish but, tragically, an organization that for a long time now has been generally regarded within the No Kill movement as the only large national organization that is an ally to our cause:  Best Friends Animal Society.

How can I share how hurt I am over their positions and handling of Oreo’s Law, without coming off as callous or dismissive to their sanctuary work, the rescue they do, and the safety net they provided for the victims of dog killer Michael Vick? I don’t want to take anything away from those things. Nor can I forget that while most national groups were preaching killing, Best Friends championed my message when I was in San Francisco and they championed me when I created the nation’s first No Kill community in Tompkins County. And though I’ve been disappointed in their handling of some issues—how they sought to quell public discontent over the Wilkes County Massacre among other things—I’ve not called them out the way I have others, believing that in the cost-benefit analysis, they help more than they limit the success of our cause.

But this time, it is different. And I cannot remain silent in deference to their past contributions. In Oreo’s Law, in the brutal and needless killing of Oreo herself, I saw the defining issue of the No Kill movement. Oreo’s Law is not some auxiliary effort for the movement, it is central to the fight for a No Kill nation. Legislation that empowers rescue groups, removes the discretion which allows shelter directors the ability to kill animals in spite of lifesaving alternatives, and makes the killing we all claim to want to end illegal is what our movement is ultimately about. We will never, ever, ever, ever achieve and sustain a No Kill nation without legislation to reform our broken animal shelter system.

The goal of every social movement is legislation to gain and then protect the rights of its members or the focus of its efforts. The suffrage movement wasn’t just seeking discretionary permission from elections officials to vote, an ability that could be taken away. Its goal was winning the right to vote, a right guaranteed in law. The civil rights movement wasn’t just seeking the discretionary ability to sit at the front of the bus or to eat at the same lunch counters or be given equal protection and equal opportunity. Its goal was winning the right to do so, a right guaranteed in law. The movement for marriage equality isn’t just seeking the discretionary opportunity to marry despite sexual orientation. Its goal is winning the right to do so, a right guaranteed in law. Because without legal rights, one’s fate is contingent on who the election official is, who the restaurant owner is, and who the mayor is. And in our case, who the shelter director is. And just as quickly as permission is given, it can be taken away.

Laws codify norms of behavior and, at their best, help create a just and thoughtful society. We have—and embrace—voting rights acts, environmental protection laws, and laws against discrimination based on gender, race, and sexual orientation. Ultimately, such laws are essential to ensure that fair and equal treatment is guaranteed, not subject to the discretion of those in power. We shouldn’t just want a promise that shelters will try to do better. We already have such promises—and millions of animals still being killed show just how hollow such promises are. We must demand accountability beyond the rhetoric. And we shouldn’t simply be seeking progressive directors willing to save lives. We should demand that the killing end, now and forever, regardless of who is running the shelters. And we get that in only one way: by passing legislation that gives sheltered animals the right to live.

But Best Friends refused to embrace Oreo’s Law. And in not taking a position, their silence spoke volumes too: it failed to convey the urgency with which laws such as this are needed. In reality, neutrality is a position—a position that condones the status quo by not demanding different. It amounts to support for killing. This was bad enough, but it gets worse. Several months ago, I was made aware that Best Friends had called and e-mailed an early and influential supporter of Oreo’s Law—Mike Fry of Animal Ark shelter and Animal Wise Radio—asking him to withdraw their support in deference to ASPCA President, Ed Sayres. In addition, I was privy to several conversations with Best Friends where they stated they would support the law if various amendments were made. Those amendments were made, but Best Friends did not honor the agreements. They also stated that they would support the law if Ed Sayres and Jane Hoffman did not withdraw their opposition after they were told that in exchange for doing so, the bill would be renamed to remove any reference to Oreo. And when Sayres and Hoffman said “No,” Best Friends still refused to support it.

Instead, when queried by rescuers as to where they stood on Oreo’s Law, they responded that they “support rescue access legislation,” even as they failed to actually support it, in Oreo’s Law. But the inherent contradiction aside, Best Friends tried to undermine it behind the scenes by asking Animal Ark and Animal Wise Radio to withdraw their support. Why? According to Best Friends, the bill was nothing more than a vendetta on my part to “get back” at Ed Sayres for destroying the San Francisco SPCA. And Best Friends would not support such a bill.

But I did not introduce Oreo’s Law, did not name it Oreo’s Law, had never met, spoken to, or heard of Assembly Member Micah Kellner before he introduced it, and found out about it after the bill was already introduced. It is true that I disdain Ed Sayres, and no one who has read anything I’ve ever written about him would think otherwise. It is no secret that I think he is a bad, small-minded and hard-hearted individual. But I have come to this conclusion not out of spite, but out of experience. I have judged his actions in relation to his responsibilities and have continually found them to be the opposite of those a man in his position should be taking. He has defended killing and killers throughout the nation, providing them political cover which allows them to remain in their positions and kill even more. Even though he heads the nation’s wealthiest humane society, the shelter in his own community routinely says it is running out of food. And he stated publicly that killing animals is the moral equivalent of not killing them.

In Austin, Texas, he worked diligently to derail the efforts of animal lovers trying to reform a regressive shelter whose director killed animals despite over 100 empty cages on any given day, refused to allow the public to foster animals choosing to kill them instead, claimed she and her staff did not have time to adopt out animals because they were too busy (killing those animals in the back), and withheld treatment and care to sick cats, allowing them to suffer as a vendetta against the City Council which ordered her to stop convenience killing. And when she was finally fired, Sayres called her termination “horrible.” Time and time again, he has taken positions that embrace killing. Time and time again, he has misappropriated donor funds given to save animals to promote their killing instead. Time and time again, he has abused the power he has been given in trust by the American people.

But while Oreo’s Law was sparked by the actions of Ed Sayres, my disdain for him was not the reason I supported it. For one, I supported the Hayden Law, on which Oreo’s Law was based at a time when Sayres also supported it. But more importantly, I supported Oreo’s Law because it would have taken animals throughout NYS out of harm’s way, and placed them in the protective embrace of true animal lovers. Over 70% of non-profit rescue organizations surveyed in New York State stated that they have been denied the ability to rescue animals on death row at their local shelters for entirely arbitrary reasons. The study also revealed a pattern of intimidation by shelter directors throughout that state which forces rescuers to do what is incredibly difficult for any animal lover to do: stay silent in the face of abuse and inhumane treatment at their local shelters or risk losing the ability to save any animals. Oreo’s law sought to right these terrible wrongs and to further the cause which I am pledged to protect: to reform our nation’s shelters and to save the lives of innocent dogs and cats.

Were another Oreo’s Law to be introduced in another state, under a different name, and with a different set of events sparking its introduction—and were such a law to ultimately have nothing whatsoever to do with Ed Sayres or the ASPCA, I would work just as hard to ensure its passage as I did Oreo’s Law, because it is a good law, vital and essential to our cause. In fact, I sent a letter to Sayres offering to disappear, to give him full credit for the law, to have the name of the law changed, if he would withdraw his opposition and champion it. And because we could never bring her back but we could save thousands of others with the law if he removed his opposition, I offered never to mention Oreo again in return.

But I suspect that their alleged concern over my relationship with Sayres is not really why Best Friends asked Animal Ark and Animal Wise Radio to withdraw their support for Oreo’s Law, but rather it was motivated by their relationship with Ed Sayres. Because when Animal Ark and Animal Wise Radio informed Best Friends that this was about saving animals needlessly killed, not about who was or was not supporting it, they balked even though their own survey showed that shelters in NYS were hostile to rescuers, were needlessly killing animals, and that this bill was desperately needed. (Best Friends removed the comments from rescuers, the pleas for help, the evidence of needless killing from their website and erased it from their servers.)

Over the last several months, I have struggled with how to react to these actions: to the knowledge that not only did Best Friends intend not to support a law which could save thousands of lives by empowering the small non-profits rescuers which have always supported them, indeed, made them who they are; but, even more painful, that they had actively worked behind the scenes to undercut support for the bill. Although I was upset at these decisions, I worried that publicly revealing their conduct would place Oreo’s Law in further peril. I calculated that the revelation that yet another large, powerful animal protection organization opposed the law—even unofficially—especially an organization that is seen as “progressive,” might give legislators who were unacquainted with the dysfunctional and broken humane movement one more reason to table the bill.

And so I chose to remain silent, I chose to continue a dialog with Best Friends, hoping that their politically calculated statement in support of “rescue access legislation” might be interpreted as support for Oreo’s Law and hoping that their lack of involvement in Albany would have no impact. But the ASPCA made sure that didn’t happen, telling legislators on the eve of the June 15 vote to kill the bill that groups like Best Friends really opposed the law, but they were afraid to come forward for fear of reprisals from the rescue community. Bresch, the ASPCA’s hired gun in Albany, told legislators to interpret their neutrality as opposition because that was what it really was. And they did. Now, Oreo’s Law is dead for this year, and the opponents of Oreo’s Law have won, effectively issuing a death sentence to thousands of defenseless animals across New York in the coming year.

But then came the second punch in the solar plexus: The announcement right after the vote, that Jane Hoffman, who condemned those animals to death, was invited as a “featured speaker” at the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets conference in October.

And for several days, I’ve sat at my desk wondering what, if anything, I should say about it. The other day I received an e-mail from a rescuer who complained about my silence. She wrote, “Everyone figured you were locked away typing a reply to the shelving [of Oreo’s Law].” And I lashed out: Why should I have to be the one to do it?

I shouldn’t have. I wish I hadn’t. I’ve since apologized. But for the week after the June 15 vote that will cost thousands of animals their lives, I’ve been filled with anger and hurt, and no matter how many times I tried to write about the defeat of Oreo’s Law, my writing always centered on Best Friends. Because what more could I possibly say about Ed Sayres, Jane Hoffman, and Laura Allen? I’ve written 17 articles about their efforts to ensure that animals continue to be needlessly killed. But I’ve never written about Best Friends, how they abandoned us, first by a cowardly embrace of neutrality when the rescue groups and animals needed them the most, and then by a ham-fisted attempt to get Animal Ark and Animal Wise Radio to withdraw their support of the law.

And after staring at a blank screen for days, I’ve written it, rewritten it, set it aside, come very close to deleting it and if you are reading this, finally posted it. But having posted it, having told of Best Friends’ behind-the-scenes lobbying and Best Friends’ refusal to empower the rescue community, how does that change my view of Best Friends?

Do they still run an important sanctuary for animals? Yes they do. Do they still deserve our thanks and gratitude for their rescue of the Michael Vick dogs and other animals? Yes they do. Are there some amazing people there doing great things for animals? Yes there are.

But does Best Friends as an organization aspire to the full potential that they can and should achieve given their size and wealth? Does the leadership believe their rhetoric and live by the principles they claim to espouse? Did they defend the rescue groups and rescuers who made them who they are? Did they faithfully give voice to the voiceless animals in NYS shelters being slaughtered every day despite a readily available rescue alternative? Did they stand up for the thousands of animals who are going to lose their lives because of the June 15 vote? Did they act with honor, integrity, altruism, and compassion in their official and unofficial conduct as it relates to Oreo’s Law? That, they did not. Et tu, Best Friends?

As they prepare another conference pledging to provide the roadmap to a world where there are “no more homeless pets”—a conference I of course can no longer attend—I can’t help but wonder if the lack of discussion of Oreo’s Law, legislation which would have empowered the rescuers in attendance to actually succeed at the endeavor, will be noticeably absent? I can’t help but wonder if the unassailable fact that the very rescue groups in attendance are being routinely turned away by their local shelters and the animals they have offered to save are being killed instead will be addressed? And I can’t help but imagine how Best Friends choosing to remain neutral or the telephone call and e-mails to the contrary would go over with the rescuers in attendance if they knew about it? If it comes up, how will they spin it?

One thing we don’t have to conjecture is the message they will hear from one particular speaker. Because Jane Hoffman who worked diligently to make sure that rescue groups are not empowered, who worked diligently to make sure that shelters are allowed to continue killing in the face of alternatives, and who worked diligently to maintain their unequivocal discretion to kill who they want, when they want, regardless of whether a rescue group can save the animal or not, is very clear about where she stands.

She will repeat what she told attendees at last year’s conference—that shelters have no choice but to kill because of “pet overpopulation.” She will she tell them what she told attendees at this year’s HSUS Expo—that no one should be made to “feel guilty” about that killing. What is less clear is whether anyone will challenge her and make it known that if they wanted excuses for killing and absolution for the killers, they would have attended HSUS Expo instead? What is less clear is whether anyone will stand up and let it be known that if you truly want to end the killing of animals, you need to make it illegal to do so. You need to empower the rescue community. You need to actually commit to the mission you claim to support. And you need to stand up to bullies like Hoffman and Sayres who champion killing.

So what happens now? Where do we go from here?

I believe that the only way forward is to lay bare the forces that contributed to the bill’s demise so that in the next great battle of this war for No Kill, be it the re-introduction of Oreo’s Law in 2011 or similar legislation in another location, we can be better prepared to overcome those trying to hold back our success and the inevitable march of history. For in the end, it is the truth alone, and not our apparently naïve hope that those who have long spoken the rhetoric of No Kill and have financially benefitted as a result, will also have the courage, conviction, and even determination to put concrete action behind that rhetoric when the opposition is powerful and there are costs to be paid for doing so. When large organizations speak in opposition to our cause, even when their statement on the matter is made through silence—when they “simply” choose to remain neutral at a time rescuers and the animals need large groups to stand up for them, they do so with the authority we have entrusted to them with our support. Ultimately, their strength comes from us. When that power is revealed to be inauthentic—when the use of the power we have lent them is misused, we must look elsewhere for true leaders who  will move us courageously forward in spite of any potential personal consequences.

While I was bitterly disappointed at the defeat of Oreo’s Law, while I am hurt by the posturing of Best Friends, while many of you were distressed at the failure to win this important victory for the animals, and while it was important for me to say these things, I am not in despair. Even though we learned that we cannot expect Best Friends to come to the rescue, we will win justice for Oreo and protections for animals yet. We are in a war to win the brighter future for our animal friends that we know to be possible, and as with any war, we will win some battles, and we will lose others. While it is natural to celebrate our victories and mourn our losses, we must not forget that our failures have much to teach us. We must use our defeats as learning opportunities, which, if we heed their lessons, can make us stronger, more effective, and ultimately invincible. While we may have lost this round, we’ve seen where groups and people line up on this issue. Ed Sayres and Jane Hoffman have won a pyrrhic victory because more people see them for who they really are and what they really stand for. This can only serve to weaken them and to strengthen our resolve.

Open any history book, and on those pages you will find the story of our movement: a minority group with a new, more humane vision, seeking to overcome the status quo and the voices of the vested interests which champion them.  Our struggle, in the end, is not a new one. And if there is any justice in this world, it is that those who seek to hinder progress are the cause of their own undoing, even when, in our own time, it may sometimes seem as though they are winning. Hindsight is unequivocal and unforgiving of those who seek to hold back the progress which future generations will regard as self-evident.

So fellow activists, take heart. Not only is history on our side, but so is our size. We outnumber our opposition—a small group of cowering, fearful pretenders masquerading as members and leaders of the humane movement beholden not to the animals they fundraise off of, but to themselves and one another. Try as they might to hold us back, try as they might to maintain their grasp on power and maintain the charade that we all want the same thing, regardless of how many conferences they are invited to as a “featured speaker,” the very introduction of Oreo’s Law on their own turf and the chorus of thousands of voices that supported it in their own backyard prove that while they may have won this battle, they are losing the war.

Time marches in only one direction: forward. Next year, we’ll be back. And, if necessary, the year after that. However long it takes, we will not shrink from this fight. And each time we are called upon to stand up for the animals, we become smarter, bigger, more powerful, and ultimately unstoppable. And whether it is next year or the year after that, or even thereafter, eventually, we will win.

The drumbeat that started as a little patter in San Francisco those many years ago is now beating louder than ever, all over our country. And as we march, we are raising our voices for all to hear: no more excuses, no more compromises, no more killing.

Do you hear the people sing, lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people who are climbing to the light!
For the wretched of the earth, there is a flame that never dies
Even the darkest night will end and the sun will rise!

Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade is there a world you long to see?
Do you hear the people sing, say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring when tomorrow comes!

—————————————

For Part II of this article: Read “The Best Friends ‘Spin’ Machine Goes into Overdrive” by clicking here.

Our History Through Cartoons

A history of the No Kill movement through political cartoons

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. And when those pictures are political cartoons, they speak in volumes. Political cartoons endure precisely because they are razor sharp in their attention, telling us all we need to know for or against some proposition. From the earliest days of our Republic, the political cartoon has served to dramatize current events and put opposing views into stark contrast. And the No Kill movement has been no exception. Here are some cartoons which define key events in the history of the movement, and help to illuminate the fight for a No Kill nation. [Click on each picture for a larger view.]

Trivializing Compassion

Henry Bergh was the 19th Century animal advocate who launched the humane movement in North America. He gave the first speech on animal protection in the U.S., incorporated the nation’s first humane society (the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), and succeeded in getting the New York State legislature to pass the nation’s first anti-cruelty law.

After he succeeded in getting an anti-cruelty law, he put a copy in his pocket, and took to the streets that very night—and every single night thereafter for the remainder of his life—to patrol the streets of his native New York City looking for animals in need of protection. The annals of the ASPCA describe the first such encounter:

The driver of a cart laden with coal is whipping his horse. Passersby on the New York City street stop to gawk not so much at the weak, emaciated equine, but at the tall man, elegant in top hat and spats, who is explaining to the driver that it is now against the law to beat one’s animal.

Among many other achievements, he even invented the clay pigeon to put an end to cruel pigeon shoots.  If he were alive today, there is no doubt that Bergh would be the nation’s most vociferous No Kill advocate and a fierce critic of the ASPCA he founded.

Sadly, the political cartoons of Bergh’s day often mocked him. Here, two cartoons depicting Henry Bergh try to assassinate his character by claiming he cares about animals, but not people. In the cartoon above, Bergh is weeping at a bull fight but telling the poor of New York City to get off his property. In the cartoon below, Bergh is chastising Charles Darwin for insulting the crying gorilla by suggesting the gorilla is related to humans.

Of course, Bergh’s compassion was not limited to animals: Bergh also rescued abused children. In 1874, less than a decade after incorporating the ASPCA, he formed the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the first child protection organization in the nation, effectively launching the children’s rights movement in the United States.

The Death Camps

In contrast to the Pollyanna pieces done by comics such as Patrick McDonnell about shelters (Mutts), this piece actually captured the typical American animal control shelter. Animal control, supported historically by groups like the Humane Society of the United States, consider being a lost, stray or feral cat a death sentence. Animal Control officers are often empowered to round them up and kill them. And these organizations promote and embrace laws which give animal control officers even more power. In California, a proposed law in 1994 would have empowered officers to kill cats immediately upon capture on the street if they did not have proof of a rabies vaccination—which would have resulted in mass slaughter. This 1995 cartoon captured that reality.

While McDonnell’s work is guided by an obvious compassion for homeless animals and he donates proceeds from his book signings specifically to No Kill shelters, his depiction of shelter directors and staff as hard working, compassionate, lifesaving-driven animal lovers crumbles in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Approaches to Spay/Neuter

Rather than accuse people of being irresponsible, rather than rant about “pet overpopulation” and the “need” to kill, all of it of dubious value and truth, and rather than seek mandatory spay/neuter laws which empower animal control to impound and kill more animals, this piece summarized the shelter’s desire in five humorous words. Though not a political cartoon, per se, the Tompkins County ad of my tenure was as biting and dramatic as one (copy of the original from the San Francisco SPCA). Tompkins County became the first No Kill community in U.S. history on the back of strong community support, something “pet overpopulation” “mandatory spay/neuter” and “irresponsible” ranters have never, ever been able to achieve.

The Last Gasp of the Dinosaurs

In 2004, as the No Kill movement gained momentum following Tompkins County, NY’s success and with the founding of the No Kill Advocacy Center, the architects of the status quo met in Asilomar, California to take back their hegemony over the sheltering discourse. They identified the terms “No Kill” and “killing” as hurtful and divisive and demanded that they ceased being used. They argued that the decision to save lives through TNR, offsite adoptions, and other needed programs should not be forced on shelters but left to their own determination. They also argued that killing was not their fault. Despite this, they claimed they were committed to saving healthy and treatable animals, narrowly defined to exclude whole categories of animals including feral cats. Groups like HSUS pledged to enforce the “Asilomar Accords” and traveled the country telling groups they could not call themselves “No Kill” or use the term “killing” for animals killed in shelters. By the end of the decade, only two communities had embraced the Accords, however, and though it lives on for record keeping purposes among some groups, the Asilomar Accords were challenged by the U.S. No Kill Declaration, and found them essentially, “Dead on Arrival.”

This cartoon from the No Kill Advocacy Center shows the dinosaurs trying to cling to the status quo, as they are about to get wiped out of existence by a meteor which represents the No Kill movement. Pictured are some of the Asilomar Accords’ signatories: HSUS, the National Animal Control Association, Denver Dumb Friends League, and Ft. Wayne Animal Control, shelters and organizations with a long, dubious history of killing and/or fighting the No Kill movement’s lifesaving innovations.

TNR Takes the Movement by Storm

The Lumbering Giant says TNR is O.K. except when it is not O.K.

In 2006, after decades of calling Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) programs for cats “inhumane,” “abhorrent,” and “subsidized abandonment,” after asking a prosecutor to arrest and jail feral cat caretakers for violation of state cruelty laws against abandonment, and after calling mass killing of feral cats in pounds and shelters “the only practical and humane solution,” the Humane Society of the United States indicated it was updating its feral cat position to reflect the emerging consensus of the animal control community, a community with a history of mass slaughter. They had no choice.

At the end of the 1990s, only a small handful of shelters embraced TNR as an alternative to killing of feral cats. But cat lovers across the country rallied on behalf of the cats, and with communities like San Francisco using TNR to reduce the feral cat death rate by over 80%, with Tompkins County becoming the first open admission shelter to zero out deaths of feral cats through TNR, and with the advocacy of TNR on a local, regional, and national scale by groups across the country, any question of the legitimacy and efficacy of TNR was erased. TNR took the movement by storm. And HSUS was forced to follow. Their March 2006 statement said “TNR was ok” but only in very limited circumstances, essentially writing in several exceptions that swallowed the rule including:

• TNR efforts must be limited if someone says that feral cats are a threat to wildlife;
• Feral cat caretakers must respect the “limitations” of other groups in the area, including those who may not share their views about feral cats; and,
• Killing of feral cats can continue for an undefined “interim period.”

Taken to their logical conclusion, these “limitations” were so severe they effectively nullified any ostensible support for TNR in the 2006 statement. There is no feral cat colony anywhere in the United States, for example, where some wildlife is not also present. HSUS was asking feral cat advocates to make the decision “about whether to maintain a particular colony” after a determination of “the potential negative impact on local wildlife.” To make this determination, HSUS further asked feral cat caretakers to “respect” the views of all interested parties—which potentially includes animal control and Invasion Biology proponents who do not support TNR.

The unspoken converse to deciding whether to maintain a particular colony is deciding whether to eradicate it. That is the choice presented, providing a powerful tool to the enemies of TNR. Essentially, it means that feral cats can be excluded from locations whenever someone says wildlife is impacted, which could potentially happen everywhere. In fact, these are exactly the types of claims being made all over the United States, and while HSUS says it no longer favors eradication, what is the alternative to TNR, other than doing nothing?

If, as HSUS claims, cats kill wildlife, are a rabies threat and an “invasive non-native species,” and cause neighborhood strife, does this mean that TNR is acceptable so long as the cats are kept away from neighborhoods, people, birds and other wildlife? Because these conditions exist nowhere, it would appear to mean that TNR is acceptable so long as the cats are not allowed outdoors—a logical absurdity.

In the No Kill Advocacy Center’s cartoon above, the lumbering, sleeping giant, HSUS, wants to tell the feral cat community all of this, but TNR proponents have moved on with the firm and unequivocal position that feral cats have a right to live, regardless of what HSUS, Audubon Society and its acolytes, and regressive animal control shelters have to say about it. In a short period of time, HSUS was forced to abandon the statement in favor of more open acceptance of TNR. But by then, was anyone listening?

Angels of Death

The realization that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a group which advocates against killing animals for food, sport, and otherwise, nonetheless opposes No Kill, champions mass slaughter of companion animals in shelters, calls for the ban—and therefore systematic extermination—of all dogs someone says look like “Pit Bulls,” says feral cats are better dead than fed, and kills roughly 2,000 animals every year they seek out, shocks and outrages the true animal lover.

While No Kill was coming into its own over the last decade and shelters across the country were saving better than 90% of all animals on a fraction of PETA’s budget, PETA continued to move sharply in the other direction. PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk spent the decade not only attacking No Kill, but actively seeking out animals to kill (roughly 90% of them). The total body count from 2000 – 2008 (2009 figures not yet available): 19,326. Once the 2009 figures are released, the number will skyrocket past 20,000: that’s roughly 2,000 animals a year that PETA has killed every year for the last decade; or over five animals killed by PETA every single day of the last ten years.

In this No Kill Advocacy Center cartoon above, a dog dresses like a chicken in hopes of getting PETA to care about him, too. Unfortunately, the previous cartoon turned out to be wrong. PETA also kills other animals, including chickens, as well, which it does at its Norfolk, VA facility. The cartoon below turned out to be more accurate, as the chicken in the shelter fears for his life as much as the dogs and cats do.

In 2006, PETA staff was arrested for killing animals they promised to find homes for, and then discarding their bodies into local supermarket dumpsters. Although they were acquitted of animal cruelty and other charges since it is not illegal for a “certified euthanasia technician” to kill animals if connected to an organization that has registered itself as a shelter, testimony during the court case showed that PETA went to shelters and private veterinarians to get animals, telling some they would find them homes, and killed the animals, often within minutes of departing in the back of a van. One veterinarian who gave PETA a healthy mother cat and her kittens testified that the animals were never at risk for being killed in his practice; he was simply looking for homes for them. He gave them to PETA because he thought they would have no trouble finding them homes. PETA staff killed them within minutes. Their bodies were found in a dumpster a short time thereafter.

Riding on Michael Vick’s Bloodstained Coattails

Despite a series of pro-killing scandals that have marked his tenure, Wayne Pacelle, the beleaguered and uncaring CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, shocked even his supporters by embracing Michael Vick, the most notorious dog abuser of our time. Vick took pleasure in seeing dogs tear each other apart. He took pleasure in beating dogs to death. He took pleasure in hanging dogs by the neck. He took pleasure in electrocuting dogs. He took pleasure in shooting dogs. And he took pleasure in drowning dogs.

After being convicted on federal dog fighting related charges, Vick was banned from the NFL. But Vick sought to escape permanent punishment by doing the time-honored tradition of the scoundrel: hire a P.R. team to reform his image, issue a “mea culpa,” do some carefully orchestrated appearances with kids, and then get his old life back. Wayne Pacelle was eager to assist him to do that. With the help of Pacelle, Vick gets his life back, becoming a millionaire once more, while the dogs he killed are, well, still dead. Vick follows up by saying he wants dogs again: will HSUS help him with that also?

While Pacelle, through HSUS, testified that the dogs Vick abused should not be given a second chance and should all be killed, Pacelle said that their abuser should be. Vick became a spokesman for HSUS. Or was it the other way around? In the nokillblog.com’s cartoon, Pacelle rides Vick’s blood-stained coattails to his favorite destination—the front pages of the New York Times, 60 minutes, and other media.

Convenience Killing

As occurs all over the country, Tom Skeldon, the Lucas County, Ohio dog warden, killed animals, despite readily available lifesaving alternatives. Indeed, he killed dogs and puppies even when rescue groups and humane societies offered to save them. In this Toledo Blade cartoon, Skeldon is telling a dog to sit, which the dog does, demonstrating that he is a kind, friendly, and obedient dog, which should please the warden. It doesn’t. Skeldon wants the dog to sit in the electric chair, so he can be put to death. What made this cartoon so dramatic is that it resonated so strongly with the experience many rescuers have of their own dog wardens and pound directors. Skeldon may have been less polished than others, but he was hardly unique. Indeed, this comic could have been published in virtually any newspaper—Houston (TX), King County (WA), Los Angeles (CA), and hundreds of other cities—and it would have had the same meaningful impact. Thankfully, Skeldon was forced out, but others like him remain entrenched in shelters all across the country.

The Meaning of Oreo’s Law

In November of last year, the ASPCA killed an abused dog named Oreo, despite an offer by a No Kill shelter to save her life. In response, the New York State Legislature is now considering a law that would make it illegal for any shelter or pound to kill an animal if a legitimate rescue group is willing to save the animal’s life. But the ASPCA wants to kill the proposed law, the way it killed Oreo, for which the new law is named.

While the animal loving people of New York State flood the legislature with calls of support, while the most progressive voices in the companion animal movement have embraced and endorsed Oreo’s Law, and while rescuers anxiously await legislation that will empower them to save the lives of thousands of animals every year, the leader of the nation’s wealthiest SPCA stands alone in defiant opposition, thumbing his nose at them all.

This cartoon from YESonOreosLaw.com shows a shelter killing dogs and cats that rescue groups are there to save. Oreo’s Law would give them that power but Ed Sayres, the President of the ASPCA, is trampling Oreo’s Law and holding them back, which will cost animals their lives.

Regardless of whether animals and animal lovers win by passing Oreo’s Law in this session of the legislature, Ed Sayres and the hacks he recruits to oppose it (or to remain deafeningly silent) will lose. Indeed, Sayres is already paying a price. While he assured his staff that the anger over Oreo’s killing would subside in a few days, it still hasn’t three months later and the fight for Oreo’s Law is intensifying calls for his ouster. At the same time, the fight over Oreo’s Law has clearly shown rescuers and animal lovers which groups they can count on to champion the animals and which groups they can’t.

And this much is clear: if animal rescuers win, so do the animals. And if Oreo’s Law passes, animal rescuers will win big across the country. As one reformer stated, “Where New York goes, so goes the nation.” Indeed, the next phase of the quest for a No Kill nation will not center on adoption ads or social media—these will achieve widespread acceptance—the FIGHT will be in the halls of Albany, NY, Sacramento, CA, Austin, TX, and other state capitals. Because how do you achieve and sustain a No Kill nation if shelter directors keep the discretion they currently have to avoid doing what is in the best interests of animals and kill them needlessly? You can’t. Oreo’s Law is just the first wave of a national effort to shift the balance of power back to the animals—and their rescuers.

Biological Xenophobia

In Wednesday’s San Francisco Chronicle column, “Ask The Bugman,” a letter writer asked The Bug Man the following question:

Why shouldn’t we use pesticides to control invasive species such as the light brown apple moth? If we don’t do anything, it will ruin all of our crops.

In his response, Richard Fagerlund aka The Bugman questioned the very concept of “invasive species”:

How do we decide what is an invasive species? If animals and insects are competitive and adapted to the environment they are in, they will thrive. If they can’t make a living, they will move on. If you call a species invasive because it moves to new areas, then our species, humans, are probably the most invasive species on the planet. Certainly, we have done as much or more damage in some areas as all the other species combined.

“Invasive species” is a term used for economically important (or destructive in our minds) organisms. If an insect or other animal weren’t destructive, they wouldn’t be considered “invasive.” If a beautiful butterfly invades an area, it is a wonderful event. If a moth that feeds on a few crops comes along with it, it is a menace to society.

When we talk about native species, we are referring to species that have been around as long as we can remember. We don’t want to see them displaced by other species we may not know as well. When an “invasive” species becomes adapted, it becomes part of our ecosystem. When we start using pesticides to control the “invasive” species, we are going to affect everything living in that ecosystem, including our own species. We found that out when they started spraying those chemicals to control the light brown apple moth. Many people complained of adverse health effects.

I would imagine that after Wednesday’s article, Fagerlund is getting a whole lot of crazy from the hyperbolic, hysterical “invasion biology” crowd. Yet he is not alone in the views he shared regarding the troubling growth of this harmful ideology. As an environmentalist, I have anxiously watched the spread of this dangerous mindset over the last several years which condones the use of poisons, killing and the destruction of natural places in a vain attempt to stop the natural – and inevitable – processes of life on earth. It is true that the determination as to which species are “invasive” are based on subjective human aesthetics and narrow commercial interests, and that by the invasion biologists’ own logic, humans are “invasive” species #1. Fagerlund’s rational, common sense discussion of the issue is a welcome departure from the jingoistic fear mongering which increasingly characterizes the discussion of migration and natural selection, even among those who should know better, such as scientists and environmentalists.

In both Redemption and again in Irreconcilable Differences, I also challenged the concept:

The idea that some animals have more value than others comes from a troubling belief that lineage determines the value of an individual animal.  This belief is part of a growing and disturbing movement called “Invasion Biology.” The notion that “native” species have more value than “non-native” ones finds its roots historically in Nazi Germany, where the notion of a garden with native plants was founded on nationalistic and racist ideas “cloaked in scientific jargon.” This is not surprising. The types of arguments made for biological purity of people are exactly the same as those made for purity among animals and plants.

In the United States, Invasion Biologists believe that certain plants or animals should be valued more than others if they were at a particular location “first,” although the exact starting point varies, is difficult to ascertain, and, in many cases, is wholly arbitrary. Indeed, all plants and animals were introduced (by wind, humans, migration, or other animals) at some point in time. But regardless of which arbitrary measure is used, Invasion Biologists ultimately make the same, unethical assertions that “introduced” or “non-native” species do not have value and are not worthy of compassion. They conclude that these species should, therefore, be eradicated in order to return an area to some vague, idyllic past.

Trying to move the world to a mythical state that probably never existed lacks a moral or logical foundation. Nature cannot be frozen in time or returned to a pre-European past, nor is there a compelling reason why it should be. To claim that “native” species are somehow better than “introduced” species equally or better adapted to the environment is to deny the inevitable forces of migration and natural selection. No matter how many so-called “non-native” animals (and plants for that matter) are killed, the goal of total eradication can never be reached. As far as feral cats are concerned, they will always exist. To advocate for their eradication is to propose a massacre with no hope of success and no conceivable end. They exist and have a right to live, regardless of how and when they arrived or were “introduced.” Their rights as individuals supersede our own narrow, human-centric desires, which are often based on arbitrary biases, subjective aesthetics, or commercial interests.

The ultimate goal of the environmental movement is to create a peaceful and harmonious relationship between humans and the environment. To be authentic, this goal must include respect for other species. Tragically, given its alarming embrace of Invasion Biology, the environmental movement has violated this ethic by targeting species for eradication because their existence conflicts with the world as some people would like it to be.  And in championing such views, the movement paradoxically must support the use of traps, poisons, fire, and hunting, all of which cause great harm, suffering, and environmental degradation.

Equally inconsistent in the philosophy of Invasion Biology is its position—or, more accurately, lack of a coherent position—on humans. If one accepts the logic that only native plants and animals have value, human beings are the biggest non-native intruders in the United States. With over 300 million of us altering the landscape and causing virtually all of the environmental and species decimation through habitat destruction and pollution, shouldn’t Invasion Biologists demand that non-native people leave the continent? Of course, non-profit organizations that advocate nativist positions would never dare say so, or donations to their causes would dry up. Instead, they engage in a great hypocrisy of doing that which they claim to abhor and blame “non-native” species for doing: preying on those who cannot defend themselves.

In the end, it is not “predation” that Invasion Biologists object to. Animals prey on other animals all the time without their complaints. In fact, they themselves prey on some birds by eating them, and they prey on animals they label “non-native” by eradicating them. For Invasion Biologists, predation is unacceptable only when it involves an animal they do not like.

Like Fagerlund, I agree that it is wrong and obscene to label any species an “alien” on its own planet and to target that species for extermination. Disguised under the progressive mantle “environmentalism” , this emerging field of pseudo-science should more accurately be labeled “biological xenophobia.”

The Decade That Changed Everything

On December 30, I did a month by month review of 2009. Yesterday, I posted my predictions for 2010. Today, I review the last ten years, and what is in store for the next decade.

Part III: The Best Decade Ever*

Most pundits have said “good riddance” to the last decade, proclaiming it one of the worst in recent history. From the standpoint of the No Kill movement, however, the last ten years were unparalleled in terms of success. The first decade of the 21st Century not only saw No Kill go from the theoretical to the real, it saw its meteoric rise. Largely ignored and ridiculed in the 1990s and early part of the decade by the large national organizations like HSUS, ASPCA, the American Humane Association, the National Animal Control Association and the Society for Animal Welfare Administrators, No Kill proved itself the paradigm of the future. In 2004, threatened by its success, these organizations unsuccessfully tried to hijack the movement through the “Asilomar Accords,” but fell victim to the U.S. No Kill Declaration, the success of No Kill communities, the 2007 release of Redemption, and the will of a companion animal loving nation.

Winner: Tompkins County’s No Kill Achievement

No Kill comes into its own as Tompkins County, NY becomes the first No Kill community in U.S. history in 2001/2002. The success of the open admission shelter in Tompkins County dispelled the falsehood that an open admission shelter could not be No Kill and ignited the movement. By the end of the decade, No Kill communities could be found in all parts of the country, and in the process, all the programs of the No Kill Equation—from offsite adoptions to Trap-Neuter-Release—become mainstream.

Winner: Trap-Neuter-Release

At the end of the 1990s, only a small handful of shelters embraced TNR as an alternative to killing of feral cats. With HSUS urging prosecutors to arrest feral cat caretakers for “abandonment,” and calling TNR “abhorrent” and “inhumane,” and Invasion Biologists calling for the round up and killing of feral cats, the prospects for widespread acceptance of TNR in the humane movement seemed doubtful.

But cat lovers across the country rallied on behalf of the cats, and with communities like San Francisco using TNR to reduce the feral cat death rate by over 80%, with Tompkins County becoming the first open admission shelter to zero out deaths of feral cats through TNR, and with the advocacy of TNR on a local, regional, and national scale by groups across the country, any question of the legitimacy and efficacy of TNR was erased. TNR took the movement by storm.

Winner: A Pet Loving Nation

The economy collapsed but spending on companion animals continued to increase as giving to animal related causes became the fastest growing segment in American philanthropy. But the most dramatic example epitomizing just how much Americans love companion animals was the overwhelming response to the animals displaced by Hurricane Katrina. People gave hundreds of millions of dollars to charities that promised to save the animals, and thousands of rescuers from all across the country descended on New Orleans and surrounding communities to save animals forcibly left behind by mass evacuations of people. In the end, they also succeeded in changing federal policy about rescuing pets.

Winner: Redemption & The No Kill Equation

Behind every revolutionary movement is an intellectual tradition. The American Revolution had Common Sense. The environmental movement had Silent Spring. The abolitionist movement had Uncle Tom’s Cabin. And the women’s rights movement had The Feminine Mystique. In 2007, the No Kill movement got “Redemption.” Released to rave reviews, winning five national book awards, hitting the top 300 at Barnes & Noble, and becoming the number 1 selling animal rights book on Amazon, Redemption redefined the debate about shelter killing nationwide, and in the process helped to spearhead No Kill communities in the U.S. and abroad.

Coining the phrase “The No Kill Equation” to describe the collective programs and services which make No Kill possible, the No Kill Equation model of sheltering quickly became the gold standard, helping communities like Reno, NV and others achieve No Kill success virtually overnight.

Loser: The San Francisco SPCA

While the No Kill movement saw tremendous growth, success, and national acceptance, the agency that sparked it goes in the other direction. The fall of the San Francisco SPCA emerges as one of the worst events of the decade, as the former crown jewel of the No Kill movement—under the disastrous leadership of Ed Sayres and his hand-picked acolytes—abandoned its No Kill mission and rejected the movement it helped spark.

Loser: Asilomar Accords

In 2004, as the No Kill movement gained momentum following Tompkins County, NY’s success and with the founding of the No Kill Advocacy Center, the architects of the status quo met in Asilomar, California to take back their hegemony over the sheltering discourse. They identified the terms “No Kill” and “killing” as hurtful and divisive and demanded that they ceased being used. They argued that the decision to save lives through TNR, offsite adoptions, and other needed programs should not be forced on shelters but left to their own determination. They also argued that killing was not their fault. Despite this, they claimed they were committed to saving healthy and treatable animals, narrowly defined to exclude whole categories of animals including feral cats. Groups like HSUS pledged to enforce the Accords and traveled the country telling groups they could not call themselves “No Kill” or use the term “killing” for animals killed in shelters. By the end of the decade, only two communities had embraced the Accords, and though it lives on for record keeping purposes among some groups, the Asilomar Accords were challenged by the U.S. No Kill Declaration, and found themselves essentially, “Dead On Arrival.”

Loser: Humane Society of the United States

As a companion animal loving nation committed itself to doing whatever it took to save the animals of Hurricane Katrina, HSUS squandered their compassion and donations. Wayne Pacelle announced “mission: accomplished” in New Orleans, abandoning the victims in the face of tremendous suffering and departing with tens of millions of dollars raised for Hurricane Katrina victims still unspent. Pacelle could have leveraged the goodwill and money he was given to lead animal lovers toward a No Kill nation. Instead, his actions sparked fraud investigations by both the Louisiana and Mississippi Attorneys General, and showed that the HSUS CEO and HSUS as an organization are both uncaring and incapable of true leadership.

Loser: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

But one agency topped (bottomed?) them all as the worst of the last decade. While No Kill was coming into its own and shelters across the country were saving better than 90% of all animals on a fraction of their budget, PETA continued to move sharply in the other direction. PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk spent the decade not only attacking No Kill, but actively sought out animals to kill (roughly 90% of them). The total body count from 2000 – 2008 (2009 figures not yet available): 19,326. Once the 2009 figures are released, the number will skyrocket past 20,000: that’s roughly 2,000 animals a year that PETA has killed every year for the last decade; or over five animals killed by PETA every single day of the last ten years.

The Decade to Come

We ended this past decade with a hope that did not exist at the close of the prior one—in which not a single No Kill community existed. Now, as this decade closes, No Kill communities dot the American landscape, and activists throughout the nation are working to replicate that success in their own hometowns. It is a time of great hope and promise.

As the decade opened ten years ago, the humane movement was (erroneously) united in its perception of who was to blame for the killing and the hopelessness that it would ever end. But the truth came out, and splintered the movement—dividing us into two opposing camps: those who embrace the No Kill philosophy, its achievability, and the great promise held out by the American public’s great love for companion animals; and those who cling to the old paradigm of killing and blaming, on which their hold on power is based. Today, the heads of the three largest animal protection organizations—HSUS, ASPCA, and PETA—tragically remain No Kill’s most vociferous enemies as they continue to uphold the tradition of killing, continue to defend draconian shelter directors, continue to fight reform efforts, and continue to advance deadly shelter policies. We have learned that our fight is not with the many (the public) but with the few.

Loser: The Dinosaurs and Winner: No Kill

As the new decade opens, we stand at a cross roads. There are some in the No Kill movement who want to celebrate every half-hearted and self-serving gesture by HSUS or the ASPCA as proof that they are changing, proof that they can be trusted again, proof that they are on our side after all. Many in this movement seem so anxious to declare victory—to provide praise for miserly and hard won changes begrudgingly given as evidence of a sea change. And this is a mistake.

Now is not the time to seek appeasement. Now is not the time to declare peace. There will come a day when No Kill is fully established, when we can gently agree to disagree on issues because, truly, we will all be on the same page—and the big question relating to whether animals should live or die will be put to bed once and for all, and the systematic killing of four million animals a year will be viewed as the cruel practice it always was; a national shame that is inconceivable to us as a people.

When that day comes, as it invariably will, and the voices of killing are finally silenced, when the practices they condone are unequivocally rejected, when killing innocent animals is unthinkable, and when those who staff our nation’s humane societies, SPCAs, animal shelters, and large, national groups are truly committed to the best interests of animals; then we can shake hands across the aisles over our disagreements, because the stakes will be much lower—and no animal will be killed as a result of someone’s “differing” point of view.

But to behave now as though our goals are the same—when all evidence is to the contrary—and the change we get is nowhere near approaching the vast changes that are truly needed, is to sacrifice the animals for political expediency, for the desire to be the first to “blog” about success, to raise money by falsely telling supporters of “great” victories that are, in reality, merely superficial. Right now, the “changes” some are quick to celebrate are insincere token gestures, paid out of mere self-preservation. They are parsed out begrudgingly, in a miserly fashion with the hope they will quell criticism, not because they are what justice and ethics demand. By praising these minimal actions, when it is within their power to end the killing now if they so chose, we embolden them to continue on this course, and allow animals to be killed as a result.

Today, the will of 100 million Americans is being thwarted by only 3,000 or so shelter directors and a small handful of regressive national “leaders”: Wayne Pacelle, Ed Sayres, Ingrid Newkirk, and a few others. If we had the will and desire, we could—by refusing to accept anything less—impose our vision immediately and without restraint. Indeed, our power is already being felt: Sayres is besieged, Newkirk is increasingly seen for the Butcher that she is, and Pacelle’s recent temper tantrum over No Kill shows just how vulnerable he is.

And so I predict this: As the next decade comes to a close, it will do so without the Wayne Pacelles, Ed Sayres, Ingrid Newkirks and other agents of killing still holding the power. The reign of the dinosaurs will come to an end. As will the allegiance of the agencies they hold hostage to their kill-oriented colleagues, to their antiquated philosophies, and to their failed models, which hold us all back from the success that their organizations and this movement can achieve the moment they decide to embrace it. Those who replace them will truly champion No Kill both in word and in deeds. And we will see, if not the achievement of a No Kill nation, a nation on the cusp of that seminal and revolutionary achievement.

No more compromises, no more excuses, no more killing. That is the challenge for the decade. A No Kill nation is within our reach.

——————————

*Since there was no year zero, technically, the new decade starts in 2011. But that defies our common experience and natural usage. Because of that, I am ignoring the technically accuracy for the sake of a clean comparison between what we commonly refer to as the decades of the 1990s, the 2000s, and the upcoming ten year period of the 2010s.

Lessons from an Andy Warhol Tote Bag

Recently, my wife was given a tote bag purchased at the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) gift shop in New York City. The bag has an “Andy Warhol” theme, and, therefore, not surprisingly, it also has a sense of humor. It’s made of pink and green striped canvas with a large Campbell’s Tomato Soup can—arguably Warhol’s most iconic work—printed on its front and back. Running up the straps is the famous Warhol quote, “I am a deeply superficial person.”  Inside, at the end of a long, silver chain is a soup can shaped coin purse. But the real gem—the pièce de résistance—is what was tucked discreetly inside an inner pocket of the bag: a photocopy of a 1956 letter written to Andy Warhol by the then Director of MOMA Collections, rejecting the donation of one of his drawings.

It’s a masterfully written letter, gracious in actual word choice, but dripping in sarcasm. You can infer just how audacious the Committee considered Warhol to be for daring to suggest that his art belonged in their venerable institution. Little did they know the joke was on them; as Warhol’s paintings have recently sold for as high as $71 million, and MOMA now boasts over 130 Warhol pieces in its Collection.

“Last week our Committee…held its first meeting of the fall season and had a chance to study your drawing entitled Shoe which you so generously offered as a gift to our museum,” begins the letter. “I regret that I must report to you that the Committee decided, after careful consideration, that they ought not to accept it for our Collection.” It then goes on to explain that because storage space is limited, they had to decline a work that, in their words, would be “shown only infrequently.” And as if that was not shocking enough to the modern reader, the letter ends with the most ironic post script in the history of letter writing:  “P.S. The drawing may be picked up from the Museum at your convenience.” At his convenience?! Where? At coat check?

Given the perspective afforded by hindsight, the letter is, of course, comical. And kudos to the Museum of Modern Art for being able to laugh at, indeed, fess up to, what in the end was a monumental blunder on their part. As art lovers, we can laugh along with the Museum and even appreciate their self-deprecating humor. We can forgive, forget, and move on, because in the world of art, when non-profits such as the Museum of Modern Art screw up, when they become insular, short-sighted, or fail to keep informed or open minded about the evolving field in which they are supposed to be the “experts,” no one dies as a result. Egos are bruised, perhaps careers are stalled, but no one dies. And true genius lives on to vindicate itself—and even settle the score—at a later date.

The same, however, cannot be said about all non-profits. For some, the stakes in which they engage are so high, that their advocacy—when ill informed, antiquated and regressive—can have harmful, even deadly results. They, therefore, have a greater responsibility to stay informed and on top of the field they work in. They need to be held to a higher standard. This is why the recent recommendation by the American Humane Association (AHA) that Washoe County (NV) implement cat licensing is so downright obscene. When animal welfare groups like the Humane Society of the United States and the AHA fail to keep pace, when they claim to be “experts” but promote antiquated policies, animals do die; something, unlike MOMA’s blunder, that the passage of time fails to correct. Those animals killed because of the decisions made by AHA or HSUS “experts” can never be brought back because they are gone forever. They are dead. They can neither bark or meow or purr or love or be loved ever again. And that is intolerable.

It is especially intolerable because it has been 15 years since San Francisco inaugurated the first major breakthrough in the No Kill paradigm and eight years since Tompkins County (NY) became the first No Kill community. There is simply no excuse not to know better. We know how to save lives. We know there is only one model that makes No Kill possible. And the large national groups should be working feverishly to ensure that the model is replicated in every community in the country. But they aren’t.

HSUS isn’t because Wayne Pacelle, their damnable CEO, cares more about not offending his cronies in the “catch and kill” sheltering establishment than he does about the animals. He has made the willful decision that the animals be damned so HSUS can champion poorly performing shelters and provide political cover for shelter managers who find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it.

And AHA doesn’t because they choose to remain willfully ignorant. That is disconcerting enough. But that they are going into communities and giving advice that will cause animals to lose their lives is what makes it especially egregious. It is also a lost opportunity to influence shelter policy in a positive, life-affirming way.

Recently, AHA was asked to review Washoe County Regional Animal Services (WCRAS) in Reno, Nevada. Reno is also the home of the Nevada Humane Society, a shelter that not only shares a facility with WCRAS, but is a shelter I’ve been working with since 2006. I did two assessments of NHS since early 2007, recruited the Executive Director, helped write and implement policies, and am currently in the process of recruiting their Associate Director. I’ve also spent plenty of time at WCRAS, the WCRAS director was a speaker at the No Kill Conference in Washington D.C. I organized, and I recruited him as one of the panelists for the Committee reviewing candidates for the open NHS leadership position. I am very familiar with both the challenges and successes in Washoe County, which I have documented in over 200 pages of recommendations and model policies. Washoe County, as of the first ten months of this year, is saving 92% of all dogs and 88% of all cats.

The difference between the dog save rate and the cat save rate comes down largely to one program: the lack of a full scale, widespread municipally endorsed Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) program, although WCRAS is now in favor of such an approach. But regardless of the 4% differential in lifesaving, Reno is one of the safest communities for both dogs and cats in the United States, saving nine out of ten animals and they achieved that success in one way: by following the No Kill Equation and by rejecting the failed 19th Century model of catch and kill sheltering sponsored and promoted by AHA-HSUS-and the equally “deeply superficial” ASPCA’s punitive legislation approach: a model that not only has never been successful in the U.S., it is also a failure in Australia as the No Kill Advocacy Center recently reported.

But that did not stop AHA from recommending that Washoe County implement mandatory cat licensing in their final report. In 1995, the San Francisco SPCA published what remains the definitive refutation of cat licensing in the United States, almost 15 years ago. That position paper was distributed all over the country and even presented to AHA when I met with their shelter services leadership at the San Francisco SPCA back in 1999. I personally hand-delivered it in a meeting in the conference room at the SPCA’s Adoption Center. Cat licensing, like other punitive laws, remains a license to kill and to increase the power of the animal control bureaucracy, at the expense of the animals.

So why did AHA advocate a failed model of punitive legislation that has never worked, has resulted in increased killing in those jurisdictions that have implemented it, and is in contravention of the only model that has actually succeeded: the No Kill Equation. Though it claims to be an “expert” at shelter operations, AHA is recommending a centuries old model rooted in killing and failure, while ignoring the only model that has achieved success at saving lives.

As I state in my upcoming new book: “Irreconcilable Differences: The Battle for the Heart and Soul of America’s Animal Shelters,”

Only the No Kill Equation model has achieved this success. It is a program model which changes the way shelters operate and which gives the animal loving public an integral role in that operation. If a community wants success, this is the way to go: nothing else has succeeded. Trying to achieve a new end with a failed model doesn’t make sense.

When both I and Bonney Brown, the executive director of NHS, openly challenged AHA about their cat licensing recommendation, AHA defended itself stating:

American Humane’s recommendation that Washoe county consider implementing a cat licensing program is based on the National Animal Control Association’s (NACA) best practice guidelines and the expertise of our field services consultant, a former animal control director and NACA president who has over 30 years experience in the field. NACA is the national professional organization for animal care and control and the only organization that provides certification of animal control officers.

NACA is an industry trade group that represents people who kill millions of animals every year. They give awards to people and shelters that kill large numbers of animals. Has this supposed “expert” and “former animal control director” and “NACA president” ever achieved No Kill success? If he couldn’t achieve No Kill in 30 years, what business does he have telling a shelter that is currently saving 90% of all animals what they should be doing? In fact, NACA is on record calling No Kill a “delusion.” They have embraced Sue Sternberg’s anti-Pit Bull/anti-dog methods and policies, even though her methods do little but give shelters the excuse they need to kill savable dogs. They have condemned cats to death despite the TNR alternative. And they have consistently sought punitive schemes like cat licensing to give the officers they represent more power—a power that comes at the expense of animals. Cat licensing gives these officers one more reason to find animals in violation of law and subject to either citation and/or impound, and thus killing. If NACA staff and members are expert at anything, it is at how to kill animals. That is not the kind of advice Washoe County needs and it is certainly not the kind of advice that AHA, which claims to be about protecting animals, should be following.

This is also why we must conclude that AHA’s “Getting to Zero” campaign is so hypocritical and insincere. How do you have the hubris to claim you have the expertise to help shelters “get to zero” killing for healthy and treatable animals when none of your experts have ever achieved No Kill and when they remain willfully ignorant of what is truly required to do so? When you give advice that will actually undermine a community’s ability to do so? That will divert resources which should be used for lifesaving programs to enforcement of needless and counterproductive punitive mandates? It can’t be done. It has never been done. And it never will be done. Enough is enough.

No one in the movement seriously entertains the belief that AHA is a leader. But if they are going to claim a leadership position, they should lead. Relying on the consensus of an agency with a killing orientation is at odds with true leadership in the animal protection movement. If they are not going to change, they would best serve the animals by getting out of the way; by stopping their attempts to perpetuate failed and deadly policies.

It is time that the humane community and city governments cease relying on the advice of agencies and individuals that have never achieved No Kill success. In fact, it is irresponsible for individuals and organizations with absolutely no experience achieving No Kill to be offering themselves as experts, especially in light of the evidence that it is a concept to which they have been historically opposed, have at best only a superficial understanding of the dynamic and exciting changes occurring in the field of animal sheltering as a result of the No Kill movement, and do not embrace the only model that has proven successful in those communities which have implemented it. In short, Washoe County should not be following the recommendations of people who have had, by their own admission, 30 years to achieve No Kill success, but have utterly failed to do so.

The definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” Which leaves me to ponder the questions: Who are the people running AHA? Where is the cave they work out of? Where do they get the audacity to recommend what they recommended to one of the nation’s most successful lifesaving communities? And do they have any conception of how their antiquated recommendations expose the depths of their ignorance and unprofessionalism?

One of the most tragic things I have learned working in the No Kill field is how steadfast in defense of the status quo many in the humane movement remain, in spite of the body count. And while I have been forced to conclude that self-preservation and uncaring are at the heart of their resistance, I cannot conceive of how, at some point, this devotion to self-preservation would not also compel such people to read the writing on the wall and thus embrace the inevitable. I also cannot conceive of how their desire for self-preservation doesn’t force them to abandon outdated, disproven, regressive “deeply superficial” policies if for no other reason than to spare themselves the embarrassment of promoting a viewpoint that is so completely out of touch with reality. The earth is not flat, no matter how many times AHA and NACA say it is.

♦

For additional reading: San Francisco SPCA, “Against Mandatory Cat Licensing,” 1995.

The Confederacy of Dunces

“When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. – Jonathan Swift from Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting.” – J.K. Toole, The Confederacy of Dunces.

I do not claim to be a genius, far from it. But that has not stopped the Confederacy of Dunces from aligning themselves against me. In fact, the Confederacy will align themselves against anyone who seeks any progress in this movement. Ask Bonney Brown, the Executive Director of the Nevada Humane Society, who is saving 90% of all animals in Washoe County and being attacked for it by Ardena Perry. Ask Suzanne Kogut of the Charlottesville SPCA who has run a No Kill animal control shelter for three years and has her band of Naysayers. Ask Richard Avanzino who was mercilessly attacked by HSUS, the ASPCA, and others when he was blazing a new trail as the President of the San Francisco SPCA. Ask anyone who has ever tried to build a better society, regardless of the field. The status quo always has its champions. And when that status quo is regressive, as the humane movement has been over the care and treatment of sheltered animals, rest assured the Confederacy will be also.

For me, the latest salvo was an interview I did this week where I was asked whether I support puppy mills, hunting, and other animal abuse as the Confederacy has suggested. I was also asked if I get money from these types of groups for promoting that pet overpopulation is a myth.

I did not wake up one day and say “Pet overpopulation is a myth.” Nor did I think that someday I would champion the notion that it was. I did not even set out to prove it. It unfolded as part of my journey in the humane movement and the facts began to compel further analysis. In fact, at one time, I too drank of the Kool Aid. The dedication of my book, Redemption, says it all:

To my wife, Jennifer. Who believed long before I did.

I once actually argued with her on a date, before we were married, that “There were too many animals and not enough homes” and “What were shelters supposed to do with them?” I am ashamed of having done so, but I did. She correctly argued that even if it were true, killing them was still unethical. She also correctly argued that if we took killing off the table, human ingenuity and human compassion would find a way to make it work. But, more importantly, she asked me how I knew it was true.

How did I know? Because I’ve heard it repeated a thousand times. Because I took the fact of killing in shelters and then rationalized the reason backward. But I was too embarrassed to admit so. Here I was: a Stanford Law student who wore my 4.0 department GPA, my highest honors in Political Science, my Phi Beta Kappa, and my Summa Cum Laude, as a badge of my smarts and I came face to face with my own sloppy logic and slipshod thinking about the issue. “It just is,” I said (lamely).

But therein began a journey that started in San Francisco, then Tompkins County (NY), then Charlottesville (VA), then visiting hundreds of shelters across the country, reviewing data from the ASPCA, HSUS, the AVMA, and others, and then the data of over 1,000 shelters nationwide, and more research and crunching of numbers, and several national studies. And the conclusion became not just inescapable, but unassailable. And rather than bury it, ignore it or downplay it, I did what anyone who truly loves animals would have done. I celebrated it. Why? Because it meant that we had the power to end the killing, today. And that is what I wanted to happen because I love animals.

And since that time, other studies have come out which not only prove I was right, they show I was conservative. Seventeen million people are potentially looking for 3,000,000 shelter animals. What that means is that even if over 80% of people who are going to get a dog or cat next year get one from somewhere other than a shelter, we could still zero out deaths of healthy and medically/behaviorally savable animals.

What that means is that contrary to what many shelters falsely claim are the primary hurdles to lifesaving (e.g., public irresponsibility), the biggest impediments are actually in shelter management’s hands. Effectiveness in shelter goals and operations begins with caring and competent leadership, staff accountability, effective programs, and good relations with the community—which most shelters refuse to do. It means putting actions behind the words of every shelter’s mission statement that “All life is precious.” And it is abundantly clear that the practices of most shelters are not aligned with this principle.

What that means is that shelter killing is not the result of pet overpopulation; it is the result of shelter managers who find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it. And not only do they kill animals they should be saving, too many of them neglect and abuse them in the process.

The bottom line is that shelter killing is unnecessary and unethical. And pet overpopulation is nothing more than an excuse for poorly performing shelter managers who want to blame others for their own failures. I dare anyone to challenge the data without resorting to petty ad hominem attacks against me. Because I could go away tomorrow, but that wouldn’t change the facts, or the inescapable conclusion one bit. The cat is quite literally out of the bag, and is never going back in.

The No Kill message I advocate is incredibly power because it is the truth and because it resonates so strongly with the experiences that animal lovers have with their own brutal and regressive shelters. And that threatens the Confederacy—the Judy Mancusos, Wayne Pacelles, Pat Dunaways, Ardena Perrys, and Ingrid Newkirks of the world because it does not fit with their predetermined agenda in support of either killing or killing shelters, or in the case of Newkirk, her own mass slaughter. And since they cannot attack the message, they attack the messenger. It’s an old trick and petty trick, but it is all they have because the data is unassailable and no matter what the reality,

• they want to continue supporting laws that kill animals (Judie Mancuso);
• they are apologists for killing to the point of standing side-by-side with shelter directors whose shelters neglect, abuse, and unnecessarily kill animals (Wayne Pacelle, Pat Dunaway);
• they kill animals themselves (shelter directors who are “against No Kill”); and,
• they have dark impulses that cause them to actually seek out animals to kill (Ardena Perry, Ingrid Newkirk).

The ultimate irony here is that while people like Mancuso, Pacelle, Dunaway, Perry, Newkirk, and the rest of the Confederacy falsely accuse me of being aligned with industries that neglect, abuse, and kill animals, they are the ones that actually support industries that do so. They like to euphemistically call them “animal shelters.” The more thoughtful among us call them “pounds.” The reality is that too many of them are little more than slaughterhouses and death camps.

♦

Let me set the record straight, again:

I am against mandatory spay/neuter laws because they do not work, because they kill animals. I am also against puppy mills.

I was against mandatory spay/neuter when I was the lone voice on that score arguing from the point of view that they lead to increased impounds and killing. I have never shied away from taking an unpopular view when the lives of animals were threatened. Now, there are a lot of animal lovers and even the ASPCA which are against them for the same reason. That people who run puppy mills are also against them does not mean that I am in league with puppy mills, any more than it means the ASPCA is in league with puppy mills. I am against puppy mills and always have been. Puppy mills fuel over breeding, inbreeding, minimal veterinary care, poor quality of food and shelter, lack of human socialization, overcrowded cages, neglect, abuse, and the killing of animals by those facilities when they are no longer profitable. That is why I put together the following workshop at the No Kill Conference:

Legislating and Litigating an End to Puppy Mills Strategies to overcome institutionalized cruelty. This workshop will explore legal definitions of “puppy mills,” and offer both legislative strategies through anti-cruelty law reform and litigation strategies to combat this institutionalized form of cruelty…

It is not that I don’t support spay/neuter. I do. And when I was in charge of shelters, I supported it more than most shelter directors do. Spay/Neuter is one of the cornerstones of the No Kill Equation and a program I offered for free in both San Francisco and Tompkins County. My opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws is because they increase the power of the animal control bureaucracy to impound and kill animals for violations, and that is what has occurred in municipalities which pass them. This is not an anomaly. It has happened time and time again. It also causes animal control to divert scarce resources from programs which save lives to enforcement of ordinances that result in higher rates of killing. Now, the ASPCA has come out against them and HSUS has shifted from support to neutral and is evaluating whether to oppose them. Even the former head of animal control in Los Angeles, one of the chief proponents of such laws, admitted to a California Senator that the laws were not about saving the lives of animals:

Senator: “Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?”

Ed Boks: “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.”

They are about more power for animal control departments, more officers, more sweeps of stray animals, more citations written, more animals impounded, and more animals killed. (They also feed the backyard breeder market as people then find other unaltered animals.) That groups which claim to be concerned with high levels of shelter killing would actually seek legislation to empower a dysfunctional animal control bureaucracy to impound—and thus kill—even more animals, is a contradiction they conveniently ignore. I’ve even asked supporters to put in protections for animals in these laws, such as: no impound provisions, free spay/neuter in lieu of a citation if violators are on any kind of public assistance, and automatic repeal if killing goes up. They declined. If they believe in these laws, why not put in these protections?

And just in case that is not clear enough, if mandatory spay/neuter worked to save the lives of animals being needlessly slaughtered in shelters, I would support the laws. I would be the single, loudest voice in support of them. My issue is ending killing. I have no other agenda.

I am against animal abuse of any kind, regardless of whether it comes in the form of hunting, puppy mills, or shelter killing.

I am an animal rights activist. I wear the appellation of animal rights as a badge of honor. It is unfortunate that some people hate the term. It is unfortunate that some animal rescuers hate the term. And it is unfortunate that some No Kill advocates hate the term. I am an animal lover and a lawyer and as we live in a legal Republic, that is what my aim is. I have argued that the term “animal rights” is not going away, and it shouldn’t. It is a term intended to put the No Kill movement in line with other social justice movements—to cash in on the heritage of other rights based philosophies that have benefited from building on the work of those movements which have come before them. It is a powerful term which accurately encapsulates what the No Kill movement is seeking for dogs and cats. And, when it comes to these animals, the public is ready and willing to embrace it.

The No Kill movement is the most progressive voice for companion animal rights that there is. By rejecting the mantel that is rightfully ours, the No Kill movement inadvertently cedes the moral high ground to those who do not faithfully represent it, and who use it to justify killing. And in the end, no group, including shelter animals, is safe in a legal republic without the rights afforded by law. By rejecting the concept for dogs and cats due to a mistaken notion that it represents something it truly does not (i.e., the end of sharing one’s home with animals), those in the No Kill movement allow people like Newkirk and her minions at PETA to exercise their dark impulses by slaughtering dogs and cats, while hiding behind their false claim of animal rights.

I do not get financial support from organizations like the Center for Consumer Freedom.

I never have. If they wrote good reviews of my book, they wrote good reviews of my book. I like to think the good review is because it’s a good book. Hell, it won five awards. But if their positive review is nothing more than their hatred of HSUS (“the enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of thing), it doesn’t change the fact that they’ve never offered me money and I’ve never received money from them.

I have a vegan cookbook coming out in 2010. Rest assured, it won’t be reviewed by them and it won’t be promoted by them. I hope PETA reviews it, and I hope they say it is a “must read” for animals lovers, but that won’t mean I am aligned with them either. And even if they did give it four out of four stars, I’d still call for the Butcher of Norfolk to be fired.

Debunking Pet Overpopulation

The twitter version:

Enter? 8 M Savable? 7 M Saved? 4 M Killed (Savable)? 3 M Need homes? 2 M Looking for pet? 17 M

The blog version:

1. How many dogs and cats enter shelters annually? 8 million. (Some put it as low as 6 million, but I am going to use a “worst case” scenario.)
2. Of those how many are savable? 90 percent or just over 7 million.
3. Of those how many will be saved? 4 million.
4. How many of the savable animals are killed? 3 million.
5. How many need to find new homes? If shelters are doing their jobs comprehensively, just over 2 million (3 million on the high end). The remainder should be increased reclaims or in the case of feral cats, TNR’d.
6. Other than those who will adopt from a shelter as a matter of course (those saved above), how many people in the U.S. are looking to bring a new dog or cat into their home next year but have not decided where they will get the animal and can be influenced to adopt from a shelter? 17 million. So, 17 million people for 2-3 million dogs and cats.
7. Has this happened anywhere? Yes, there are many communities which have hit the 90th percentile in save rates.
8. How long did it take them? They did it virtually overnight when new leadership committed to the No Kill philosophy and passionate about saving lives replaced long standing bureaucrats mired in defeatism and excuse making.
9. Are shelters doing all they can to influence those people to adopt from them? This is a rhetorical question. Click here (audio) for an all-too-common experience shared with me by a potential adopter when I was assessing a local shelter.
10. Why don’t they do better? A failure of leadership among the national animal welfare groups such as ASPCA and HSUS, a crisis of uncaring among shelter managers, unfettered discretion to avoid putting in place the programs and services that save lives, and the built in excuse of pet overpopulation.

The book version:

Get the whole story. Click here to purchase.

It’s a Wonderful World

Thank you to all who made the No Kill Conference in Washington DC a tremendous success. We had representatives from 37 states, the District of Columbia, and six countries (the United States, Canada, Australia, Sweden, France, and Thailand). Thank you to the attendees, to the speakers, to the sponsors, to the hosts, to the supporters, and to the No Kill Advocacy Center and George Washington University Animal Law Program for making it possible. The following was my keynote presentation which opened the conference on Saturday morning:

Welcome.

You are among friends here. And they are all available to you to share in this great revolution taking place all across the country. Here, you will find shelter directors saving 9 out of 10 animals. They have heard and rejected the excuses of why every community can’t do the same. And the trail they are blazing will lead the way to our goal of ending the killing of almost 4 million dogs and cats nationally.

Two of them work in a community that takes in four times the per capita rate of animals than Los Angeles, over five times the rate of San Francisco and over twice the national average. But they are still saving 90% of sheltered animals. Another runs a No Kill open door animal control shelter which has been saving at least 92% of animals each year for the last seven years.

Here, you will find animal lawyers who are on the vanguard of litigation and legislation to give sheltered animals the right to live. Others aren’t waiting for society to catch up and pass these laws, they are breaking new ground with existing laws. One of them used the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act to require shelters to provide better care and more lifesaving opportunities for the animals. Another helped make it illegal for a shelter to kill an animal if a rescue group was willing to save that animal’s life.

You will find attorneys who give voice to feral cats, to Pit Bulls, and who are using their legal skills to close down abusive puppy mills. Here, you will find activists who are challenging the killing in their communities through campaigns for reform: That harness the power of the Internet; That harness the reach of the media; By promoting pro-No Kill candidates for city council; and, Even by taking over animal control commissions to set shelters policies themselves.

In some cases they have no formal power, but they are forcing changes because they carry the mantle of justice and truth and they are proving that the power of compassion is mightier than the power of the largest and wealthiest institutions who still cling to outdated ideologies and failed philosophies.

Here, you will find a reflection of yourself: People who share your values. Who believe—as you do—that killing animals is never an act of kindness, when those animals are not suffering.

And it is our desire, our most ardent goal, that you will leave inspired. With the tools you need to achieve success. And with a renewed faith that a No Kill nation is within our reach. Whether you are an attorney, an animal control director, a veterinarian, a rescue group, a volunteer, an activist, or simply someone who loves animals, You are part of a larger army of compassion that is sweeping across the U.S. in the battle for the heart and soul of our nation’s shelters.

A battle we are winning—and will win. We have found our voice, and recognize the potential its fullest expression can create. No more compromises. No more killing.

This is our country, these are our shelters, these are our values, and this is our will. The power to change the status quo is in our hands. And we will use that power to achieve our dream. Together, we’ll bring sheltering into the 21st Century. Together, we’ll create a No Kill nation.

But not everyone shares our optimism. I received a letter from a woman who has spent 50 years doing animal rescue work. She described her experiences over the years, including a heart-breaking rescue of a near dead kitten abandoned near a dumpster. It was clear she cared deeply about animals. And yet she opposes No Kill. Because she believes “there are fates worse than death.” Because she believes “there are too many animals, not enough homes.” Because she believes “there is a crisis of uncaring” in the U.S.

She cannot conceive of a No Kill nation because of decades of experience seeing abandoned, neglected, and abused animals. She says she knows this not from “percentages, data, and studies.” But from “what she has seen with her own eyes.” She has been in the trenches of rescue work so long, she has become myopic. To her, the world of animals is a world of pain and suffering. The national organizations she turns to for guidance reaffirm her point of view. Visiting shelters on a regular basis, she sees scared, sick animals going out the back door in body bags. She blames the public for it. And believes in the inevitability of certain outcomes.

To her, the choice is a quick death at a shelter or a slow death on the street. Because she lacks personal experience at progressive shelters which would debunk these points of view. She hasn’t seen the success of shelters who have embraced the public. She doesn’t live in a No Kill community. San Francisco, Tompkins County, Charlottesville, Reno, and now a dozen and more communities are just points on a map. But they tell an exciting story which she and others like her need to hear. A story that begins in San Francisco.

Where over 20,000 animals were being impounded annually. Most of whom were put to death. It was nothing short of a “Blood Bath.” And we were told that the public was to be blame. And then along came a man named Richard Avanzino. He believed in the public and he started a series of programs and services which would harness their compassion to save the animals. Programs like Offsite Adoptions, Foster Care, Behavior Advice, Feral Cat TNR, Socialization & Training, Behavior Rehabilitation, and high volume spay/neuter. Programs which embraced the public and made it easy for them to do the right thing.

And the results were so dramatic that San Francisco was ready to take the next bold leap. What the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, the American Humane Association and all local shelters said was impossible. A lifesaving guarantee for each and every healthy dog and cat in San Francisco. The first of its kind in the country. No matter which shelter they enter. No matter how many there are. And no matter how long it takes to find them a home.

The number of healthy dogs and cats killed in San Francisco under Richard Avanzino since 1994 was zero.

In 2000, I was the Director of Operations for the San Francisco SPCA. And the one question I received more than any other was whether San Francisco was so unique its success could not happen anywhere else? It was time to find out. In 2001, I traveled across country to Ithaca, New York. Taking the Private SPCA No Kill Model to an open door animal control shelter which impounded animals for 10 towns and municipalities. Impounded rabies suspect animals for the Tompkins County Health Department. Enforced New York State’s animal cruelty laws. Enforced Tompkins County pet ordinances. And enforced the “Dangerous Dog” laws.

And by implementing the programs Avanzino pioneered–the programs & Services I have come to call  “The No Kill Equation”–in 2002, Tompkins County went from a community:

• that was killing healthy dogs and cats to killing none
• that was killing treatable sick/injured dogs and cats to killing none
• that was killing feral cats to killing none
• that reduced the death rate by 75%
• that increased the total save rate to 93%, well beyond San Francisco

It should have been a celebration. Sadly, it was not. Entrenched shelter directors across the country were overcome with a case of collective amnesia. When San Francisco became the first city in the U.S. saving all healthy dogs and cats, shelters said: “You can do it in an urban community, but you can’t in a rural one.” When Tompkins County becomes the first No Kill community in rural America, shelters said: “You can do it in a rural community, but not in an urban one.” At the very least, they argued, it could not be replicated in what they mean-spiritedly called the “backward” South because of the “Bubba Factor.”

So we took the No Kill Equation to Charlottesville, Virginia. To an animal control shelter which hired a new director who was passionate about the No Kill philosophy and committed to implementing the programs and services which make it possible.  And in her first year, she saved 87% of all dogs and cats. In 2006, she saved 92% of all dogs and cats. And in 2007 and 2008, she repeated the No Kill achievement. At an open door animal control shelter in the South. That should have ended the debate. But it did not.

There was still another hurdle to overcome. When Charlottesville achieved No Kill in 2006, these Naysayers who were running shelters which still killed the bulk of their occupants argued that No Kill could not be achieved in a rapidly developing community because the influx of new people would mean more animals, which would overwhelm the infrastructure of animal control, “forcing” them to kill.

So we took the No Kill Equation to Reno, NV, the fastest growing county in one of the fastest growing states. To a community which takes in over three times the per capita rate of dogs and cats than Los Angeles, five times the rate of San Francisco and over two times the national average. So if there is a problem with “pet overpopulation,” they certainly face it in Washoe County (Reno), Nevada.

But in 2007, compared to 2006:

• The kill rate for dogs dropped 51%
• The kill rate for cats dropped 52%

At the same time:

• The adoption rate for dogs increased 53%
• The adoption rate for cats increased 84%

The 2007 save rate (including animal control) for dogs was 92% and 78% for cats. In 2008, the save rate for cats climbed to 83%. The goal in 2009 is a 90th percentile for both.

There are others: in California, in Texas, in Indiana, in Colorado, in North Carolina, in Montana, in Utah, in Kansas, in Kentucky, and elsewhere. Some of these are urban. Some are rural. Some are public. Some are private. Some are politically liberal. Some are politically conservative. And at least one is in the “reddest” part of the “reddest” state. Proving that people of all walks of life want to build a better world for animals.

Dorothy doesn’t see that, because what is happening in these communities isn’t happening everywhere. Not because it isn’t possible, but because it has not been a priority for shelter managers or the government officials who oversee them. The contrast between a fully functioning No Kill shelter and a regressive one could not be more stark. But people like Dorothy don’t see the former and keep being told that the latter is the “best we can do.” So Dorothy lacks the larger perspective.

To her, the story is about the 4 million being killed in shelters she has been told we can’t save. Which obscures the bigger, happier, more accurate story. The story about the 165 million in homes, the vast majority of whom are part of families who are crazy about them and consider them cherished members of the family.

Yes, some may become homeless during their life. But as San Francisco and other communities have proved, shelters can be temporary way stations with good care and plenty of comfort until they find loving new homes. The story of the 4 million doesn’t have to be a tragedy. If all shelters embrace the public’s love of animals. Plenty of communities have proved it. But so do the “percentages, data, and studies” Dorothy dismisses so casually.

Nationally, about 4 million dogs and cats are killed annually in shelters, of which roughly 90% are savable, meaning they are not suffering, or hopelessly ill, or truly vicious dogs. On top of that, not all animals entering shelters need adoption. Some will be reclaimed by families after becoming lost. Some of the cats will be feral and don’t need adoption. They need sterilization and release. Some will be suffering or hopelessly ill and, sadly, will be killed. A shelter can save 90% but only needs to find a home for fewer. And there are plenty of people who are willing to provide that home.

There are roughly 20 million people who are going to get an animal next year, and most have not decided where that animal will come from. We just need to convince a small percentage of these people to adopt from a shelter. And, in the end, that is why shelters exist in the first place. To be a safety net for animals whose caretakers no longer can or want to take care of them. And shelters can do so without killing. That is what they are doing in communities across the country. That is what we are going to teach you to do in your own hometowns. And that is the perspective we are asking you to take back to the Dorothies in your communities.

To let them know that our perceptions do not always reflect the truth. In the trenches, the problem appears larger and more pervasive that it really is. Visiting poorly performing shelters on a regular basis, seeing scared, sick animals who are not being properly cared for and the occasional victim of abuse and neglect, people like Dorothy lose sight of a broader, more accurate perspective of people and how most of them really feel about animals.

Even while virtually all other sectors of the economy plummet, purchases for our companion animals increase every year and increased again in 2008 to $47 billion. And give hundreds of millions more to animal related charities. In fact, giving to animal related charities is the fastest growing segment in American philanthropy. They miss work when their animals get sick. And they cut back on their own needs to meet the needs of their animal companions.

Dorothy and people like Dorothy forget that No Kill success throughout the country is a result of people—people who care deeply. Evidence of this caring is all around them, but they doesn’t always recognize it as such or dismiss it as the “exception” even when they are constantly seeing exceptions. When people who adopt rescued animals send them thank you letters telling them how much they love their animals.

When they see people at the dog park. Or on their morning walks through the neighborhoods. They fail to recognize it at the veterinarian’s office—the waiting rooms always filled, the faces of scared people wondering what is wrong, the tears as they emerge from the exam rooms after saying good bye for the last time.

They don’t see that books about animals who have touched people’s lives are not only being written in ever-increasing numbers but are all best sellers because people do care, and the stories touch them very deeply and very personally. They don’t see that the success of movies about animals is also a reflection of the love people have for animals.

They fail to see how people were terrified as news spread of the pet food recall in 2007, when tainted pet food from China devastated lives. And while animals lost their lives because of tainted food, they were not the only ones to suffer. Their caretakers did, too, as thousands of caring, of helpless people had to witness the suffering of their pets as their government and a government overseas betrayed them for industry profits.

They don’t draw lessons from the fact that people support animal-related legislation, even at the expense of their own economic interests:

• During the 2008 election, for example, Massachusetts voters ended greyhound racing.
• In 2007, Oregon voters followed Florida’s 2002 lead and banned gestation crates for pigs.
• In 2006, Arizona voters passed a farm animal protection statute banning veal crates, while Michigan voters defeated a measure to increase hunting in the State.
• And in November 2008, Californians voted overwhelmingly to end battery cages for chickens.

The conclusion they should draw from these votes but fail to reach is that Americans don’t just care about dogs and cats; they even care about animals with which they do not have personal relationships. So we need to put to bed, once and for all, the idea that dogs and cats—animals most Americans now consider cherished members of their family—need to die in U.S. shelters because people are irresponsible and don’t care enough about them.

If they would only open their eyes, they would see tremendous proof of caring all around them, which has been growing over the years. It is what I call in my book as “The Changing B’s.” For much of 19th Century, animals lived in our barns and were seen as commodities: they herded sheep, pulled plows, took goods to market, and kept barns free of mice.

In the 20th Century, they moved to our backyards. Increasing affluence, education, division of labor, and urbanization changed our views of dogs and cats. They became “pets” instead of workers.

Recently, we see the ethic shift significantly, as they move into our bedrooms. The “companion animal” comes of age.When it set itself up as an adversary with the public, our movement got it wrong. People love animals. To end the killing, we need to harness that compassion. By implementing the programs and services of the No Kill Equation. And that is how achieve a No Kill nation.

It is the public which has made the difference in successful communities because the public cares. That is what Dorothy must be made to see. That is what we must make all the Dorothies see. Everywhere you look, there is deep love for animals. Everywhere you look, there is our own reflection of that love. We must make them see that it truly is a wonderful world.

To see a video montage set to music, click here.

Next Page »