Sheltering News From Around the Country

Austin, Texas saves all cats… for one day!

On January 12, 2009, no cats were killed in the Austin pound—Town Lake Animal Center—for the first time ever. But Town Lake Animal Center (TLAC) did not celebrate or put out a press release. That’s because TLAC had nothing to do with it. A local rescue group—Austin Pets Alive—saved every cat on the list of cats scheduled to be put to death that day by rescuing them from the pound.

While this is great news for the cats whose lives were spared, a coalition of rescue groups and animal lovers under the lead of Fix Austin argued that the community “could save thousands more if it weren’t for the continued obstinance of the pound’s director who orders that killing continue even when dozens and dozens of cages sit empty.” Fix Austin notes that two evaluations of the shelter by the State of Texas found that more than 100 cages sit empty each day at the pound.

The City pound has killed more than 100,000 dogs and cats since the current director took over in November 2000. This is the director that is being supported by the ASPCA’s “Agent Orange” program which carpet bombs the efforts of local animal lovers trying to end the killing of savable animals. According to ASPCA President Ed Sayres, the pound director “is a very effective leader.”

Effective at what Ed? That’s a rhetorical question. The answer, of course, is killing.

Find out more by clicking here.

A fresh start in Indianapolis

According to Move to Act, Doug Rae started his job as the head of Indianapolis Animal Care & Control (IACC) this week. This follows the resignation of the former director after allegations of animal abuse and neglect at the facility were substantiated by two independent investigators. Prior to his start date, a local blogger posted an open letter to Rae offering her volunteer services, after saving a shy dog from death at the pound.

Rae responded as follows:

Thank you for your efforts helping the homeless animals, for being so practical in your approach, and for being so passionate about the plight of shelter animals. All things to be proud of.

Your allegiance to “shy” shelter dogs translates into an outstanding relationship before I even come to town. I too have a special fondness for the shy/scared animals. Don’t get me wrong. Given the option, I wouldn’t want a single animal living in a shelter. But considering the different levels of animals that are in-house (and there are many), there is something about seeing a frightened dog in a kennel exhibiting signs of aggression (though I know better) that makes me climb right into the kennel, close the door behind me, and sit on the kennel floor.

Some people will say my time as the “leader” is better spent elsewhere. Well, killing an animal is a decision not to be taken lightly, so if my spending 20 minutes sitting inside of a dog kennel can save lives, then I’ll take any heat associated with not sitting behind my desk versus socializing with a scared animal. In fact, my days are usually spent “in the shelter” not behind my desk, but that’s for another day.

I have 6 dogs from 3 different states and 2 of them would have been tagged as ‘fear biters’ in most shelters. Had I not taken the time to treat these animals as individuals and properly evaluate them, both would be in a landfill today.

I tell the story of meeting my ‘Briley’ (a 1 ½ yr old basset) at my first shelter during my first week on the job; she was on the E-list scheduled to die the next morning. “CAUTION – TEMPERMENT TO HUMAN – WILL BITE!!” was written on the kennel card. Briley was sitting as far back in the kennel as possible and started shaking uncontrollably when she felt me looking at her. I climbed into the kennel, closed the door, and slowly but surely saw her for what she was….. ……Absolutely scared to death – not to mention the dog she is to my family today — the most lovable dog I have ‘ever’ met in my entire life. And I mean ever!

Marci, one position critical to protecting the public, IACC staff, and volunteers (and to protect shy / ‘over the top’ dogs that you speak of) will be to have a dedicated full-time dog behaviorist on staff. Once I analyze the current business structure for operational needs, I plan on filling this position without delay. Your volunteerism, passion and anticipated skill-set will support the employee I select for this role, and unquestionably your efforts can make them even better at what they do for the animals!

I start January 12th and once I do I’d love to sit with you and discuss your ideas; all of them. In fact your “… long-term goal of working out a plan to decrease kennel noise, improve the behavior of most, if not all, of the animals, instill an atmosphere more suitable for an adoption setting….” are things I’d like to see in place on day one.

Again, I’m truly pleased that you are taking the strides to improve the lives of homeless animals as seriously as one would like, and I look forward to speaking with you once I get to town….

What a welcome change. The No Kill Advocacy Center named Indianapolis a city to watch in 2009, so No Kill advocates have got their eye on Indy, but apparently so does PETA. As usual, PETA publicly called for continued killing in Indianapolis by equating No Kill with hoarding.

The politics of character assassination

Before Redemption was released, I realized that the book would result in attempts to assassinate my character. Because they could not argue with the philosophy or the facts, the only option (beside doing the right thing and embracing the No Kill philosophy which they refuse to do) for those who kill animals in shelters and their national killing apologists would be for them to attack me. There’s an old adage that if you can’t argue with the message, attack the messenger. And that is exactly what many of them are doing.

This week I spent 90 minutes on the telephone with a reporter from Houston who asked me a lot of questions around my integrity and character. It seems that Pat Dunaway is at it again. I’ve written about Dunaway in the past, as she had ties to an organization which ran animal control which was fired by the City of Rancho Cucamonga for overkill and animal neglect. [To read “Who is Pat Dunaway,” click here.] I was hired to help in the transition to a new animal control provider and my involvement in her ouster has led to a personal vendetta against me and she found the ear of a reporter in Houston.

She refuses to come forward, use her real name, or provide evidence. She attacks based on rumor and innuendo and outright lies in order to undermine my efforts and maintain a policy of killing in our shelters. No lie is too grand and no contradiction too obvious. According to Dunaway, I am in league with puppy millers but I am also an animal rights extremist intent on making it illegal to have pets. How can I be both? Especially when I am neither.

She claims I receive money from breeders and the Center for Consumer Freedom (I have not), but she also claimed I ordered my animal control officers to raid a breeder when I was in Tompkins County because I don’t like breeders. She then claims I fired the animal control officers because they refused to say it was a terrible facility. Again, am I for breeders? Or against breeders?

I debunked all the lies and contradictions with the reporter and I believe that message will carry the day. But just the asking is enough to cast a cloud of guilt and just the raising of the issues muddies the waters which would allow government bureaucrats to use that as an excuse to continue killing. I hope the animals of Houston aren’t sacrificed to this type of politics of personal destruction. But isn’t that Dunaway’s goal?

Ironically, while Dunaway claims that I am an animal rights extremist, her policies and her tactics are most closely aligned with PETA’s, which also advances an agenda of needless killing, and does so by lying about me as they did in a recent letter to the editor of the Houston Chronicle. In that letter, they accused me of causing warehousing in a shelter I not only have never worked for or with, but one I have been a vocal critic of for many years, including blasting it for kill oriented policies in my book.

Stay tuned.

The Dead Dog Journal

The Whole Dog Journal, which claims to be about “honoring our dogs,” paid them the greatest dishonor by advancing an agenda of killing healthy dogs in shelters. Can anyone say “cancel my subscription?”

In a misleading and deceitful article by Pat Miller in this month’s issue, No Kill was once again equated with hoarding and called “a deceptive myth.” She also stated that people who donate to No Kill shelters are “misguided.” Miller is no stranger to spreading vicious attacks against No Kill. She led one in the mid-1990s after San Francisco ended the killing of healthy dogs and cats. As I indicated in my book Redemption:

Pat Miller, the president of the California Animal Control Director’s Association, and the director of operations for the Marin Humane Society, a wealthy bedroom community just north of San Francisco that was still killing savable animals, indicated the claims [in San Francisco] were “based on semantics, data distortion, and the prolonging rather than the relief of animal suffering.” Miller would go on to say that she, like others who shared her views, was “disturbed by the advocacy of No Kill philosophies.”

Richard Avanzino, then President of the San Francisco SPCA, summarized this opposition best:

For years, there has been what seems to me a concerted, aggressive, and sometimes mean-spirited campaign against No Kill in general, and against the [San Francisco SPCA] in particular. This campaign has included statements that in my eyes go far beyond the bounds of legitimate debate, and rely instead on falsehoods and misrepresentations that demean, diminish, and disparage…. Again and again, we find programs misrepresented, motives questioned, and results and achievements ignored.

In her latest salvo, Miller revisits her wrath at the movement to end shelter killing by arguing that No Kill shelters are derelict because they refuse to kill animals. Not surprisingly, her husband still works for a shelter that kills animals, despite taking in only 5,500 animals annually. Compare that to Reno (which takes in roughly 16,000) and Charlottesville (which impounds approximately 5,000) below.

Miller claims to be a positive reward based dog trainer. There’s nothing positive about being an advocate for the continued killing of dogs in shelters. It is morally and ethically bankrupt and it is a point of view that is abysmal, abhorrent, and pernicious. And I have to believe that if she was a dog, she would not want to enter either her former shelter or her husband’s current shelter, because no one—and I mean not one single solitary person on the planet—would be an advocate for killing if they were the one unnecessarily facing the needle.

Dr. Hurley, meet Dr. Semmelweis

Not to be outdone, Dr. Kate Hurley of U.C. Davis also continued her pro-killing agenda by equating No Kill with hoarding in an Ohio newspaper. Hurly claims that No Kill “lead[s] to overcrowding, poor record-keeping, widespread disease and behavior problems.” As a result, Hurley concludes that a No Kill policy “virtually guarantees they will torture and kill thousands of animals.”

By denigrating No Kill as akin to warehousing and ignoring the protocols of shelters which have truly achieved No Kill, Dr. Hurley appears to be arguing for nothing more than a nation of shelters firmly grounded in killing—a defeatist mentality that is inherently unethical and antithetical to animal welfare. To imply that No Kill means warehousing is a cynicism which has only one purpose: to defend those who are failing at saving lives from public criticism and public accountability by painting a picture of the alternative as even darker.

As a university and as a training ground for new veterinarians, the U.C. Davis program should be at the forefront of progressive shelter practices and of the dynamic and exciting changes occurring in the field of animal sheltering as a result of the No Kill movement. Instead, Drs. Hurley irresponsibly clings to the past by promoting methods of sheltering that are antiquated, inhumane, and lead to unnecessary killing. This would be the equivalent of a medical school continuing to teach its students that leeches, bloodletting and magical incantations are a valid treatment for pneumonia, in the face of proven alternatives like antibiotics, fluid therapy and rest. It is nothing short of bad medicine—and a textbook example of the “Semmelweis Reflex,” the reaction so-called “experts” often exhibit when the status quo, which they represent, is challenged.

Historians have coined the term the “Semmelweis Reflex” to describe “mob behavior in which a discovery of important scientific fact is punished rather than rewarded.” In the nineteenth century, Dr. Ignac Semmelweis observed a higher incidence of deaths due to puerperal fever in maternity wards associated with teaching hospitals than in births attended by midwives. In trying to figure out why puerperal fever was a hazard of giving birth in a hospital rather than at home, Semmelweis opined that students and doctors might be carrying the diseases from autopsies they performed, while midwives who did not perform such procedures were not. Semmelweis also found that rigorous instrument cleaning and hand washing could bring the fever rate down to zero. Had doctors known at the time that germs caused disease, this finding would have been unremarkable.

Unfortunately, Semmelweis’ discovery predated the germ theory of disease. At the time, no one knew that asepsis was important. According to Semmelweis’ critics, hand washing wasn’t needed when they could clearly see that their hands had nothing on them. And, tragically, they ignored his recommendations and continued with business as usual, with deadly results for their patients. Once germ theory became known and established, however, Semmelweis was vindicated for his foresight. Of course, sterility through instrument cleaning and hand washing has since become the norm.

The housing, socialization, adoption, foster care, cleaning and vaccination protocols, medical and behavior rehabilitation and other efforts pioneered in communities like San Francisco and copied elsewhere provide a life-affirming model of sheltering which provides high quality care, reduced disease rates, even while keeping cages and kennels full as necessary and in foster care, while finding the vast majority of shelter animals loving new homes. These models were developed by caring and compassionate individuals, professionals, and in conjunction with veterinary institutions like Cornell University.

Rather than attack Semmelweis, doctors should have simply washed their hands, since Semmelweis pointed out that this eliminated deaths, even though, at the time, no one could explain why. Similarly, rather than attack the methods of sheltering which allow the vast majority of animals to be saved, even while operating at capacity-plus fostering, shelter administrators likewise should copy its precepts because it has been shown to work in other communities. But the vast majority of shelter directors refuse to innovate in this way.

But something more nefarious was at work in Semmelweis’ time than a failure of understanding about germs, and it is the same “Reflex” which is at work in sheltering today. In fact, what occurred was that Semmelweis was fired because doctors felt he was criticizing the superiority of hospital births over home births, something that threatened their position in the social hierarchy. And therein lies the rub. The archaic voices of tradition in sheltering are acting the same way as the doctors who put their own positions above their patients. They refuse to innovate and modernize precisely because they are threatened by the growing hegemony of the No Kill movement and what this means for their own stature in this movement.

As a movement and as a nation, we have a choice. We can embrace the No Kill philosophy, and the programs and services which make it possible, and end the unnecessary killing of millions of dogs and cats slaughtered each year in our nation’s dog and cat pounds. Or we can adopt the model that will perpetuate it.

As to Hurley’s bizarre and absurd argument that No Kill leads to “poor record keeping,” I think that speaks for itself.

Charlottesville & Reno top the charts…again.

Charlottesville’s open admission animal control shelter finished 2008 saving 92% of all dogs and 82% of all cats. This makes them the safest community in the U.S. for dogs, but they were edged out by Reno, Nevada which saved 83% of all cats. What would Hurley and Miller say about Reno which took in 16,000 dogs and cats, but didn’t slaughter them like the shelters they seem to champion?

While dogs are being saved again in record numbers, in order to increase the cat save rate, we need comprehensive feral cat legal reform to make it illegal for feral cats to enter shelters in the first place, except for purposes of sterilization and release.

No Kill Conference 2009

New speakers have been added to the No Kill Conference line-up. Wendy Anderson, Director of Law & Policy for Alley Cat Allies, will talk about… how to use the legal system to keep feral cats out of shelters and to keep cats from being killed in the pound!

Ledy VanKavage of Best Friends will talk about saving Pit Bulls and other breeds, and how to keep them from falling victim to Breed Discriminatory Legislation (BDL).

And Rebecca Huss, who was the court appointed guardian over the Michael Vick dogs, will talk about her experiences and why BDL does not work.

Learn more and sign up at www.nokillconference.org.