Post by RealPitBull on Jul 23, 2009 8:37:12 GMT -5
Enjoy 
From: www.nathanwinograd.com
Browse > Home / Blog Posts / Demanding What We Have the Right to Expect Demanding What We Have the Right to Expect
July 15, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd
Recent reports out of Missouri indicate that many of the dogs seized in the recent dog fighting raid are puppies. In addition, many of the dogs are pregnant and will shortly give birth. As a result, additional puppies will be born. Bowing to public pressure, the Humane Society of Missouri announced it is looking to place dogs who pass their behavior evaluation and the puppies with rescue groups. One of the requirements that they are insisting on is that the rescue groups have liability insurance to protect themselves from any possible liability, even though a waiver of liability will accomplish the same thing.
Unfortunately, many rescue groups do not have insurance. A policy can cost anywhere from $400 to two times that amount, depending on the volume of animals placed annually. In order to increase capacity for rescue, I am calling on the Humane Society of Missouri to drop the demand of liability insurance, in favor of a waiver of liability. If they refuse, I am calling on the ASPCA and HSUS to offer to pay the full premium for a one year liability policy for any rescue group willing to accept one or more of these dogs into their program. On the high end, assuming every dog went to a different rescue group and none of the groups had insurance (a highly unlikely proposition), it would only be $250,000, a small fraction of the combined $200 million they spend annually, and probably less than each will fundraise off of these dogs. Doing so would be both reasonable and proper. When people see these dogs on television and get out their checkbooks to donate, they expect the money to go to caring for and saving the lives of the dogs, not to be hoarded in their bank accounts, which occurs much too often. When HSUS puts out photographs and insists it is doing its part, as it did today, people expect that means the money they raise will go to the dogs and the dogs will be saved.
But make no mistake: that is not remotely enough. While I hope rescue groups come forward (saving the dogs is our immediate priority), once again the pressure is put on those groups who have the fewest resources to save the lives, while groups like HSUS offer crumbs, the same way they did after raising tens of millions of dollars and then leaving town, their coffers overflowing, during Hurricane Katrina. This is not acceptable now—and is not acceptable going forward.
That the dogs aren’t immediately being systematically killed as HSUS has historically promoted is certainly progress. But that, of course, is tempered when Wayne Pacelle says, as he did to a national press, that while the dogs will be evaluated for aggression, he expects them to fail and be killed anyway. And until the dogs are actually saved (it is still possible that most will not get out alive, but be killed under an HSUS promoted Sue Sternberg-type evaluation which favors death for pit bull-type dogs), that progress is very limited and, from the dogs’ perspective, still very tenuous.
As I stated in an earlier blog,
We must start demanding outcomes—outcomes that include rescuing, rehabilitating, and ultimately saving these dogs.
Any statement that elevates process (“we’ll test them”) over substance (“we’ll save them”) is weak, as it still leaves the door wide-open for killing. Since HSUS stated that “it’s pretty certain that a lot of those dogs will not pass a behavioral test,” even as they release photographs of the dogs kissing those caring for them and even though we now know that many of them are still only puppies, it is not clear how much the dogs will have benefitted. It is not progress from the dogs’ perspective if the outcome—death—is the same.
And while it is great that the Humane Society of Missouri is reaching out to rescue groups for help, saving the dogs should not be dependent on rescue groups coming forward, when the two largest and wealthiest animal protection organizations—HSUS and the ASPCA—are actively involved. It is not an issue of capacity or resources at this point. All alone, HSUS and the ASPCA have the public relations power, financial wherewithal and global reach to save these dogs and find them homes. All they lack is the will to do so—enabled by our historic failure to demand that they do. It is only 400 dogs, many of them puppies. They can do it alone. And we should expect them to. That is what they imply in their fundraising. That is what the public believes will happen when they donate. That is what we should logically expect in these situations. If saving dogs in extraordinary situations such as this is not their mission, what on earth is?
So rather than rejoice when they say they are “assisting” in the care of the dogs; and rather than remind everyone that HSUS now has a “policy of recommending that all dogs seized from such operations be professionally evaluated to determine whether they are suitable candidates for adoption,” this is the tenor of the statement we should expect from HSUS to animal lovers around the country who are anxious and concerned about the ultimate fate of these dogs:
The Humane Society of the United States wants to assure everyone concerned over the fate of these dogs that we are doing everything in our power to provide unconditional love and the best care possible for the victims of these crimes. Their welfare is our utmost concern, and every action we take on their behalf will be guided by compassion for their plight, respect for the lives, and an unwavering commitment to ensuring we find them a safe, loving environment, in which to spend the rest of their lives. We know that rescue groups often have stretched resources. We know that shelters, like the Humane Society of Missouri, also have to care for the daily influx of dogs and cats in their shelter. So as the nation’s largest, richest, and most powerful animal protection organization, we are stepping up to the plate. If any rescue groups have the capacity to help, we’ll welcome it. But rest assured: we will not allow a single one of these dogs to lose their lives. However long it takes, however much it costs, we will save all the puppies. We will save all the dogs. And if any are aggressive, we will undertake a comprehensive rehabilitation. That is our pledge to them. And that is our pledge to you.
They didn’t say this, of course. But they should. Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid. Case in point: In 1994, Richard Avanzino, then President of the San Francisco SPCA pledged to save each and every healthy homeless dog and cat “no matter how many there were, how long it took to find them a home, or which San Francisco shelter they entered.” HSUS said it was impossible. But the rest, as they say, is history…
Browse > Home / Blog Posts / Raising the Bar Raising the Bar
July 18, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd
Animal lovers across the country are anxious about the fate of some 400 dogs who were seized from dog fighters and are now in the custody of the Humane Society of Missouri (HSMO). Initially, all we heard were ominous statements from those involved—including the Humane Society of the United States whose CEO stated that he was “pretty certain” most of the dogs would be killed, the ASPCA whose representative stated that we should not expect the same outcome as the Michael Vick case (where most dogs were saved), and even HSMO which would not comment. The resulting public outcry and pressure led to more optimistic statements and actions. The dogs are not fully out of harm’s way, but there has been progress. HSMO has reached out to rescue groups. Photographs have been released of very friendly looking and loving dogs kissing and snuggling their caretakers. In addition, the dogs appear to be receiving plenty of socialization and care. We are more hopeful, but we also remain vigilant for all the reasons I stated in my prior blog. The dogs are not yet saved.
Sadly, I’ve read blog postings and have seen e-mails from even Pit Bull advocacy groups that suggest we prepare ourselves for inevitable killing:
“We just have too damn many dogs and never enough helpers;”
“[E]ven with hardcore efforts, good dogs will still lose out;” and,
“[Hurricane] Katrina is a reminder that in all kinds of disasters, including the economic disaster and this cruelty disaster, good efforts do not always add up to the widespread happy endings that victims of these cases so richly deserve.”
I’ve read that we should put off worrying about the dogs: “…we’re getting a lot of mail from people who want to see the dogs…given a chance to be rescued… If and when the dogs are released to the authorities, that’s when we can begin speculating about their rescue.” This sort of language is wrong on so many different levels.
First of all, the primary reason progress is being made in this movement is because of the vocal opposition to traditional policy by the grassroots. It is unfair (not to mention patronizing) when those in charge of organizations seek to forestall grassroots efforts by trying to dictate when it is appropriate for them to make their voices heard. Our strength lies is in their numbers and our power in the expression of their convictions. I, too, received many e-mails from people who are concerned and wondering what they can do to make sure the dogs don’t get killed. It would never have crossed my mind to tell them, in effect, to simmer down; to leave it to the self-proclaimed experts. To wait and see. Instead, I encouraged them to make their voices heard, to let the Humane Society of Missouri, HSUS, the media know that they will not tolerate killing. These are the soldiers who will overthrow the regime based on killing. This is our army of compassion.
No Kill is a revolution. And like any revolution, we have our battles. Each is an opportunity to challenge accepted ways of doing business that favor killing, by demanding that they be replaced with life-affirming choices. Each battle is a chance not just to save lives in the immediate sense, but to destroy long-held assumptions about what is possible and to prove there is a better way. Each battle is an opportunity to remind the leaders of the large national organizations that it is time for change. Most importantly, each battle is an opportunity to gain ground in the war we are fighting, to push the envelope, to heighten expectations of what is acceptable so that when the next crisis happens, when the next battle is upon us, the animals are that much safer and we are that much further along.
I am not sure why people are calling for restraint when we are being told to expect killing, when we are being told that it is “pretty certain,” that we should not expect a replication of the Michael Vick case, that there aren’t enough “qualified” rescue groups, that we saved only half of the 25 dogs last time and that’s better than none. Since when were those the only choices? Why set the bar so low?
The message in response should be: No. We will not accept this. These dogs must not be killed. And we have the power to make that happen. We forced HSUS into retreat after their massacre of the dogs and puppies in Wilkes County. We took the wealthiest, largest, most powerful organization in the country and we brought them to their knees. They were forced to recant. They were forced to change their policy. Not because Wayne Pacelle really cares and realized he got it wrong. Not because they learned from their mistakes. But because the power of our ideal, the strength in our numbers, the righteousness of our message was too strong for them to counter with all their lies, prevarications, and chants of “kill, kill, kill.” They couldn’t defend it. And it is not the first time. We forced them to embrace TNR. We forced them to accept offsite adoptions. We forced them to accept rescue groups. All things they have historically opposed. We’ve also forced them to modify their language on No Kill; and, in short order, we will force them ultimately to make good on those claims.
Second, I worked in animal control. I worked at a private shelter. I’ve done rescue. I’ve consulted with shelters all over the country. I’ve been in the trenches for years. And I say this for one reason: to let people know that it doesn’t take that kind of expertise to champion the ideal of No Kill. It doesn’t require any insider knowledge to know right from wrong. There are no extenuating circumstances or specialized skill-sets that would reveal anything different from what we know in our hearts: killing these dogs is wrong and it is totally unnecessary. And groups and voices on this issue must keep allegiance to the ideal and not hold themselves as having some insider knowledge that the “little people” (who are not so little, who have the numbers on their side, and who care very deeply) just don’t get. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating here: Groups which are going to claim a leadership role in this movement must mirror the discontent of the grassroots, not seek to keep it in check.
Because it is ultimately the vigilance on the part of the American public against the architects of the paradigm of killing we live with today that is going to save those dogs and future dogs who find themselves in the same predicament. It’s not about speculation. It’s about holding the feet of groups like HSUS to the fire, because when we don’t, it ends up as a massacre. The lives of the dogs are too precious to leave to the self-proclaimed experts.
Third, one of the more disturbing things about the way this case was handled is the lack of comprehensive planning—a planning which should have been going on even before the raid occurred when the agency was approached by the FBI for assistance during the investigation. It is planning that has made a difference in whether deaths have increased or decreased during this economic downturn. And it is a planning that can make a profound difference in cases such as the one in Missouri.
When I was director of the Tompkins County SPCA, for example, we were approached by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets which was investigating substandard conditions from a state licensed-breeder involving upwards of 250 dogs in what was described as filthy conditions and dogs with major medical issues. They approached us to participate both in the investigation by having our officers assist, as well as in sheltering the dogs.
We agreed and planned ahead. We set up the infrastructure. In the end, only 60 dogs came to our facility (although virtually all of them had “issues” including neurological conditions, rotten teeth, infections, severe matting, blindness, and more). But by the time they arrived, we already had rescue groups lined up (we did not tell them where the dogs were coming from so as not to jeopardize the investigation), we already had veterinarians on notice, we had a legion of volunteers on alert, and we had a media promotion plan to get the dogs adopted.
I remember walking through the shelter within an hour of their arrival to witness an awesome sight:
An assembly line of volunteers bathing, drying, and grooming the dogs.
Staff and volunteer veterinary technicians, and students from Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine providing medical care (under the direction of a clinician).
Volunteers transporting dogs to local veterinary clinics to augment the volunteer onsite veterinarians who cleared their calendars to assist.
The local news station, newspaper, and radio station asking their viewers, readers, and listeners to come forward.
Volunteers socializing with the dogs, sometimes just sitting on the other side of the kennel because the dogs were not yet used to human contact.
And all the dogs were saved. Not some of them. All of them. And we did it without the tremendous financial resources of HSUS and the ASPCA. Without the national media power of these groups. Without the millions of animal loving members and global reach.
So enough defeatism. Enough apologia preparing us for what they wrongly believe is inevitable killing. That is not the future we choose. Saving these dogs can and must be done. We do not accept the old thinking and old behavior when they say that “We just have too damn many dogs and never enough helpers.” This is an extraordinary situation and with the right leadership, there will be an extraordinary response.
Fourth, citing Hurricane Katrina as proof that “good efforts do not always add up to the widespread happy endings” is misplaced. A fellow Board Member of the No Kill Advocacy Center was there, on behalf of another organization, coordinating a large scale rescue. People I work with and trust were there, neck deep in water pulling animals to safety, smashing down doors to rescue them. I went there, as well, to do training of Parish animal control officers, to train activists on feral cat rescue, and to review operations for a shelter and rescue group on the Gulf Coast.
Hurricane Katrina could have had a much different outcome if the groups which took the lion’s share of the public largesse and had the most capacity to help had done the job the public thought they were doing when they wrote their checks. HSUS left after spending only $4 million of some $20 million raised for the effort and announced “Mission Accomplished,” even while animals were still suffering in horrific numbers. Their “rescue effort” was so badly mismanaged that they were openly condemned by people and groups who normally look the other way. In fact, it cost the Vice-President of Companion Animals for HSUS, the person responsible for coordinating the rescue effort, her job.
The ASPCA also raised a lot of money. They focused their resources on a newly created spay/neuter group run by a person who had no experience and who was hoarding the money rather than distributing the vouchers to the animal control officers, rescuers, and people who needed it. In fact, in 2006, I complained to ASPCA President Ed Sayres about it in a letter. Not surprising, but no less tragic, he offered a thoughtless, knee-jerk defense of her and told me she was doing a great job. It took him some time to see the light because Sayres has never been a champion of oversight and accountability, but the mismanagement was so bad, he ultimately did so. She, too, was removed.
In addition, the Louisiana SPCA which had the most capacity of any of the local groups and did a fraction of the effort of rescue groups like Animal Rescue New Orleans (ARNO) got the lion’s share of the ASPCA grant money for Hurricane Katrina relief. And while ARNO and others were still searching for wayward animals and feeding thousands of others, the Louisiana SPCA was solidifying plans to use the grant money to build a flashy dog agility center, while simultaneously cutting back kennel space. Don’t tell me it could not have been different—that the Hurricane Katrina relief effort wasn’t more successful had nothing whatsoever to do with inherent limitations possible in such circumstances. It comes down to the sincerity, devotion, and commitment to do the best job possible for the animals—values sorely lacking in the leadership of the humane movement’s largest organizations. The only lesson to be gleaned from Hurricane Katrina is that we must be vigilant in defense of these dogs to avoid the lost opportunities and needless suffering that results when the large, national groups are left in charge and with no accountability.
HSUS and the ASPCA, which are fundraising off this case and claim to be on the scene assisting, have combined assets exceeding $300 million. Their annual budgets exceed $200 million. They claim the support of millions of animal lovers. They have a national, indeed global, reach. We will not accept dead dogs because someone says there are too many or not enough helpers.
We will not accept the type of defeatism that sees killing as an inevitability. Even when the groups that make the claim otherwise deserve our praise and gratitude for all they have done to change the reputation and plight of Pit Bulls, as they most certainly have in other circumstances and in other contexts. Because it is not who is right that matters. It is what is right. And the views currently being expressed about these dogs just aren’t right. It is a defeatist mentality the dogs can ill afford. We have to demand what we have the right to expect! We have a right to demand what the dogs—whose lives so precariously hang in the balance—so richly deserve! And we have the right to demand what is so incredibly feasible! Once again,
We have found our voice, and recognize the potential its fullest expression can create. No more compromises. No more killing.
From: www.nathanwinograd.com
Browse > Home / Blog Posts / Demanding What We Have the Right to Expect Demanding What We Have the Right to Expect
July 15, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd
Recent reports out of Missouri indicate that many of the dogs seized in the recent dog fighting raid are puppies. In addition, many of the dogs are pregnant and will shortly give birth. As a result, additional puppies will be born. Bowing to public pressure, the Humane Society of Missouri announced it is looking to place dogs who pass their behavior evaluation and the puppies with rescue groups. One of the requirements that they are insisting on is that the rescue groups have liability insurance to protect themselves from any possible liability, even though a waiver of liability will accomplish the same thing.
Unfortunately, many rescue groups do not have insurance. A policy can cost anywhere from $400 to two times that amount, depending on the volume of animals placed annually. In order to increase capacity for rescue, I am calling on the Humane Society of Missouri to drop the demand of liability insurance, in favor of a waiver of liability. If they refuse, I am calling on the ASPCA and HSUS to offer to pay the full premium for a one year liability policy for any rescue group willing to accept one or more of these dogs into their program. On the high end, assuming every dog went to a different rescue group and none of the groups had insurance (a highly unlikely proposition), it would only be $250,000, a small fraction of the combined $200 million they spend annually, and probably less than each will fundraise off of these dogs. Doing so would be both reasonable and proper. When people see these dogs on television and get out their checkbooks to donate, they expect the money to go to caring for and saving the lives of the dogs, not to be hoarded in their bank accounts, which occurs much too often. When HSUS puts out photographs and insists it is doing its part, as it did today, people expect that means the money they raise will go to the dogs and the dogs will be saved.
But make no mistake: that is not remotely enough. While I hope rescue groups come forward (saving the dogs is our immediate priority), once again the pressure is put on those groups who have the fewest resources to save the lives, while groups like HSUS offer crumbs, the same way they did after raising tens of millions of dollars and then leaving town, their coffers overflowing, during Hurricane Katrina. This is not acceptable now—and is not acceptable going forward.
That the dogs aren’t immediately being systematically killed as HSUS has historically promoted is certainly progress. But that, of course, is tempered when Wayne Pacelle says, as he did to a national press, that while the dogs will be evaluated for aggression, he expects them to fail and be killed anyway. And until the dogs are actually saved (it is still possible that most will not get out alive, but be killed under an HSUS promoted Sue Sternberg-type evaluation which favors death for pit bull-type dogs), that progress is very limited and, from the dogs’ perspective, still very tenuous.
As I stated in an earlier blog,
We must start demanding outcomes—outcomes that include rescuing, rehabilitating, and ultimately saving these dogs.
Any statement that elevates process (“we’ll test them”) over substance (“we’ll save them”) is weak, as it still leaves the door wide-open for killing. Since HSUS stated that “it’s pretty certain that a lot of those dogs will not pass a behavioral test,” even as they release photographs of the dogs kissing those caring for them and even though we now know that many of them are still only puppies, it is not clear how much the dogs will have benefitted. It is not progress from the dogs’ perspective if the outcome—death—is the same.
And while it is great that the Humane Society of Missouri is reaching out to rescue groups for help, saving the dogs should not be dependent on rescue groups coming forward, when the two largest and wealthiest animal protection organizations—HSUS and the ASPCA—are actively involved. It is not an issue of capacity or resources at this point. All alone, HSUS and the ASPCA have the public relations power, financial wherewithal and global reach to save these dogs and find them homes. All they lack is the will to do so—enabled by our historic failure to demand that they do. It is only 400 dogs, many of them puppies. They can do it alone. And we should expect them to. That is what they imply in their fundraising. That is what the public believes will happen when they donate. That is what we should logically expect in these situations. If saving dogs in extraordinary situations such as this is not their mission, what on earth is?
So rather than rejoice when they say they are “assisting” in the care of the dogs; and rather than remind everyone that HSUS now has a “policy of recommending that all dogs seized from such operations be professionally evaluated to determine whether they are suitable candidates for adoption,” this is the tenor of the statement we should expect from HSUS to animal lovers around the country who are anxious and concerned about the ultimate fate of these dogs:
The Humane Society of the United States wants to assure everyone concerned over the fate of these dogs that we are doing everything in our power to provide unconditional love and the best care possible for the victims of these crimes. Their welfare is our utmost concern, and every action we take on their behalf will be guided by compassion for their plight, respect for the lives, and an unwavering commitment to ensuring we find them a safe, loving environment, in which to spend the rest of their lives. We know that rescue groups often have stretched resources. We know that shelters, like the Humane Society of Missouri, also have to care for the daily influx of dogs and cats in their shelter. So as the nation’s largest, richest, and most powerful animal protection organization, we are stepping up to the plate. If any rescue groups have the capacity to help, we’ll welcome it. But rest assured: we will not allow a single one of these dogs to lose their lives. However long it takes, however much it costs, we will save all the puppies. We will save all the dogs. And if any are aggressive, we will undertake a comprehensive rehabilitation. That is our pledge to them. And that is our pledge to you.
They didn’t say this, of course. But they should. Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid. Case in point: In 1994, Richard Avanzino, then President of the San Francisco SPCA pledged to save each and every healthy homeless dog and cat “no matter how many there were, how long it took to find them a home, or which San Francisco shelter they entered.” HSUS said it was impossible. But the rest, as they say, is history…
Browse > Home / Blog Posts / Raising the Bar Raising the Bar
July 18, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd
Animal lovers across the country are anxious about the fate of some 400 dogs who were seized from dog fighters and are now in the custody of the Humane Society of Missouri (HSMO). Initially, all we heard were ominous statements from those involved—including the Humane Society of the United States whose CEO stated that he was “pretty certain” most of the dogs would be killed, the ASPCA whose representative stated that we should not expect the same outcome as the Michael Vick case (where most dogs were saved), and even HSMO which would not comment. The resulting public outcry and pressure led to more optimistic statements and actions. The dogs are not fully out of harm’s way, but there has been progress. HSMO has reached out to rescue groups. Photographs have been released of very friendly looking and loving dogs kissing and snuggling their caretakers. In addition, the dogs appear to be receiving plenty of socialization and care. We are more hopeful, but we also remain vigilant for all the reasons I stated in my prior blog. The dogs are not yet saved.
Sadly, I’ve read blog postings and have seen e-mails from even Pit Bull advocacy groups that suggest we prepare ourselves for inevitable killing:
“We just have too damn many dogs and never enough helpers;”
“[E]ven with hardcore efforts, good dogs will still lose out;” and,
“[Hurricane] Katrina is a reminder that in all kinds of disasters, including the economic disaster and this cruelty disaster, good efforts do not always add up to the widespread happy endings that victims of these cases so richly deserve.”
I’ve read that we should put off worrying about the dogs: “…we’re getting a lot of mail from people who want to see the dogs…given a chance to be rescued… If and when the dogs are released to the authorities, that’s when we can begin speculating about their rescue.” This sort of language is wrong on so many different levels.
First of all, the primary reason progress is being made in this movement is because of the vocal opposition to traditional policy by the grassroots. It is unfair (not to mention patronizing) when those in charge of organizations seek to forestall grassroots efforts by trying to dictate when it is appropriate for them to make their voices heard. Our strength lies is in their numbers and our power in the expression of their convictions. I, too, received many e-mails from people who are concerned and wondering what they can do to make sure the dogs don’t get killed. It would never have crossed my mind to tell them, in effect, to simmer down; to leave it to the self-proclaimed experts. To wait and see. Instead, I encouraged them to make their voices heard, to let the Humane Society of Missouri, HSUS, the media know that they will not tolerate killing. These are the soldiers who will overthrow the regime based on killing. This is our army of compassion.
No Kill is a revolution. And like any revolution, we have our battles. Each is an opportunity to challenge accepted ways of doing business that favor killing, by demanding that they be replaced with life-affirming choices. Each battle is a chance not just to save lives in the immediate sense, but to destroy long-held assumptions about what is possible and to prove there is a better way. Each battle is an opportunity to remind the leaders of the large national organizations that it is time for change. Most importantly, each battle is an opportunity to gain ground in the war we are fighting, to push the envelope, to heighten expectations of what is acceptable so that when the next crisis happens, when the next battle is upon us, the animals are that much safer and we are that much further along.
I am not sure why people are calling for restraint when we are being told to expect killing, when we are being told that it is “pretty certain,” that we should not expect a replication of the Michael Vick case, that there aren’t enough “qualified” rescue groups, that we saved only half of the 25 dogs last time and that’s better than none. Since when were those the only choices? Why set the bar so low?
The message in response should be: No. We will not accept this. These dogs must not be killed. And we have the power to make that happen. We forced HSUS into retreat after their massacre of the dogs and puppies in Wilkes County. We took the wealthiest, largest, most powerful organization in the country and we brought them to their knees. They were forced to recant. They were forced to change their policy. Not because Wayne Pacelle really cares and realized he got it wrong. Not because they learned from their mistakes. But because the power of our ideal, the strength in our numbers, the righteousness of our message was too strong for them to counter with all their lies, prevarications, and chants of “kill, kill, kill.” They couldn’t defend it. And it is not the first time. We forced them to embrace TNR. We forced them to accept offsite adoptions. We forced them to accept rescue groups. All things they have historically opposed. We’ve also forced them to modify their language on No Kill; and, in short order, we will force them ultimately to make good on those claims.
Second, I worked in animal control. I worked at a private shelter. I’ve done rescue. I’ve consulted with shelters all over the country. I’ve been in the trenches for years. And I say this for one reason: to let people know that it doesn’t take that kind of expertise to champion the ideal of No Kill. It doesn’t require any insider knowledge to know right from wrong. There are no extenuating circumstances or specialized skill-sets that would reveal anything different from what we know in our hearts: killing these dogs is wrong and it is totally unnecessary. And groups and voices on this issue must keep allegiance to the ideal and not hold themselves as having some insider knowledge that the “little people” (who are not so little, who have the numbers on their side, and who care very deeply) just don’t get. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating here: Groups which are going to claim a leadership role in this movement must mirror the discontent of the grassroots, not seek to keep it in check.
Because it is ultimately the vigilance on the part of the American public against the architects of the paradigm of killing we live with today that is going to save those dogs and future dogs who find themselves in the same predicament. It’s not about speculation. It’s about holding the feet of groups like HSUS to the fire, because when we don’t, it ends up as a massacre. The lives of the dogs are too precious to leave to the self-proclaimed experts.
Third, one of the more disturbing things about the way this case was handled is the lack of comprehensive planning—a planning which should have been going on even before the raid occurred when the agency was approached by the FBI for assistance during the investigation. It is planning that has made a difference in whether deaths have increased or decreased during this economic downturn. And it is a planning that can make a profound difference in cases such as the one in Missouri.
When I was director of the Tompkins County SPCA, for example, we were approached by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets which was investigating substandard conditions from a state licensed-breeder involving upwards of 250 dogs in what was described as filthy conditions and dogs with major medical issues. They approached us to participate both in the investigation by having our officers assist, as well as in sheltering the dogs.
We agreed and planned ahead. We set up the infrastructure. In the end, only 60 dogs came to our facility (although virtually all of them had “issues” including neurological conditions, rotten teeth, infections, severe matting, blindness, and more). But by the time they arrived, we already had rescue groups lined up (we did not tell them where the dogs were coming from so as not to jeopardize the investigation), we already had veterinarians on notice, we had a legion of volunteers on alert, and we had a media promotion plan to get the dogs adopted.
I remember walking through the shelter within an hour of their arrival to witness an awesome sight:
An assembly line of volunteers bathing, drying, and grooming the dogs.
Staff and volunteer veterinary technicians, and students from Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine providing medical care (under the direction of a clinician).
Volunteers transporting dogs to local veterinary clinics to augment the volunteer onsite veterinarians who cleared their calendars to assist.
The local news station, newspaper, and radio station asking their viewers, readers, and listeners to come forward.
Volunteers socializing with the dogs, sometimes just sitting on the other side of the kennel because the dogs were not yet used to human contact.
And all the dogs were saved. Not some of them. All of them. And we did it without the tremendous financial resources of HSUS and the ASPCA. Without the national media power of these groups. Without the millions of animal loving members and global reach.
So enough defeatism. Enough apologia preparing us for what they wrongly believe is inevitable killing. That is not the future we choose. Saving these dogs can and must be done. We do not accept the old thinking and old behavior when they say that “We just have too damn many dogs and never enough helpers.” This is an extraordinary situation and with the right leadership, there will be an extraordinary response.
Fourth, citing Hurricane Katrina as proof that “good efforts do not always add up to the widespread happy endings” is misplaced. A fellow Board Member of the No Kill Advocacy Center was there, on behalf of another organization, coordinating a large scale rescue. People I work with and trust were there, neck deep in water pulling animals to safety, smashing down doors to rescue them. I went there, as well, to do training of Parish animal control officers, to train activists on feral cat rescue, and to review operations for a shelter and rescue group on the Gulf Coast.
Hurricane Katrina could have had a much different outcome if the groups which took the lion’s share of the public largesse and had the most capacity to help had done the job the public thought they were doing when they wrote their checks. HSUS left after spending only $4 million of some $20 million raised for the effort and announced “Mission Accomplished,” even while animals were still suffering in horrific numbers. Their “rescue effort” was so badly mismanaged that they were openly condemned by people and groups who normally look the other way. In fact, it cost the Vice-President of Companion Animals for HSUS, the person responsible for coordinating the rescue effort, her job.
The ASPCA also raised a lot of money. They focused their resources on a newly created spay/neuter group run by a person who had no experience and who was hoarding the money rather than distributing the vouchers to the animal control officers, rescuers, and people who needed it. In fact, in 2006, I complained to ASPCA President Ed Sayres about it in a letter. Not surprising, but no less tragic, he offered a thoughtless, knee-jerk defense of her and told me she was doing a great job. It took him some time to see the light because Sayres has never been a champion of oversight and accountability, but the mismanagement was so bad, he ultimately did so. She, too, was removed.
In addition, the Louisiana SPCA which had the most capacity of any of the local groups and did a fraction of the effort of rescue groups like Animal Rescue New Orleans (ARNO) got the lion’s share of the ASPCA grant money for Hurricane Katrina relief. And while ARNO and others were still searching for wayward animals and feeding thousands of others, the Louisiana SPCA was solidifying plans to use the grant money to build a flashy dog agility center, while simultaneously cutting back kennel space. Don’t tell me it could not have been different—that the Hurricane Katrina relief effort wasn’t more successful had nothing whatsoever to do with inherent limitations possible in such circumstances. It comes down to the sincerity, devotion, and commitment to do the best job possible for the animals—values sorely lacking in the leadership of the humane movement’s largest organizations. The only lesson to be gleaned from Hurricane Katrina is that we must be vigilant in defense of these dogs to avoid the lost opportunities and needless suffering that results when the large, national groups are left in charge and with no accountability.
HSUS and the ASPCA, which are fundraising off this case and claim to be on the scene assisting, have combined assets exceeding $300 million. Their annual budgets exceed $200 million. They claim the support of millions of animal lovers. They have a national, indeed global, reach. We will not accept dead dogs because someone says there are too many or not enough helpers.
We will not accept the type of defeatism that sees killing as an inevitability. Even when the groups that make the claim otherwise deserve our praise and gratitude for all they have done to change the reputation and plight of Pit Bulls, as they most certainly have in other circumstances and in other contexts. Because it is not who is right that matters. It is what is right. And the views currently being expressed about these dogs just aren’t right. It is a defeatist mentality the dogs can ill afford. We have to demand what we have the right to expect! We have a right to demand what the dogs—whose lives so precariously hang in the balance—so richly deserve! And we have the right to demand what is so incredibly feasible! Once again,
We have found our voice, and recognize the potential its fullest expression can create. No more compromises. No more killing.
I look forward to learning much here