OMG...This is TERRIBLE!

[Kat's Dogs]

Perfectly brought forward points Tranquillis!

[Shetlander]

Perfectly brought forward points Tranquillis!

 

I agree. Though I think 10 per week for volunteers is too much to expect. With travel and breaks, that would be like a day and a half per week volunteering. For those with full time jobs, that'd leave half a day a week for family, fun, chores, errands, etc. So really, we'd need to double the number of volunteers needed, at least.

[Tranquilis]

If we doubled the number of needed volunteers, we're looking at an organization that would rival the USMC for size and complexity.

 

Honestly, my argument is actually full of holes. I deliberately simplified a lot of issues, swept past others, and chose generous approximations and assumptions - I greatly understated the task. On the other hand, if someone can come up with a reasonable way to actually meet my numbers, we could do incredible things for shelter animals accross the nation, even if we couldn't do everything needed.

 

 

Now, please, do not get me wrong - I *like* the idea of well-run no-kill shelters. I think we *could* have a LOT more of them, with some work. Sadly, I've seen some no-kill shelters that were, well, not well-run. And collecting funding, resources, facilities, and volunteers is a LOT of work... Not all that many people, relatively speaking, are skilled at those kinds of things, and those that are so skilled are highly sought-after by a wide variety of valid and needy causes.

 

But do I think we're going to solve the euthenasia problem that simply? I do not. It will require a massive cultural shift, including the de-comercialization of breeding, to bring the animal population problem under control. I personally consider pets and working animals a lot like I do firearms... You have a right to have one, but you do not have a right to be careless or stupid with one. If you are careless or stupid with your animals, you should lose your right to have one until such time as you can demonstrate that you're prepared to treat them correctly. But that's culturally impossible at this day and time.

[kelpiegirl]

I had a a whole different take on this story. To me, it isn't that the dogs were euthanized- this occurs day in day out, right or wrong. It's that the animal was not confirmed expired before being put into a freezer. I for one would like to know if any protocols were in place for euthanasia, and if they were followed. And, subsequent to this issue, have changes in protocol been implemented that would prevent such things from happening again. This is an animal welfare issue, and charges could very well be levied against both the institution and the individuals who were negligent in carrying out their duties.

[MaggieDog]

Agreed kelpiegirl - the majority of this thread was in direct reaction to some general comments, not the actual story. Euthanasia is a task that requires training and continuing education and doing it to a set standard (i.e. as humane, quick, painless, etc. as possible), all things that may be lacking in the situation in the link.

[Tranquilis]

It's that the animal was not confirmed expired before being put into a freezer. I for one would like to know if any protocols were in place for euthanasia, and if they were followed. And, subsequent to this issue, have changes in protocol been implemented that would prevent such things from happening again.

Amen.

 

This was also my initial take, but the thread drifted rather far from its original point. You have neatly summed up the questions that need to be asked and answered.

[Aquarius89]

Weird, before I saw this article tonight and read your point, Tranquilis, I was thinking about those who do the job of sending animals to RB. You are completely correct. There is not enough space in shelters and there are not enough homes to provide for dogs who need them. Until pet owners step up to the plate and take on their responsibilities and really recognize the consequences of their actions, things will never change. Until then, all we can do is save the ones we can, mourn for the ones we've lost, and hope people will eventually see what is happening and change.

 

But yes, it is disturbing that someone wouldn't notice a dog wasn't gone yet before placing them in that freezer. Deeply disturbing. I hope appropriate action will be taken against whoever is responsible for this.

[Eileen Stein]

Has anybody here read Nathan Winograd's book Redemption? I would really be interested in y'all's opinions after reading this article, and "The No-Kill Equation," to which it links.

 

Tranquilis, I gotta disagree with that litany of fallacies you threw at Skyler. I don't think the words you quoted fit any of those fallacies. Skyler was simply making an argument by analogy. You probably think the analogy is invalid because a human's life is different in some essential quality to a dog's life, and therefore you cannot generalize between the two species as to when it is appropriate to kill them. If so, that would be a valid response to the analogy. Although Skyler, as a Buddhist, might not agree with you in making that differentiation between different species, you would at least have pinpointed your point of disagreement.

[Tranquilis]

Tranquilis, I gotta disagree with that litany of fallacies you threw at Skyler. I don't think the words you quoted fit any of those fallacies.

I used to spend a good deal of time in the Gread Debates forum on the Straight Dope, a message board where they shred argumentative fallacies with great glee and unparalled razor-fine precision. I 'pulled the punch,' recognizing that not everyone has been exposed to that level of debate. Argument by analagy is fine, when the analagy is apt. Use of emotionally inflamitory and/or false comparisons isn't fine, and she used both at once.

[Eileen Stein]

I disagree. If the analogy isn't apt, why isn't it apt? Why is it a false comparison? If you address that point, you advance the discussion; if you just call names, you don't.

 

ETA: As I understand Skyler's point, it is that with regard to children, people don't accept euthanasia as an option, and therefore don't use "not enough money, not enough homes, not enough food, not enough health care, not enough love and so abuse, not enough, not enough not enough" as sufficient justification for not making greater and more creative efforts to solve the problem, as they do with dogs. "If people keep accepting the option of euthanasia it will always be the way out rather than force society to find another cure." You may not agree with this point of hers, but why does it qualify as a fallacy?

 

BTW, have you read the material I linked to? You might find it interesting.

[phej]

Eileen, this is fascinating. I haven’t read the book, but after skimming through the article, I want to make a quick point. I can easily agree with a lot of points brought up by Winograd. I don’t think any of us would argue against striving for better shelter management, staffing shelters better, against effective public campaigns to bring more foster homes on board or against other alternative solutions. Cudos to Winograd and anyone else working toward these changes. But I can’t help to also realize that the shelter/rescue situation is not distributed evenly around the US or even within individual states and counties. And I can’t but notice that Winograd moved to a county where these changes would, in my opinion, be the easiest to implement. I don't know enough about San Francisco, but I do know Tompkins County. For those of you who are not familiar with Tompkins County SPCA – it is located in Ithaca, NY – a happy hippie community filled with intellectuals attending and working at Cornell Uni and other institutions of higher education. A place attracting upper middle class people who enjoy the atmosphere of a small town where they can spend their weekends by shopping for organic foods at their amazing local farmer’s market or hiking in the fabulous state parks around (I am of course exaggerating, but I am hoping I am making the point clear). Yes, the shelter is amazing – it was one of the shelters we went to when we were looking for what turned out to be Mollie. I admire what they have done there – the dogs have “apartments” within the building (I am kidding you not) and it was one of the few places I left not feeling like a piece of crap. But raising awareness and bringing people on board in places where people are already aware, and just need little push is one thing. Telling shelter workers and volunteers in those Midwest and other shelters that experience an influx of unwanted animals every minute of the day that THEY are the problem… is kind of unfair, at least in my opinion. I am pretty new to the rescue world and 'culture', and I quickly learnt that there are a lot of bad shelters with bad (if not rightout vicious) management. But I have also learnt that the situation varies significantly throughout the country, and there are a lot of external variables other than 'shelter management' that need to be taken into account. Curious to see how others respond to the article...

PS Just to sum up - I agree that we should strive for what Winograd suggests, and I love no-kill shelters, but I am not sure if at this point, it is entirely realistic to assume that focusing on shelter management will take care of the problem. Education (and a lot of it), social pressure and extensive spay and neuter programs combined with better staff management are the way to go in my opinion.

PS2 Oh, and I want to make clear that I do not think that there is a straightforward relationship between higher education/economic status and better care for animals. What I mean is that some places are blessed with a higher number of people who are aware of the overpopulation situation and where there is a social consensus on the importance of animal welfare... or something along those lines.

[Eileen Stein]

I think you make a valid point. I'm sure Charlottesville, VA (one of the other places named which have adopted this approach) is similar to the description you gave of Tompkins County. Whether San Francisco and Reno, NV and the other places which have had pretty spectacular results are as favorable demographically, I don't know. But the point that jumps out at me is that whatever their demographics are, they were the same demographics before the No-Kill approach was implemented as they were afterwards, and therefore the much, much higher kill statistics before that time apparently CAN fairly be attributed to faults in shelter management and a complacent acceptance that nothing could be done. A change in approach and attitude might not produce total success in less enlightened jurisdictions, but there's some reason--based on the results we've seen--to think that they would produce a substantial improvement. An improvement that won't come without that change in approach and attitude.

 

I am not sure if at this point, it is entirely realistic to assume that focusing on shelter management will take care of the problem. Education (and a lot of it), social pressure and extensive spay and neuter programs combined with better staff management are the way to go in my opinion.

 

Education, social pressure and extensive spay and neuter programs are an essential part of the No-Kill Equation as Winograd conceives and implements it. But they are seen as part of a shelter management's responsibilities. To quote:

 

[T]he first step is a decision, a commitment to reject killing as the primary shelter population management tool. No Kill starts as an act of will. The next step involves putting in place the infrastructure to save lives.

 

Following a commitment to No Kill is the need for accountability. Accountability means having clear definitions, a lifesaving plan, and charting successes and failures. Clear protocols should be established, and staff properly trained to ensure that each and every animal is given a fair evaluation and a chance for placement or treatment. But accountability also allows, indeed requires, flexibility. Too many shelters lose sight of this principle, staying rigid with shelter protocols, believing these are engraved in stone. They are not. Protocols are important because they ensure accountability from staff. But protocols without flexibility can have the opposite effect: stifling innovation, causing lives to be needlessly lost, and allowing shelter employees who fail to save lives to hide behind a paper trail.

 

The decision to end an animal’s life is an extremely serious one, and should always be treated as such. No matter how many animals a shelter kills, each and every animal is an individual, and each deserves individual consideration.

 

And finally, to meet the challenge that No Kill entails, shelter leadership needs to get the community excited, to energize people for the task at hand. By working with people, implementing lifesaving programs, and treating each life as precious, a shelter can transform a community.

 

The mandatory programs and services include:

 

I. Feral Cat TNR [trap, neuter, release] Program

 

II. High-Volume, Low-Cost [non-compulsory] Spay/Neuter

 

III. [Cooperation with] Rescue Groups

 

IV. Foster Care

 

V. Comprehensive Adoption Programs

 

VI. Pet Retention

 

VII. Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation

 

VIII. Public Relations/Community Involvement

 

IX. Volunteers

 

X. A Compassionate Director

[phej]

But the point that jumps out at me is that whatever their demographics are, they were the same demographics before the No-Kill approach was implemented as they were afterwards, and therefore the much, much higher kill statistics before that time apparently CAN fairly be attributed to faults in shelter management and a complacent acceptance that nothing could be done.

You are right, of course... but only as long as the no-kill shelters have open admission. I believe that TC SPCA does not turn animals away, but they do have a waiting list (or so I heard). In which case it is entirely possible that some % of owner turn-ins may end up somewhere in a kill shelter and increase the number of PTS in those places while keeping TC SPCA a no-kill (and it may even be in a different county, so the stats would not catch that). And as long as the media campaigns of these shelters do not attract too many adopters from other counties (nothing wrong with that except that it would skew the relevant statistics, and the program could not be implemented with the same success rate in the surrounding counties in the future - since they could not draw on such a large pool of adopters). But I don't have the numbers, so I admit I am totally speculating on this one.

 

A change in approach and attitude might not produce total success in less enlightened jurisdictions, but there's some reason--based on the results we've seen--to think that they would produce a substantial improvement. An improvement that won't come without that change in approach and attitude.

Absolutely.

 

Education, social pressure and extensive spay and neuter programs are an essential part of the No-Kill Equation as Winograd conceives and implements it. But they are seen as part of a shelter management's responsibilities.

I couldn't open one of the articles you sent, it must come from that (I obviously need to read the book). While I agree with pretty much everything he says and does, I do resent the idea of putting all the responsibility on the shoulders of the shelter staff and managers. I think that public schools, public media and even places such as the church have a big education deficit here as well... lol...

[ShoresDog]

Awesome post, Eileen. I see a lot of these features in the program here in San Diego, where the city shelters and the San Diego Humane Society are very active and pretty successful. One feature that I think is absolutely required to make it happen is..... LEADERSHIP! Having a really strong person in charge can make a huge difference.

[Dixie_Girl]

The problem is that all these great ideas are exactly that, on paper. Reality is somewhat different. In my county, I can't imagine people getting excited about spay/neutering when it is all they can do to keep their younguns fed and clothed. And yes, if you can't afford that, you shouldn't own an animal, but there again, you are asking to change people that have an inheirent dislike for change. In communities like mine to have a no kill shelter, you would have to not just change a few minds, but the whole community. Now in nearby Greenwood county, they do have a no kill shelter. But it does not accept more animals than it can handle, and truthfully, most people go there to get dogs, not turn them in. Most animals are taken care of at home. With a .10 solution. No kill is great. But you can't tell me that if you have 50 dogs, yapping all hours, small enclosures, little human contact, and especially if this dog came from a home, that a dog placed here will do good. The more sensitive a dog is the quicker it is going to start shutting down. Communities that have DIYA with 2.3 children that have nice clothes and go to nice schools, and their dogs/cats are well taken care of, yes, they will be very open to no kill shelters. But there are many communities across the land that do not fall into that nice little square. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. Starting the first of the year, I am committing one spay/neuter a month to my vet. IOW, if there is a person with a dog or cat that would get it altered but can not afford it, I will pay for it to be done. It isn't much, but it is all I can do at this time. Perhaps it will snow ball into others who can afford it(and there are plenty that could)to help also, and expand to other vets. All the discussion in the world won't change these dogs/cats lives. Action is what is needed. Putting people down for doing what, as unpopular, or immoral as it may be to some, have to do, is not going to help a bit.

 

I have a belief that if everyone able in a community were to help, communities could be cured of many of it's ills. But we have turned into a nation of "let someone else" syndrome. And it's getting worse. I remember when Prez Reagan said the guvment would no longer fund soup kitchens and food banks. The whole country made a collective moan. He wants to see children starve. He doesn't care. There will be wide spread hunger like a third world country. Amazingly, none of that was true, and communities started having food drives and started taking care of their own. We need to stop looking for someone else to make a move. Like Animal Planets new slogan says, Reach Out, Act, Respond, ROAR! One person doing one thing can lead to a landslide of lots of people doing lots of things.