Temporary Hiatus

Apologies to anyone who has been looking for new posts recently. The paying job has been kicking my butt recently, and I will be traveling over the holiday period.

But keep your eyes peeled in the New Year.  I will be back with more for all you dog lovers out there.

Thanks for keeping the faith!

Happy Holidays to every one of you!!!!!!

IanF

GIVING THANKS –DOGGY STYLE!

Okay, so it’s Thanksgiving.  A time for giving thanks for everything that enriches our lives. A time for acknowledging how blessed we really are.  So, I thought I’d list a few of the dog-related things that I am truly grateful for.

I’m thankful for every dog, past and present, that has been a member of my family.  From my youngest days to my current state of rapidly advancing years (okay, I’m not that old, but some days it feels like it!), I have constantly been amazed at the unselfishness of these amazing animals.  Some of those dogs were with us for only a short time—as a child I learned the dangers of buying from a pet store when it was discovered our gorgeous puppy, Tuppence had contracted distemper—others were with us for their entire lives, and others are still with us.  Each and every one brought joy and laughter. They played the peacemaker when necessary and played the clown when it was most needed. Every single dog displayed a distinct personality, and every one brought something new to the family!  There is more than a hint of truth when you hear animal owners proclaim that they did not rescue the animal, the animal rescued them!

Not only am I thankful for the canine members of my family, I’m thankful for every dog and cat that I have met during my brief time in the world of animal advocacy and rescue.  Their unconditional love and their hopefulness in the face of often devastating adversity is a constant inspiration.

I’m thankful for the selfless devotion of the animal rescue advocates that it has been my pleasure to become acquainted with.  Time and again, I discover that although I think I am active in animal rescue and advocacy, my contributions are miniscule and insignificant compared to those of others. Also, if it was not for these people, I would never have received the companionship of my 3 current dogs: Suzie, Shadow and Sam!  I am especially thankful for the volunteers at Pet Rescue North, a no kill shelter in Jacksonville, Fl that you have heard me mention many times before, for Peggy and Mary Ann, for Fred and Deb, and for the many others that I have never met personally.

I’m thankful for the work of advocates such as Nathan Winograd, The No Kill Advocacy Center, and The No Kill Nation who work tirelessly to expose the hypocrisy of organizations killing healthy and treatable animal that they are supposed to be caring for, and to debunk the bureaucratic excuses used to rationalize this behavior.  It is the work of people such as Nathan (hopefully, I’ll get to meet him one day) and the related no kill organizations that bolster my belief that one day the United States will actually become the nation of animal lovers that it is supposed to be.

I’m thankful for my loving wife, Val, who not only agrees with and participates in my animal related activities—few as they may be—she puts up with every time these activities interrupt something else: my time at the computer advertising dogs in need, my black moods when the stories of despair seem just too much, and the days when it must seem as though the dogs are more important than she is.  Don’t worry; I’m pretty sure she thinks the dogs are more important than I am!

Obviously, the list is incredibly incomplete and, in some ways, I am thankful for that also. If I could include everything animal-related that I am thankful for in a short list, it would mean that only a few animal-related things in this world were worth giving thanks for . . . and this is so obviously not the case!  We have been tasked with the responsibility of protecting this amazing planet we live on, and with caring for the vast array of life upon that planet, and thankfully it appears that an increasing number of people are taking that responsibility seriously!

Take a moment to give thanks to your companion animals. They are doing what comes naturally to them but, even if you don’t realize it yet, they are giving you a gift just by being in your life . . . and I’m sure your parents taught you that you are supposed to be thankful for gifts!

So from Val, Shadow, Suzie, Sam, and me to all friends of animals out there, and their companion animals:

WE WISH YOU ALL A WONDERFUL THANKSGIVING!

 

 

 

DYING FOR THE HOLIDAYS!

Some recent animal-related events in the North East Florida region have kept me from posting on this blog as frequently as I would like.  I am sure my readers accept that trying to save animals must take precedence. However, one of those events is worth discussing here.  In the callous world of so-called animal “shelters” killing healthy or treatable animals rather than truly trying to find homes, this struck me as particularly horrendous.

101512-11JP 003Bradford Co. Animal Shelter and Control, Starke, Fl 

On Sunday, 11 November, 2012, an email was circulated around various animal rescue organizations and advocates in N.E. Florida. The subject was the Bradford County Animal Shelter and Control located in Starke, Florida and the email contained photographs and a list of over thirty cats and dogs at the shelter.  Animal advocates in this area are well aware of this “shelter” and its killing policies.  In my limited experience I have not dealt with this particular “shelter”, but one advocate, a person I trust implicitly, stated that, “This shelter is so poor that they euthanize in each kennel then lay the dogs in the aisles where the other dogs can smell and see.”

As expected, recipients of the email sprang into action—spreading the word through social networking—to see if these animals could be saved.  After a few days, one person that I know of contacted the “shelter” to ask how long we had to find homes for these animals.  And it was in the response to this question that I discovered one of the most callous, heinous, and unforgiveable attitudes that I personally have heard of: They hope to have all the dogs gone one way or the other by next Wednesday due to the [Thanksgiving] holiday.



102512-QA 003 Bradford Co. Animal Shelter and Control, Starke, Fl 

Because I am a third party to this communication this is as close to a direct quote that I can be and I added the emphasis, but when I asked the recipient of this statement whether I was interpreting the statement correctly, that the animals will either be rehomed or will be dead by next Wednesday, it was confirmed that I was not the only one interpreting it that way!  And to prove the accuracy of this statement we then heard that the killing would begin on Monday, 19 November, 2012!

People in the animal rescue world are used to such deadlines, but what I find most horrific is the underlying text of the statement: If the facility is empty on the Thanksgiving holiday, the staff will not have to interrupt their own celebrations with the need to go into work to look after all those pesky critters!

Think of the meaning of Thanksgiving, a holiday where Americans traditionally give thanks for all that is great in their lives, a holiday that celebrates the blessings we encounter each and every day, a holiday where many give back to those less fortunate than themselves.  Apparently in Starke, Fl (and in many other communities around this country) this giving back doesn’t extend to our four-legged friends, many of whom were previously in homes until they became a nuisance for some reason.  Perhaps they became old or ill or just too damn inconvenient!  Whatever the reason, I wonder if those former owners knew that their former friend and family member would never see another Thanksgiving?



101512-13JP 003 Bradford Co. Animal Shelter and Control, Starke, Fl 

It should go without saying that Bradford County Animal Shelter and Control (interesting how the word “control” is slipped in at the end of the title there) is not the only organization clearing the book so they can enjoy their holiday; they just happened to come to my attention.  So will the staff of those shelters be giving thanks for their day off? Will they be down on their knees asking forgiveness for what they had to do in order to get that day off?  Or will they be too busy stuffing their faces to worry about it?

The America that I chose to become a citizen of is supposed to be a nation of animal lovers. How can this be true when some people are able to celebrate because of the indiscriminate killing of innocent animals? And I hope I don’t hear any of the usual bureaucratic excuses . . . I don’t see the hospitals killing off their patients so the nurses and doctors don’t have to go into work on Thursday!

Who says the public doesn't care!

In the works of Nathan Winograd a recurring theme is the excuse given by kill-shelters that there are not enough people who care, not enough people willing to adopt, not enough people willing to foster, and therefore animals must be killed. Nathan Winograd argues against this vehemently. I just thought today I would share an experience that supports Winograd rather than the excuse makers. 

flyer posted on PRN's Facebook page
 

Recently, a speckled coonhound was surrendered to a vet’s office by the owner who claimed a history of food aggression and snapping or biting from this dog. An employee at the vet's office who received the dog sent out an e-mail stating that they had seen no evidence of this, but, unfortunately, they would be unable to keep the dog more than a few days. If they were unable to find the dog a home by Sunday, 11 November 2012 the dog would have to be euthanized as requested by the owner. Pet Rescue North, a local no kill shelter in Jacksonville Florida, unable to save the dog directly because their kennels were full, posted this information on their Facebook page seeking help.  

Pet Rescue North is a small organization with only just over 400 likes on Facebook, but the response was overwhelming. The post resulted in over 700 shares and almost 200 comments. Ultimately, the result was that a forever home was found for this dog. It is worth noting that comments were posted from as far away as South Africa. The forever home that was found was in Daytona, Florida, almost 100 miles away. Now the only problem is arranging transportation. This is a minor problem, but the most important thing is that this dog has been saved. 

The question has to be how can anybody claim that the public is not supportive of no-kill policies when a tiny pet rescue organization can put a simple request on Facebook and more than twice the number of people that they should reach shares the request in such a positive manner? 

The mission of no kill shelters is to save animals, whether those animals are in the care of that shelter or not. However, their efforts are being hindered by this belief of the kill shelters that the public does not care. When one small shelter can reach so many who care what could happen if kill shelters adopted policies of communicating with the public rather than just bureaucratically killing animals because they believe no one will care! All they need to do is give us time. 

Just as a final thought, this experience showed some of the limitations of Facebook, and will no doubt provide the basis for many posts on this blog to come. However, as far as the concern that the public may not care about the unnecessary killing of animals goes this experience blows that argument out of the water! So if you live in an area where the pound or the local shelter claims that there are not enough adopters out there, tell them that they are not working hard enough!

Kill Shelters: Animals May Not Be the Only Victims!

The failure of any local animal shelter run by a city or county government to effectively embrace and implement no-kill policies and procedures detrimentally affects all the no kill organizations in that region, and places untenable demands on the resources of those organizations.  This effectively limits the ability of the no kill organizations to achieve their adoption goals.  As a brief example, recent events in Jacksonville, Florida, will be described followed by my interpretation of the problems that exist.   

Please note that this is not an attempt to vilify Jacksonville Animal Care and Protective Services (ACPS) in particular.  Rather, it is simply a case of local familiarity on my part.  ACPS has done more than many governmentally-run shelters in reducing its kill rate (and less than some others) but recent events mirror what is happening in cities and counties throughout the country. 

Last week, ACPS once again issued an urgent plea for help from local animal adopters, foster families, and rescue organizations.  With the shelter full and actually over capacity, the plea contained a sympathetically and carefully worded but unmistakable threat to the lives of the animals. Inevitably, in the ensuing scramble to rescue the animals that ACPS now has to kill, the needs of the local no kill organizations become secondary to the needs of ACPS.  Available space is used to pull animals scheduled to be killed at ACPS, space that may have been used to house animals from other sources. Foster resources slated for use by the animals that come through the doors of the no kill shelters are now used to save the animals from one source, ACPS.  Advertising resources such as social media focus on seeking homes for the animals in ACPS rather than seeking homes for the animals already housed in the no kill shelters.  

Frequently, because ACPS is one of the best known shelters in the area and therefore a larger beneficiary of donations, volunteers, etc. (in addition to its admittedly meager government funding) than many others, the organizations being asked to help are smaller, have fewer advertising or public relations outlets, are less financially stable than ACPS, and are already stretched to breaking point, but because of their mission they feel compelled to help.  Not to do so would be hypocritical. Therein sits one problem: In an environment where, ideally, all organizations would be cooperating to achieve maximum benefit for all, the benefits of all but one organization are subsumed.   

Undoubtedly, ACPS has made huge strides in its live release versus kill rate over the last few years.  The work of organizations such as Friends of Jacksonville Animals in fundraising and notifying the public of animals available for adoption through ACPS has played an important part in this.  ACPS and its various partner organizations have made much of their desire to become a no kill facility and the publicity campaign has been so successful that some members of the local community seem to believe that ACPS has achieved no-kill status.  Nothing could be further from the truth but this misconception causes another of the underlying problems.  If the public believes ACPS is no kill then no sense of urgency to act exists until the latest news broadcast informs them of how many animals are about to be killed.  

As has been noted, the public awareness of ACPS, the public profile, means that they receive a large portion of the local charitable “pie”.  Yet their very existence and their kill policies, while reducing the resources available to other organizations, demands that their needs be met even when helping could push the smaller organizations over the edge in terms of financial viability.  It is not unlike allowing the demise of many smaller banks in order to save the big financial institutions during the recent economic crash. 

Additionally, the public profile of ACPS aided by its position as a governmental organization provides easier access to and coverage by local news organizations.  This makes the misconceptions about ACPS and the cyclical urgency to empty the shelter en masse (leading to the stress on other organizations) rather than achieving a steady flow of adoptions to counter the number of intakes all the more mystifying. Arguably, there is no animal rescue organization in Jacksonville that is more widely covered and reported on by the local news media:  regular television spots, blogs on the website of the local newspaper, etc.  This is media access that other shelters or rescue organizations only dream of and if used correctly should minimize the frequency of these “emergencies”. 

There can also be no doubt regarding the support available from the local community when they are given easy access to adoption services. For example, over the last weekend of March 2012, three organizations—including ACPS-- combined in what was known as the “Mega Match-a-Thon”. The goal was to find homes for 250 dogs and cats; the result was 304 animals found homes.  Approximately three and a half months later, during a multi-organization event, again including ACPS,  held at the Jacksonville Fairgrounds a goal of 800 adoptions was smashed when over 900 cats and dogs found new homes. 

Having said all this, it is obvious to anyone familiar with the No Kill Equation as proposed by the No Kill Advocacy Center that all the pieces are in place for ACPS to move fully toward its stated No Kill goals: a high public profile, proven public support, easy media access to increase donations and volunteers, a solid network of partner organizations, etc. The missing element appears to be the element that the No Kill Advocacy Center identifies as one of the most vital: Leadership committed to a No Kill future! This lack of leadership may be within the department itself, or it may be at the level of city government, it is not for me to say where, but there is no doubt of its existence.  A few months ago ACPS experienced budget cuts as part of a citywide budget restructuring.  The most widely publicized result was the demotion of the adoptions and rescue coordinator, June Mason, and her replacement by someone who had been involved in animal rescue related positions for less time than June but had been a governmental employee longer. During her employment in the position, June developed positive relationships with rescue organizations throughout not only the state but also the country.  A huge public outcry including a petition containing well over a thousand signatures failed to overturn a decision that was based on established union and governmental policies rather than on the welfare of the animals.  It is such blind adherence to bureaucracy rather than to proven effectiveness that prevents shelters throughout the nation from moving toward no kill status.  Perhaps no single event demonstrated the negative impact of June’s demotion more than the fact that this most recent plea for help was issued by ACPS’s Division Chief because the adoption and rescue coordinator was “not available”, an occurrence that I never witnessed when June held the position! 

I must reiterate that this is not an indictment of ACPS.  It is a reflection of something that happens on a daily basis in the United States because of the failure of the local “pounds”, for whatever reasons, to do the right thing, to embrace the no kill philosophy, and to use the advantages of their governmental position to bring this into reality. If all locally run shelters became no kill they could then become full members of the animal welfare community with all organizations pooling resources to work toward a common goal. A full partnership would result in the frequent saving of two animals for every one adopted: If the no kills could focus on adopting out their own animals, then every adopted animal creates a space to pull another from a kill shelter. A constant flow of adoptions and rescues could relieve the pressure on the kill shelter and the no kills. Until that occurs, government shelters will continue acting as an entity that all other organizations are expected to compete with, but are still expected to pull from the fire on a regular basis. And when, as they always will, the no kill organizations use their valuable resources to come to the aid of the kill shelters it is worth asking, not only about individual animals but also about smaller rescue groups: How many will not survive this time? 

"Accident", “Bureaucracy Gone Mad”, or “WTF?” The Needless Killing of Healthy Animals!

Think Lucky would surviuve your local shelter? Fortunately, she is in a no-kill shelter!

I believe in a no-kill philosophy when it comes to shelter animals. I follow several animal related blogs, Facebook pages, etc. But I can hardly be accused of obsessively scouring the news each day for stories about shelters needlessly killing animals in their “care”. Yet here we are on only the 19th day of October 2012 and already this month two horrendous stories regarding this particular topic have caught my attention. Some describe the situation leading to this as bureaucracy gone mad but, to me, a more appropriate response would be an acronym that is popular in the modern vernacular: WTF?

The month began with the story of “Toothless”, a cat belonging to eight year old boy in Logan, Utah, being “accidentally” killed by a humane society shelter when the family had informed the shelter that the cat would be picked up the following day. 

Yesterday, through a Facebook post by the No-Kill AdvocacyCenter, I learned of a dog being “accidentally” killed by the Central California SPCA when the family had already informed the shelter that they would be there to pick up the 11-month old Pit Bull named Scar. Apparently, after getting out of the yard, Scar was taken to the shelter by a neighbor who made various accusations against the dog, none of which were substantiated during an investigation by the SPCA.

In my opinion, there are two issues here. One is the culture of these shelters where killing healthy animals is not only accepted but even expected and often encouraged. The rush to kill animals is, in its own right, abhorrent!

The second issue is the apparent lack of checks and balances to ensure that such “accidents” do not occur. It is not difficult to disseminate information throughout a shelter stating that a family is coming to pick up an animal or that a rescue, be it adoption or fostering, is imminent. As a nurse I have worked in many hospitals and know that, although mistakes happen, the policies and procedures in place to keep these mistakes to a minimum are numerous: two licensed nurses checking medication orders, the five “rights” of medication administration (right medication, right dose, right patient, right route, etc.), the physical marking of limbs to be operated on, etc. to name just a couple of examples. So why aren’t there similar policies and procedures in place where animals’ lives are at stake? Or, if there are, why is nothing being done about incompetent workers? A nurse found guilty of such incompetence would be fired and their license revoked in a heartbeat. 

Think I’m exaggerating the problem by just naming two incidents? According to the No-Kill Advocacy Center, “‘Accidental’ killings of beloved pets happen every day in shelters in this country. Google ‘shelter mistakenly euthanized pet’ and you’ll get ‘About 205,000 results (0.34 seconds).’” Try it. I did and got 226, 000 (0.40 seconds). Now, admittedly, some of these results may be reported in more than one place. Some may be reported in more places than in others but, to pick an arbitrary number, let’s say that each incident is reported in an average of ten places . . . that is still 22, 600 incidents. Before you object, I know that this is not a scientific assessment of the number of individual incidents, but I hope you get my drift.


While hospital-like checks and balances may help—they don’t solve the problem, but they may reduce these “mistakes”--the only true way to end these tragedies, to stop healthy animals dying needlessly, is for the pet-loving public to pressure their local shelters into adopting a no-kill philosophy. Find out how you can achieve this at the No-Kill Advocacy Center’s website. Some of the rescue groups in your area may already be no-kill, but it is likely that the local government-run facilities—even if run by a “humane society” or a “society for the protection of animals”—are not! 

Unfortunately, until this happens, it seems that I am destined to say frequently, “WTF?” followed closely by, “Not again!”

SHOULD I FOSTER OR ADOPT?

My admiration for those who foster recued animals is enormous, but I frequently wonder how they can give up those animals in their care when a forever home is found.  My personal preference has always tended towards adoption rather than fostering, but that may be changing. What follows are my evolving thoughts on why true animal lovers should consider the possibility of fostering rather than adopting. Is it possible that fosters are performing a more valuable service to their animals than they would by adopting them?  

My wife, Val, and I have adopted several dogs over our lifetime.  But as, yet again, we see the signs of the impending loss of a beloved family member—the greying of the muzzle, the increasing number of days when sleeping seems more important than playing—a loss perhaps not imminent but undeniably inevitable, our thoughts increasingly turn to what we will do when our canine family is reduced by one. And with increasing frequency Val’s conversation veers toward fostering rather than adopting. 

I openly acknowledge that I possess a selfish streak. I adore the relationships that I build with my dogs over the years, and I dread the loss of each one of those relationships. The death of previous dogs left holes which never filled completely, even when a new dog entered the family.  Our only encounter with fostering seemed to reinforce my belief that I could never willingly give up a dog once they had entered our home. 



Lulu

This happened when a gorgeous young stray we named Lulu followed Val and Shadow home during their morning walk. We knew we could not care for another dog on a long-term basis and as we tried to locate Lulu’s owners, we thought that we had found a potential home with one of the techs at a local vet’s office.  This was not to be.  Through no fault of Lulu’s, the new owner found she was unable to keep Lulu and we had to take her back.   

 

It was then that we sought the help of our friends at PetRescue North (PRN) to find a forever home for Lulu. In the intervening weeks I quickly fell in love.  Lulu’s infectious smile and incessant playfulness not only brightened the lives of Val and me, but also of our other dogs. It was not long before a potential adopter was found, but I kept secretly hoping that something would render the application unsuitable.  There was no such problem, so we took Lulu to meet her potential new family.  Like us they were instantly smitten!  And, with mixed emotions, we left Lulu with her new family.  It turned out to be a perfect match: Lulu is loved and is given even more in the way of fun and care than possibly even we could provide.  Yet there is not a day goes by when I do not think of her. So how could I put myself through this on a regular basis?  

I discovered some possible answers to this question while planning the creation of materials aimed at increasing the number of foster available to PRN, materials which are still in the planning stage. As part of the process I posted a request on the PRN Facebook page for input from fosters regarding why they did what they did.  The response was immediate and passionate, and I have included some of those responses here.  I have had to edit some of the content because of space and repetition of ideas but note that in those edited portions several themes such as the number of dogs rescued by fostering rather than adopting appeared time and again! 

 

 

Catrina Harris said,  I always look at it like this . . . when you foster and let them go, you are giving them a chance at life, for a great home . . . letting go of one always means saving another life . . . if you keep them all, you are limited . . . .You may only be able to keep 5 dogs/cats in your home permanently . . . that is 5 dogs you have saved during the course of his/her life . . . which could be 15 years. Great, you saved 5 dogs in 15 years . . . but if you foster 5 dogs a year and find them homes . . . in 15 years you have saved 75 dogs. 

Sarah Speicher responded to my request by saying, Each time you let go, that's another happy family you helped create . . . It's not easy to let go, but that's when you get yourself another foster and pour all that loving onto them. 

Stephanie Hardee-Gant wrote . . . I love being a foster. The first time . . .  I won't lie. I cried like a baby when Rupper was adopted. But it always make me feel like I'm able to help and give love to so many more dogs this way. 

Catrina Harris again: There is no feeling like handing over your foster to their forever home . . . it is bitter sweet, but I keep in touch with a lot of my adopters years later . . . and they are some of my best friends now . . . I not only found these pets awesome homes, I gained friends all over the U.S. 

Cindi Depriest Van Vleck: I fostered to save lives because I know w/o foster homes none can be saved. Was it hard to let them go . . . yes some . . .  but each time the dog let me know that they knew the new family was theirs so it made letting them go easy .The pain of losing one foster was always replaced by the new face that needed a home for a while. 

Tanya Francisco Nelson: Another thing about fostering . . . it can work our great for people who travel a lot. This way you can have all the enjoyment of a pet when it is convenient for YOU without a full time commitment when it isn't. And you're saving lives. 

Alicia Merlino: A fostered dog may be more desirable because a potential family will know more about how the dog acts in that environment. 

Debra Williams: You may want to touch on the fact that by fostering dogs you give them a much higher chance of remaining in a forever home. Because they were fostered, they generally have been housetrained & learned some basic commands---which makes fostered dogs very appealing to those looking to adopt. Also, because a dog is living in a home versus a shelter--the foster family is able to get to know the dog & therefore pass on accurate information about how the dog behaves in a home setting. A foster family is more apt to know if the dog has any special behavioral needs. I think that the more info available to prospective adopters the better---kinda helps eliminate any surprises---and therefore should reduce the chance of a dog being returned.

 

In addition to the math showing how many more animals can be saved by fostering rather than adopting, an important--and often under-emphasized--role of the animal foster is found in the last two comments: the socialization, training, and preparation of the animals for a forever home.  Frequently, foster animals are placed in foster homes with other animals and with children.  The animals become used to living an environment as part of a family, they learn the rules and expectations in such environments, lessons they can often not learn in shelters. Successful adoptions involve the correct placement of particular animal temperaments in homes suited to those temperaments.  Shelter life is an abnormal environment for an animal and behavioral or temperamental tendencies may be masked in these situations.  Foster homes provide valuable opportunities to learn the true nature of an animal and match them to suitable adopters. 

While the staff and the volunteers of recue organizations provide the heart and the compassion of an animal rescue organization, the backbone, the ribs, the skeleton on which everything else hangs, the structure that makes everything else possible is a strong network of foster homes.  Some organizations do not have a physical shelter and rely entirely on their foster families.  In those organizations that do have a shelter, every dog placed in foster care leaves a space open in the shelter which can be used to save another animal. 

However, please don’t think of fostering as a cheap or easy way of receiving the benefits of a pet without the responsibility.  Fosters must play an active role in the placement of their charges by transporting them to adoption events, by ensuring the animal is ready for adoption, by providing appropriate medical care (although this is frequently paid for by the rescue organization) and by training.  It is a huge task, but if the response to my request for input from fosters is any indication it is also hugely rewarding!

 

To all fosters out there, our gratitude cannot be expressed loudly enough. Without you there would be no animal rescue movement! To those thinking of adopting, would you be more suited to fostering?  If you have room for two animals why not adopt one and use the other space to foster? With the nationwide pressure on available shelter space, foster homes may be even more valuable than adoptive homes at this time in attempts to move towards becoming a no-kill country. 







Shadow







Am I ready to become a foster rather than an adopter?  I’m not sure yet, but I’m certainly a lot closer than I was a couple of years ago, and the valiant heroes quoted above played a massive role in this change.  I still dread the day when I have to make the decision because it means one of my family members—probably Shadow, simply because he is the oldest—is gone. Hopefully, it is still a few years away but perhaps that will be his legacy . . . that the love he brought into our lives will be shared with more than one dog in the future.  I think he will be happy with that idea! 

 

CONSIDER BECOMING A FOSTER HOME FOR A RESCUED ANIMAL! 

 

As a final aside, to all fosters who responded to my request for information, thank you so much.  The materials your input was originally intended for will be forthcoming!



A SHELTER DOG DREAMS: A Poem

Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare: Confused? You Will Be . . .

“As I grow older I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.” ~Andrew Carnegie 

 

The original idea behind this essay was to try and clarify some of the differences between animal rights activists and animal welfare supporters. However, as I delved into researching the topic I developed a freakin’ headache. It's not so much the topic itself as the hypocrisy shown by supporters of one position or the other. Hence the opening quotation. 

Animal rights advocacy is based in the supposition that all sentient species deserve equal rights with humans, especially as this pertains to the right to avoid suffering. Various terms are thrown around such as sentience (the ability to feel sensation), and speciesism (prejudice against another species). Many philosophers and scholars of ethics, from Immanuel Kant to John Stuart Mill, have thrown their hat into the ring regarding the subject, the latter adopting his utilitarian approach which is essentially a mathematical calculation of the harm caused subtracted from the amount of overall happiness gained. If you're familiar with the recent arguments known as personhood being proposed by the pro-life faction of the abortion debate and extend that argument to nonhuman species you may have an idea of what the extreme end of the animal-rights spectrum believe and advocate. At this extreme end advocates propose that all human use of animals ends, up to and including the ownership of companion animals. Vegan lifestyles are pushed and often extreme actions are taken. 

On the other hand, animal welfare advocates adopt a position that is, arguably, more one of stewardship. The use of animals for food, clothing, and companionship, for example, is accepted but the infliction of unnecessary suffering in the fulfillment of these uses is unethical and should be outlawed. 

That all seems clear, doesn't it? So where does the confusion arise? Well, to go back to the opening quotation, the words and actions do not always match. Supposed animal-rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) actually advocate, support, and encourage the killing of animals in rescue shelters. The theory behind this appears to be that killing the animals prevents the suffering imposed by a potential lifetime of confinement with limited exercise and interaction. I see several problems with this position…not least of which is the fact that the workers in most rescue shelters are kind caring people who interact as much as possible with those in their care and provide as much exercise as is possible, while seeking to find permanent homes. Perhaps more importantly, by an extension of this logic, if the rights of animals and humans are equal then those people confined to nursing homes or other forms of long-term care should also be killed? Ridiculous? Then consider this… In some of the more famous incidents involving PETA, activists threw fake blood on people for wearing fur coats. One has to presume that the thinking behind this action is, "if the animal suffered in making your coat, then we will make you suffer for wearing it." If that is the case then these people believe in equal suffering. Therefore, why are the remedies for supposed suffering not also the same? 

Also, consider the position of the abolitionists, the really extreme end of the animal-rights spectrum. If, in the interest of equal rights, we should not be killing animals and we should not own them then what happens? If we provide animals with an unfettered right to life but are not prepared to care for them then presumably they will all be running wild. I don't necessarily have a problem with that thought but it will inevitably create a situation where animals and humans are competing for resources such as food and shelter. We all know what happens in that situation! 

On the other hand, one would think that animal welfare advocates would be in favor of euthanasia in overcrowded rescue shelters, thinking that it would be in the best interests of the animals. Yet, animal welfare advocates comprise the majority of the no-kill movement. Animal welfare advocates unfailingly tend to be optimists. They see the best in human nature despite experiencing the worst, and believe that there is a compassionate side to human nature which, if appealed to, will result in the compassionate treatment of animals.  

I personally believe in an animal welfare philosophy. I believe we were intended, as the supposedly superior species (although that is debatable), to care for those sharing this planet with us while taking into account biological and evolutionary needs. We were designed to be omnivores not herbivores, but there is no need in farming to inflict unnecessary suffering upon the animals that we will eat. We do not have to be cruel to raise animals for food. We could at least have the common decency and empathy to ensure that their lives are comfortable and pain-free. Some animal uses are unacceptable, for example, the testing of cosmetics on animals. Also, we must preserve endangered species… The extinction of an entire species purely because of our own needs is proof of our own fallibility. It reduces the human species to nothing more than the locusts stripping their environment; it is, in terms of stewardship, a scorched earth policy! 

I have no doubt that some of you reading this rambling stream-of-consciousness essay will happily point out the flaws in my own logic. But that is exactly my point: attitudes towards animals must be considered at the emotional level, not the logical level. At the logical level I have more in common with the animal-rights faction but at the practical level I can be considered an animal welfare advocate. What hasn't been mentioned is whether we are discussing companion animals such as cats and dogs or we are talking about all animals. My own answers might vary depending upon the scope of the discussion, hence the confusion caused by the terms animal-rights versus animal welfare. There is an incredible lack of agreement on basic definitions.

 

If I have managed to confuse you then my purpose has been achieved. Are you for animal-rights or are you for animal welfare? Or does it depend on what animal we are talking about? This is why I opened with the Carnegie quotation… Don't listen to what someone tells you, watch what they do!

The Lament of the Animal Rescue Shelter

I originally created this for the Pet Rescue North Facebook page in May of this year.  I thought it was worth posting again here!  By the way, Penny--the dog featured here--a gentle, loving sweetie is still available for adoption through PRN.  Visit www.petrescuenorth.petfinder.com or www.petrescuenorth.com for adoption details.

Pet Limits: Is Keeping Your Neighborhood “Nice” Costing Lives?

Many of us, no doubt, have encountered local ordinances and regulations limiting the number of pets that can be maintained in an individual home. Even in counties and cities that have no such regulations homeowners associations maintain newly built subdivisions and limit the number of pets allowed. Those of us moving into such new subdivisions may even initially and superficially agree with the idea. However, are those regulations really keeping our neighborhoods safe, clean, and nuisance free, or are they unnecessarily reducing the number of cats and dogs that can be adopted or fostered from local shelters, often leading to unnecessary euthanasia?

A simple Google search using the phrase "pet limitlaws" shows that others have written more extensively and in greater detail than you will find here. My intention is only to raise questions. 

Pet limits often direct themselves at decreasing unwanted behaviors such as animal hoarding, excessive barking, animal attacks, inappropriate disposal of animal waste, illegal businesses in the form of animal breeding enterprises, and such like. If you look more closely, though, there is a common thread: every single one of these goals roots itself in the idea that animal owners are irresponsible! Another common theme is the fear of what might happen rather than any statistical prediction of what will happen. 

Responsible pet owners usually know their limitations when it comes effectively controlling and caring for their animals. Some owners are able to control and care for five or six animals while others may only be able to manage one or two. Additionally, many of the unwanted behaviors described above can be effectively controlled using nuisance laws rather than pet limits. In the case of animal hoarding, it is unlikely that any law would prevent this because it is often the manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder. 

In some states, courts have struck down pet limit laws asunconstitutionally restricting an individual's right to own property. Of course, that brings up the argument of whether pets are property or not, but that is an argument for another time. In the case of homeowners association agreements it is less clear whether there is constitutional argument against these restrictions because of the voluntary nature of the agreement.  

What cannot be argued against it is that many law-abiding homeowners accept these laws or agreements rather than challenge them for fear of bringing the litigious wrath of some regulatory body down upon themselves. Thus, many responsible pet owners sit and gaze longingly at the photographs of all the cats and dogs currently housed in shelters, often aware that those cats and dogs may be scheduled to die, knowing that they could rescue one or two more but feeling helpless to do so! 

I have no problem with the prosecution of nuisance owners for failing to appropriately control their animals: there are some people who should just not own animals. And legal remedies already exist for such irresponsibility. What I do have a problem with is unnecessarily restricting the potential for animals to find loving homes when shelters are crammed to capacity! When 4-5 million adoptable animals are killed each year imagine the difference if every animal lover capable of taking in one more animal was allowed to do so!

Don't Bark at the Big Dogs: The Fractured Politics of Animal Rescue!

When I first entered the arena of animal rescue as a volunteer it was based on emotion and a desire to help rather than on any education and experience. As the loving owner of several rescue dogs, like everyone else, I would see the television advertisements for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) with the photographs of abused and neglected animals shown over the heartbreaking sound of Sarah McLachlan singing "Angel"… I could do nothing else but reach for my wallet. We're all in it together, right? Over the last few years I have discovered that nothing could be further from the truth!

 At the national level the no-kill movement, spearheaded by Nathan Winograd, is in constant and open conflict with organizations such as the ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the EthicalTreatment of Animals (PETA), and perhaps most surprisingly of all Best FriendsAnimal Society. Accusations and counter-accusations fly, ranging from the providing of misleading information and advertising to the promotion and championing of legislation designed to increase the number of adoptable animals killed each year. Organizations such as HumaneWatch.org and the Humane Society for Shelter Pets have risen to challenge and decry the misconceptions about organizations such as those listed.

At the local level, small rescue organizations scramble for the scraps that are left after the local behemoths have launched their latest fundraising campaigns, all the while trying not to get into competition with other small organizations holding similar goals to their own. Stories of misinformation such as interesting definitions of "no-kill" and of unethical practices designed to qualify animals for low-cost medical interventions are muttered behind closed doors rather than stated openly for fear of sudden inspections or sudden re-zoning of shelter locations or other such intrusions instigated by the powerful friends of the larger organizations.

Even campaigns designed to end inhumane methods of euthanasia such as gas chambers, come under attack from others because their goal is to replace such methods with more humane methods rather than embracing the no-kill philosophy in its entirety. Such campaigns may see their goal as a step in the right direction, but others see it as simply endorsing the death of adoptable animals by different means.

The common feature in the every one of these conflicts is that when the larger organizations feel threatened they lash out and target their enormous resources upon the smaller and less well-funded organization, in some cases causing the smaller organizations to close!

I realize that there is not a lot of specific information here but that is because every single one of these points could warrant an entire essay in its own right. Also, it is not my place to tell you where to donate your hard-earned dollars even though I personally align myself with Winograd and the no-kill movement. However, I urge each and every one of you to investigate before making such donations. Does the organization you're contributing to really match your beliefs? Some points to consider before deciding:

·         Is the organization an animal welfare or an animal rights organization? There is a difference and more of this will be discussed in the future.

·         What is the organization's definition of no-kill? Statement such as "we will never kill an animal to make room for another animal" does not mean a no- kill organization!

·         Does the organization really do what you want it to do? For example, the ASPCA and the HSUS are not generally affiliated with local shelters even if they contain the phrases SPCA or Humane Society. Are you looking to support a national or a local organization?

·         Does the organization, for example, accept strays, or does it only accept owner surrenders or rescue from kill shelters?

·         Are all breeds rescued or does the organization specialize in one breed only?

·         What will happen to the animals who are not adopted?

Let's just start the new outlook with a video for Pet Rescue North, a true no-kill shelter in Jacksonville, Fl. Saving the lives that nobody else will!

Enough Excuses: The Rebirth (Again) of the “What We Owe to Dogs" Blog

Anyone who's tried to read this blog will realize that posting has been really spotty. There have been a few reasons for this, the main one being that under a misguided belief  I thought that I could increase exposure by splitting time between this blog and being a Yahoo! contributor. As many of you may know, trying to do too many things at once leads to none of them being done properly! I am now committing to this blog and there are some things that I promise and some things that I ask.

 What to Expect:

·         at least one post per week

·         a variety of personal opinions regarding animal rescue, promotions of organizations that I support, anecdotes regarding dogs that I have owned or have known, and some of my favorite dog photographs.

·         the opportunity to engage in discussions regarding a variety of animal welfare subjects.

 What I Ask:

·         that you shared this blogthat all animal lovers share this blog with everyone they know

·         that whether you agree or disagree, you remain polite and respectful.

·         that you actively participate: disagree, agree, suggest topics, tell me I'm full of it (respectfully, of course), tell me I'm a genius, add links that you think might help, etc.

·         that you share your own experiences

 

My hope for this blog is that we can become a community. As in all communities, discussion and disagreement is the foundation of moving forward. The animal welfare community, as will be seen in upcoming posts, is fractured and we must agree on common opinions and common ground.

 

You may find that my opinions have changed since previous posts, but that is the nature of the beast. Since my initial involvement in the animal welfare movement which was based entirely on emotion I have read and researched more and my opinions have evolved. This doesn't mean that I believe I am right: it is simply my opinion.

 One thing to remember is that my opinions are not necessarily those of any organization with which I can be connected. The purpose of the blog is to state what I think, not what anybody else thinks!

 I look forward to an active and open discussion.

 Thank you.

 Ian F.

To All the Dog-Dumpers: Stop Your Whining! (Part 2)

When I was writing To All the Dog-Dumpers: Stop Your Whining! (Part 1) my natural tendency to insult anyone who causes me to feel so much anger was almost overwhelming.  However, the degree of sarcasm and facetiousness which is normal for me did not really seem appropriate to the seriousness of the problem. 

After reconsidering, it struck me that the one or two (I may even be up as high as 3 now) readers of this blog might find it interesting to see the real, unfiltered, and somewhat strange thought-processes that I can go through when really, really angry. I have limited the degree of editing to try and give a flavor of what I was thinking. Enjoy (and please don't call the psychiatrist)!

                                                              *****************************************

The usual problems that pet-dumpers claim leave them incapable of looking after their animals are exactly what they seem to be: excuses! “My child is allergic”; “We don’t have the room (or the time)”; “When my baby is born the animal might hurt it”.  Every one of these problems is relatively easy to resolve and a quick Google search will provide umpteen solutions that do not involve dumping the pet. 

I get especially furious when I hear the last excuse above: we have a new baby on the way.  The animal might be jealous, the animal might hurt the baby, the baby might be allergic . . . yeah, and you might get hit by a falling space-station. What are you now? Freakin’ psychic? If so, I don’t see you moving into a cave to avoid Sputnik landing on your noggin! There are screeds of information available on the Internet about how to introduce an animal to a newborn baby (and vice versa) and many studies showing that frequent contact with animals may actually reduce the frequency of certain illnesses in children, the latest of which is from Finland.  

The only problem that these solutions pose is that they require a little effort on the part of the animal's owner, and that seems to be the root problem: not the animal but the work it might cause for the owner. But then, why should that surprise me . . . they can’t even bother to come up with original reasons for why they can’t keep the animal.  Or perhaps they don’t want to exert the effort on that either!  Perhaps there is some kind of negative underground-railroad, some kind of anti-animal-rescue cabal somewhere that instructs pet-dumpers on what to say so they won’t look bad.  Perhaps something like “dump-your-dog-without-guilt” with a website and a Facebook page and a Twitter feed and everything.  The CEO is some kind of Darth Vader-looking dude that for $5 will give you a guilt-free way to blame your animal for your lack of loyalty!

If that is the case then get some new writers! We in the animal rescue business are sick of hearing the same old crap time and time again.

Of course, my theory about some anti-dog think-tank might be proven true if I now start seeing loads of dogs being dumped because the dogs are Scientologists!

To All the Dog-Dumpers: Stop Your Whining! (part 1)

There are genuine cases of hardship where a family may have to give up a pet for genuine reasons, where rehousing is for the good of the pet.  But for those involved in animal-rescue it is difficult to sympathize when we hear the same whining and complaining over and over again.

This was highlighted when, as one of the administrators for the Pet Rescue North Facebook page, I was posting a rescue “plea” at the same time that our friends at River City Community Animal Hospital were posting the same “plea”.  As a volunteer rather than an employee, I tend to try and maintain a degree of objectivity and diplomacy when posting on behalf of the shelter; I simply incorporated the content of the original e-mail without comment. I may sit and fume and perhaps throw the occasional ornament or two, but I tend to say nothing on these posts.  Fortunately, RCCAH did not have the same qualms, and they stated exactly what I was thinking (find their comments here).

As they point out, this particular plea contains all the usual keywords and phrases pointing to allergies and problems facing their children. These excuses serve only one purpose: to assuage the guilt of the animal-dumper.  They are a blatant attempt to evade responsibility for their actions by subliminally placing the pet in the role of the guilty party and portraying the family as the victim! By making these excuses the animal-dumper attempts to minimize damage to their reputation and social standing.

So, when approaching an animal-rescue organization with a plea to take your pet off your hands, don’t be surprised if you are met with a lack of sympathy.  We have heard it all before. We will help but we are not helping you, we are helping the animals . . . we are helping them find a home with someone who will appreciate them, with someone who will not try to get rid of them at the first sign of difficulty.

Oh, and one more thing . . . stop your whining!     

At Least give the Dogs a Chance!!!

There are times when animal rescue volunteers just want to throw their hands in the air and give up and I'll admit that this is one of those times! Just now, I am so angry that I'm having trouble finding words.

As we entered a holiday week, the week of July 4, Pet RescueNorth received notification of a senior dog in the Putnam County, Florida, animal control shelter that was scheduled to be euthanized. We advertised the need for help on our Facebook page and two people were interested in rescuing this particular dog. This could've been a happy ending but we then discovered that the dog had already been killed. It had taken a few days for the plea for help to circulate around Facebook and by e-mail before reaching us, and the dog had been killed several days before we even found out that help was needed.

This particular animal shelter has become somewhat notorious in North Florida for its seeming enthusiasm for pulling the trigger. It is only in the last few months that, under pressure from rescue groups, the shelter stopped automatically euthanizing bully breeds. If you go to the County website and try to find a website for the shelter you are directed to the Sheriff's Department website. When at the Sheriff's Department website you click on the link for animal control you are taken directly back to homepage of the Sheriff's Department. There is no website run by this department advertising the need for foster homes, adoptions, or in any way letting people know of dogs available for adoption. The only publication of information regarding available dogs that I could find was a Facebook page run by volunteers who had no affiliation with the shelter. So my question is: how can anyone rescue the dogs if they don't know that they exist?

Through my volunteer work with Pet Rescue North I have learned that this is not an uncommon situation with shelters that are run by Police Departments in small counties. Whether it is lack of finances, staff, or other resources is unclear. However, many such shelters do not advertise the occupants and then, after the mandatory seven days, euthanize them--apparently without a second thought. Whatever the reason, this is a disgrace! Laws must be passed that such shelters MUST advertise what dogs they have, and when they are scheduled to die. In this age of communication technology it is abhorrent that government run institutions do not have this capability! Even if they do not have websites or Facebook pages they all have e-mail capabilities; it doesn't take much to compile a list of local rescue shelters that they could send blast e-mails to. In this way potential interest in saving the dogs could at least be distributed within the seven day window and if any interest was shown the death sentence could be commuted for a few days!

 AT LEAST GIVE THE DOGS A CHANCE!