Friday, September 7, 2012

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?

2 comments:

  1. In our community, these points are especially valid. THe HUGE groups with HUGE financial backing often mislead the public and steamroll over smaller groups. Smaller groups often network more frequently and with more passion than the larger ones, and the smaller groups are often much more personalized. Larger groups far more easily attract big (and small) donors, as the name is often almost a badge of status and the fund raising efforts themselves cost more than the small groups can make in a year. Additionally, big groups often pay enormous salaries to CEOs or "Executive Directors," who are very often people with no animal ezxperience or knowledge,but perhaps big name recognition or experience in another business. The public doesn't realize many of these people never go near an animal, much less get their hands dirty or lose sleep at night over the ones they cannot save.
    Small groups are desperate for grant money, the very vast majority of which is repeatedly awarded to the bigger groups, and much fraudulence occurs with so many of them, hedging and fudging numbers and arranging low cost medical care for unqualified patients to keep up the numbers. Even the organizations awarding the grants often know this but either ignore the truth or look the other way. The No-Kill label, even in our community, is greatly abused and the general public doesn't understand that often it means "No Kill because we only accept PERFECTLY and IMMEDIATELY adoptable animals, and no injured, stray, or ferals at all," or it may mean "No Kill until we send them somewhere else to be killed.Or until they get sick. Or depressed. Or cage crazy." The general public does not know or check these things out and often donates their money to groups that may actually be the antithesis of what they expect.
    This is a well written article and I agree with it totally and applaud the author. THANK YOU!

    ReplyDelete
  2. thanks for your comments. There is not one thing in your comment that I can disagree with. I have seen true no-kill facilities scraping for funds while shelters that have conned the public into thinking that they are no-kill because of legalese are accepting national awards and huge grants. I don't have a problem with people choosing to donate to such organizations if that is what they want to do as long as they are fully informed. However, 9 times out of 10, the donors would send their money elsewhere if they had researched! ~ IanF

    ReplyDelete