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!