Putting blame — and getting change — where it belongs
By Gina Spadafori
December 21, 2007
Usually, I call Christie and ask her to look over articles in veterinary journals, legal case filings and such, and write up those posts. That’s because she’s pretty freakin’ brilliant, and she reads at the speed of light. (Seriously, she reads a handful of books a week, on top of everything else.)
But the truth is that when the information for the previous post came in, I pretended that I wanted to let Christie read it because she’s smarter than I am, but the fact is that I scanned the material and decided I couldn’t cope with it at that very moment. Pretty gutless, huh?
So Christie sucked it up and did her job, and then cried and hugged her dogs for hours after.
Where do you direct your anger at such a thing? The shelter leadership and staff? The people who breed their pitties for easy cash, not caring where they end up — fighting pit, euthanasia room, streets?
Well, both of course. We understand why all sorts of well-meaning people say that there can’t be any harm in mandatory spay-neuter legislation after getting information like this. After all, animals who are never born will never end up in the hell holes many shelters have become, right? Until there are none, adopt one and all that.
Except …
The person who bred that poor dog in the previous post isn’t going to pay attention to the law. I know, because twice I’ve lived within spitting distance of just such people, quick-buck pit bull breeders who don’t license, who exceed limit laws and who have their girls cranking out as many puppies as they can. In both neighborhoods I’ve made pleasant conversation and offered to pay to spay their girls, and they weren’t at all interested. In both cases they really liked their girls, but the dogs were not only pets but also cash machines. These neighbors weren’t dog-fighters, just people not making a lot, trying to get by. They don’t see the harm in having lots of cute puppies for their kids to play with and pocketing a couple grand a year of untaxable income from cash puppy sales.
“Pay to spay” programs — giving people cash to fix their pets — help turn these people around. Enforcing existing licensing and limit laws help turn these people around. Reforming shelters so they aren’t hell holes but rather welcoming no-kill adoption center with 90 percent of their animals leaving alive will help the animals who slip through the cracks — and not by killing them.
We know the answers, and they don’t involve more unenforceable legislation. They don’t involve targeting reputable, ethical breeders while giving puppy-mills a pass with legislation no backyard breeder will pay attention to anyway. No matter how “good” it would make us feel to imagine we are punishing the person who bred that dog in the previous post, dooming him to die in the L.A. shelter (under the care of people who have the nerve to call their facility a “shelter”) or firing the shelter director who’s ultimately responsible for letting him die and replacing him with another person who may — at best — go for a merely cleaner, more efficient hell-hole, not a reformed one.
I told Christie we gotta stop writing about “Redemption” or people will think one of us is sleeping with Nathan Winograd. (Hint: It’s not likely to be Christie.) I’ve never met Mr. Winograd, so it’s not me, either. But we keep coming back to “Redemption” not because we’re in some Winograd cult, but because we’ve rarely, as in almost never, read any book that so completely turned our beliefs upside-down, and left us with hope for pets like the one in the previous post.
As we’ve said, anyone with half an open mind and no institutional agenda gets the message. The latest: Christopher over on Border Wars. I can tell from reading his blog that he and I disagree on 99.9 percent of everything else, but we agree on this. What does that tell you?
People who can’t get past the “breeder is a breeder is a breeder” lie never will get it. (The animal-rights fanatics who put that lie out there know how powerful it is, and don’t care that it hurts animals — the ends justify the means, and the end, PETA-style, is no domestic animals, not even “pets.”) People who think you have to kill lots of animals to save a few never will get it. ”Charities” who raise millions and millions trading on the misery of animals never will get it.
Do you get it?
(Pictured: My boy Pippin, growing more cherished by the day, and certainly more handsome! He was found by rescue in a high-kill shelter in Modesto, Calif., after he’d been picked up as a half-grown, emaciated stray with a broken belt around his neck. We all know where he’d be if not for animal-loving volunteers — the kind high-kill shelters find “inconvenient” to work with.)
I’m still incredibly upset by reading this, and even more, seeing the images. The rabbit who was trying to drink out of an empty bottle… the mother with puppies. I’m telling you, I get that shelters believe they can’t save them all etc etc, but to take them in and then treat them like this?
I have some problems with my local animal control, but nothing, NOTHING like this. It’s agonizing.
Comment by Christie Keith — December 21, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Thank you thank you thank you.
I’m an occasional breeder. I’m a breed-rescue coordinator. It’s only in very recent times that some people have seen a conflict between those two roles. Where did that strange idea come from?
The people and organizations that are setting animal lovers at odds with one another are apparently trying to drive a wedge between me and myself. Hasn’t worked so far. I feel no conflict in cursing the drive-by breeders and frequent flyers for their callous disregard while occasionally arranging a pairing whose pups will go to carefully-screened homes. Just because there’s a wrong way to do something doesn’t mean that there is no right way.
AB 1634 is baaaaack in California, and it’s the Mother Of All Wedges. Dog and cat lovers need to band together to create a humane world for animals. Somehow the idea of eliminating animals altogether has been sold as the way to do that.
Never born, can never suffer? Second best is dead as soon as possible? An interesting form of nihilism by proxy. The animals seem to prefer to live, whenever they are consulted.
Thank you again.
Comment by H. Houlahan — December 21, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
How do shelters come to this? I just…I don’t know what to say.
We have a similar “shelter” in my area - actually, they changed their name to “animal control” and the county executive publicly stated that it was little more than a disposal facility and that he was ok with that because that’s obviously what the city needed - a place to get rid of companion animals. It’s gotten a little better in the last year or so (thanks to exposure and some of the rescue groups), but it certainly doesn’t have proper leadership and it isn’t likely to become a “shelter” any time in the near future.
Shelter director is an appointed position here. Local government has been an “old boys club” forever and the citizens just keep voting along party lines, so the status quo continues.
How does change happen? These people seem to have no shame, no souls, and no desire to change “the way it’s always been done”. How do we get *good* leadership for shelters so these horrors become a thing of the past?
Comment by mikken — December 21, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
This would be an excellent time to suggest going to the bookstores and buying copies of Winograd’s “Redemption” to give as Christmas gifts. [If the store is out, order it in the recipient’s name and pre-pay the book.]
I know, it seems like this book is hardly a gift of cheer….not appropriate for the holiday. But to this I say, the book is a gift of enlightenment and hope. And isn’t that the best gift of all to give?
Comment by Lynn — December 21, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
And while you’re at it, buy a copy to donate to your local library.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 21, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
What they found going on in L.A. is not news. It has been going on in cities and towns everywhere forever. The people hired for the jobs are not hired based on their experience or track records working with pets/animals. Often it’s the county sheriff where it just happens to be part of his/her job responsibilities, much to the chagrin of knowledgeable pet people and staffs that work at the “pounds.” And……I think the word “impound” is still, to this day, more the mindset of many of those in charge of the facilities, not “shelter.” Nothing to do with humaneness…just the law. A place to start would be with these people. Special training, seminars, some sort of education—-perhaps a day with Nathan Winograd or at least his video materials. And that goes for staff as well.
Comment by Nadine L. — December 21, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
In this case Director Mayeda [of LA County Animal Control] has a professional background and education to support performing in this capacity.
Years ago, back in the 70’s, when Betty Denny Smith held that position [she fought her way into the job, as her background was in animal welfare organizations] I did some covert work for her and came to learn a lot about the dynamics of the LACAC. Bluntly stated, it was a “good ole boy’s org” then [County Board of Supervisors], and while I haven’t been privy to their work in years, I’m fairly certain it’s still the same kind of environment.
That doesn’t exonerate Mayeda. As I mentioned much earlier in this blog, last summer I was looking at one of the volunteer groups’ websites. They were supposed to be on distribution for the Director’s monthly status report [deaths, RTO’s, OR’s, Hold’s, etc.]. They were seeing numbers that didn’t jive and/or weren’t getting reports at all. So that’s what caught my attention.
But you’re right, Nadine, what’s happening in LA is just a representative sample of what goes on in far too many other places.
So it’s good that this action by Winograd and others is being mounted. It should serve to set a precedent. And won’t it be great if positive action comes of it?
Comment by Lynn — December 21, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Marcia Mayeda’s bacckground:
http://www.maddies.org/organiz.....ayeda.html
Comment by Lynn — December 21, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
You know, I don’t think you should ever feel the need to stop talking about this issue. If PeTA and HSUS can raise tens of millions of dollars each year by repeating the same two words “pet overpopulation” and “donate here” then perhaps their twisted logic can be countered with equal persistence in airing the truth.
The amazing thing about Winograd’s observation is that it is so crystal clear and simple. It’s not doctrine, it’s not dogma, it’s not complicated… it simply makes a very strong case that any sane person should be able to agree with.
I’m pouring over his book trying to find the downside. In debate, the three part lens we often use to analyse an idea is {social, economic, and political} and you can add in moral, although that is usually implied in the question at hand.
His plan is cheaper than the alternative, much cheaper. Not only is it cheaper, it actually has the ability to RAISE money instead of lose it. San Francisco SPCA was one the brink of bankruptcy now it’s rolling in dough.
More Fiscally responsible, CHECK.
His plan is certainly more socially acceptable. People prefer life to death. They prefer saving to killing. They prefer clean and healthy to dirty and sick. They prefer a welcoming environment to a suspicious and judgmental one, and the social status of pets is on the rise. People are willing to give time, money, and/or in-kind gifts to causes they care about with the understanding that the cause can make better use of those assets than the individual can.
More Socially responsible, CHECK.
Politics seems to be the biggest stumbling block here, since it’s politics that got the ASPCA in trouble in the first place, changing their mission from [saving] to [saving, enforcing, and better we kill than they kill] to mostly [enforcing and killing].
Politics being the nature of applying power and group dynamics, and those two things being first and foremost what Winograd wants to reform, we seem to have this area covered too. The undeniable results that he and others like Avanzino have achieved, stem from political change: getting rid of bad leadership and installing new leaders who are willing to see the vision through.
Amazingly enough, none of this political plan requires the slacktivist answer: “Get Government to pass more laws! More Laws will save us!” People forget that all politics aren’t public and that you don’t elect people to do the work for you, you can get off your ass and do the work yourself and get the people you elected to open the doors to allow you to continue.
Politically possible, check.
That leaves moral. It is more moral to save than to kill. It is just that simple. The choice is fundamentally not whether it is more moral to buy vs. adopt, they are not morally at odds with each other despite the rhetoric. What is clearly at odds is saving vs. killing-to-“save.”
It is immoral to kill simply because that is the way it has “always” been done. One of the aspects of my “Confederacy of Dunces” theory is that Dunces use “we do it this way because we have always done it this way” to justify every sort of stupidity, immorality, inefficiency, and injustice.
That is what the shelter system is telling us. They kill because they have “always” killed. Perhaps they would use the next Dunces argument (like if God wanted us to fly he’d have given us wings!, forgetting that we have been given wings, they’re called air planes) saying that if we are supposed to save all the animals, we’d be given a path to save them.
Winograd and others have just set down that path.
For those of you who are religious and your morality and spirituality are firmly affixed to each other, you would probably agree that religious doctrine of sin and morality depends on whether we have been given a path to salvation. I know that in the Catholic faith, it was long held that those who were born before Christ, and thus did not have the opportunity to follow the path he set down, were in a moral limbo, and upon Christ’s death they were given the chance to accept his teachings and enter Heaven.
Well, we are no longer in a moral limbo as far as the shelter system is concerned. Avanzino, Winograd and others have demonstrated that it can be done and that their method is superior in every aspect, except that it’s not the status quo. Old shelters should be given the choice to accept the methods that work, or they should be condemned for choosing to be complacent and lazy over being economically superior, socially superior, politically feasible, and most importantly more moral.
More Moral, check.
So the only thing keeping this from happening today is changing “Politically possible” into “Political reality.” And I suppose that means axing existing leadership and replacing it with people who believe or starting new organizations that can and will compete, making the old organizations obsolete or forcing them to change.
Winograd even has the answer to that one. After several successes doing the actual work, he’s now spearheading the political action through his organization.
Let it be said that repeating this message will never be wasted, and even if you are preaching to the choir, the choir can sing with one voice and be heard far and wide. Giving this book for the holidays, donating a copy to your library, and even telling your breeder, your fellow dog sport friends, and those looking for a new dog about it… that’s how the choir gets into the preaching business.
Comment by Christopher — December 21, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
“Politics seems to be the biggest stumbling block here, since it’s politics that got the ASPCA in trouble in the first place, changing their mission from [saving] to [saving, enforcing, and better we kill than they kill] to mostly [enforcing and killing].”
can you back this up please? i’d like to see those kill numbers you speak of . . . . they must be high if they are “mostly [enforcing and killing]”
Comment by straybaby — December 21, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
OK, Christopher, it’s only 89.9 percent. :)
Nice post, thanks!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 21, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Straybaby -
You should really read Redemption. If I reprint any more of it, Winograd will likely sue me for infringement (I think I get a thousand words or so for free) :) … but seriously, here are some numbers that should disgust you:
(1) I challenge you to find me a county, or even a city, that saves more dogs than it writes up harassment tickets to dog owners. Seriously, petty enforcement by “dog catchers” and the anti-pet gestapo which does nothing to save animals or humans is out of hand.
It’s no coincidence that one of the most vile serial killers of our era was a dog catcher for his “real” job. The mentality is the same.
The enforcement of animal welfare laws used to be for protection of work animals from overzealous companies who would skimp on food and shelter and overwork and beat animals. It has become a means to harass the animal owning public and forcing them on to reservations of freedom called “off leash” dog parks. And extorting money from them that serves no purpose at all (licensing fees).
My point is won through enforcement alone. And I win that point even if you remove EVERY case of dog fighting and real animal abuse, and just count the petty harassment stuff. I’m sure that more money and man hours are spent on that than they are on anything involving saving lost and relinquished pets.
(2) “We could become a No Kill nation tomorrow. Based on the number of existing households with pets who have a pet die or run away, more homes potentially become available each year for cats then the number of cats who enter shelters, while more than twice as many homes potentially become available each year for dogs than the number of dogs who enter shelters.” Redemption p.161
(3)PeTA’s Kill Rate from 2005 going back in time: 90.7%, 86.3%, 85.9%, 85.7%, 72.4%, 75.6%, 73.5%, 76.6%
That is, by definition, MOSTLY killing.
(4) The HSUS says:
“The HSUS estimates that animal shelters care for between 6–8 million dogs and cats every year in the United States, of whom approximately 3–4 million are euthanized. At this time The HSUS can only estimate these figures because there is no central data reporting agency for animal shelters.”
If you take out all the animals that are returned to their owners, we clearly have MORE THAN HALF of all animals entering shelters being killed. Even without that a 50% kill rate is atrocious.
Again, by definition, that means they mostly kill.
(5) What death rate do you find acceptable? Where do you draw your line in the sand? Is an 80% kill rate ok with you? What about 50%?
The Denver Dumb Friends League that is right down the street, they only kill about 25%. Is that moral? The MaxFund that’s not too far away, they hardly kill any.
Would that be moral if someone told you that you could kill less than 10%, do so less expensively if not profitably, with greater community awareness and participation, and do away with the need for petty laws for dog catcher types since the laws that govern their harassment are ineffective to solve the problems that they were enacted to solve?
What number do you think is moral when it has been shown that 10% can be done and all it takes is killing some entrenched defeatism instead of killing more animals?
For that matter, what are your thoughts on how so many of our shelter organizations try and serve two masters, supposedly protecting pets from people, while they make their money protecting people from pets. Why should we spend money for police-officer wannabes to write up leash law tickets when we can can almost all of those jobs and hire used-pet salesmen instead to market perfectly good pets to homes instead? Leave a handful of officers to protect pets vis-a-vis commercial establishments that use them (like those romantic horse rides in the park) and leave our parks free and open for offleash or onleash dogs, whatever the OWNER deems necessary.
The HSUS and others have lead to a legal situation in the country where our pets are overly regulated, overly vaccinated, and underly spayed and neutered, and all of it for the worse.
If you’d like, you’re welcome to find me a shelter that does none of the things Winograd suggests and has a lower kill rate than his SF SPCA or Thompson County shelter. In the end, the only metric that matters is how many lives are saved.
Comment by Christopher — December 21, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
P.S. Gina, your Pip is a lovely dog. He reminds me so much of my Dublin, they even have the same markings, although Pip’s prick ears are much cuter than Dublin’s flop ears (don’t tell him that).
Comment by Christopher — December 21, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
“The Denver Dumb Friends League that is right down the street, they only kill about 25%. Is that moral? The MaxFund that’s not too far away, they hardly kill any.”
And the Denver municipal shelter kills 100%… of any dog they can call a pit bull.
Denver was named one of the most “dogfriendly” cities in one those moronic surveys a couple of years ago.
Comment by EmilyS — December 21, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
Christopher,
currently, i don’t feel the need to read redemption, unless of course it backs up your statement specifically about the ASPCA just being an enforce and kill agency ;) thanks for missing my one question to you.
ya know, we just might save more dogs than we ticket here. seriously! lol!~ and our AC folks are NOT out giving leash law tickets. that’s up to NYPD and the Parks dept. i personally don’t think our parks should be off or on leash/owner discretion. not everyone wants to be around unleashed dogs (including me since my dog has been attacked twice by off leash bitch aggressive dogs). we have off leash areas and dog folks know where those are. and they use them. have been for a good 25yrs. only irresponsible owners break leash laws in cities, especially ones that do provide areas for dogs to run free.
“My point is won through enforcement alone. And I win that point even if you remove EVERY case of dog fighting and real animal abuse, and just count the petty harassment stuff. I’m sure that more money and man hours are spent on that than they are on anything involving saving lost and relinquished pets.”
i think you would be a fool to blanket that statement. it depends on the area and the organizations involved. most complaints about AC’s is that they DON’T respond. lol!~
personally, you seem a bit over the top in the other direction with your comments regarding how you perceive shelters and AC’s and how much freedom dogs should have. but none the less, i asked for you to back up your comments regarding the ASPCA. PETA and the HSUS are NOT the ASPCA and they basically have very little in common. (i find it a hoot that everyone uses the HSUS’s homeless numbers and they can’t even be bothered to shelter animals. think of how many more could be saved if they ran a facility in every city they have a presence in.)
so anyway, i look forward to you backing up your statements regarding the ASPCA.
Comment by straybaby — December 21, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
straybaby,
In addition to Winograd’s book, you seem to have found no need to read my post that you’re trying to comment on!
The fact that you see no reason to become informed speaks volumes. If you are unwilling to learn, why would you speak up in the first place? You are essentially putting your fingers in your ears and saying “I can’t hear you.”
There are several quotes from Winograd in the post on my blog that is linked to in Gina’s post above. Feel free to actually read them. They discuss exactly what you are interested in, namely how the ASPCA sold its soul to Satan to become the dog catcher instead of a society that prevents cruelty to animals.
Let me first point out that your question is ill phrased, as there is no single SPCA, nor are the SPCAs unified in thought or action.
If you are referring specifically to the ASPCA in New York City, Winograd discusses it at length.
“By 1910, the ASPCA was doing little more than impounding dogs and cats on behalf of the city, with all but a small percentage put to death. Other SPCAs around the nation fell in line.”
“Within a decade or two, most mainstream human societies and SPCAs did little more than kill dogs and cats.”
“From the ASPCA in New York City to humane societies throughout California, the twentieth century saw killing become the centerpiece of shelter strategy. It is the paradigm we live with to this very day.”
“With assets at one time reaching nearly one hundred million dollars, the Massachusetts SPCA (MSPCA) is perhaps the richest animal shelter in the world, but roughly 60 percent of all dogs and cats who entered the MSPCA shelter system throughout the 1990s were killed.”
… um, 60 percent is most. They MOSTLY killed dogs and cats.
Let’s go to the ASPCA website and see if they have statistics.
“Five out of ten dogs in shelters and seven out of ten cats in shelters are destroyed simply because there is no one to adopt them.
All data are ASPCA estimates.”
Let’s look at a group that is neither *SPCA or *HS specific and see what they have to say about 5,000 shelters in a survey:
http://www.petpopulation.org/statsurvey.html
From 1994-97
Percent of Dogs killed: 58.4, 55.1, 56.0, 56.4
Percent of Cats killed: 72.4, 71.4, 71.8, 71.0
There. I win round 1, 2, and 3. You’re out.
Your very own ASPCA says that they kill MOST of the animals they get their hands on, and they list the reason as “no one to adopt them” despite Winograd laying down convincing evidence (and proving it in both rural and urban shelters) that there are plenty of people to adopt animals, just not enough people in shelters doing the right things to make that happen.
The desire to do good is not enough, saying you care is not enough. When there is evidence presented to you that you ignore or marginalize, simply because it threatens to make you look bad, then you are complicit in the evil you are trying to avoid or assuage.
When you can save 90% and you only save 30-45%, you are a failure, especially when the only thing preventing you from doing so is arrogance and unwillingness to change.
In every school in America, 30-45% is an F.
*SPCA: F
HS*: F
PeTA: F
Comment by Christopher — December 22, 2007 @ 1:13 am
Oh, and here’s a page that the ASPCA has deleted from their site, it should prove informative to you:
http://tinyurl.com/2senk6
“There are about 5,000 community animal shelters nationwide that are independent; there is no national organization monitoring these shelters. The terms “humane society” and “SPCA” are generic; shelters using those names are not part of the ASPCA or the Humane Society of the United States. Currently, no government institution or animal organization is responsible for tabulating national statistics for the animal protection movement.
Approximately 8 million to 12 million companion animals enter animal shelters nationwide every year, and approximately 5 million to 9 million are euthanized (60 percent of dogs and 70 percent of cats). Shelter intakes are about evenly divided between those animals relinquished by owners and those picked up by animal control. These are national estimates; the percentage of euthanasia may vary from state to state.”
As for your other assertion that the ASPCA is not an enforcement agency… well, turn on Animal Planet and watch “Animal Precinct” some time. You can see it with your own eyes.
Comment by Christopher — December 22, 2007 @ 1:30 am
“Your very own ASPCA says that they kill MOST of the animals they get their hands on, and they list the reason as “no one to adopt them”
show me where it says that. THAT is what i have been asking you to do. SUPPORT your statements regarding the ASPCA in NYC and their euth rates.
i didn’t see a date with the archive link and the statement is NOT about what they were doing specifically. this statement was on their site, prior to the city going no-kill. the ASPCA used to have the city contract. they gave that up and turned it over to the city (NYCACC) years ago (before no-kill was on the table here) as they felt it went against the intent of their org. and the stats you just put up where you claim to win round 123 (WTF?! i only asked you to back up your statement SPECIFICALLY about the ASPCA) are 10yrs old!
when i was talking enforcement, i thought you were speaking of leash laws and picking up strays and killing them, not stopping animal cruelty (their mission) which includes breaking up urban dog fighting rings, bringing in teams to help hoarders, making sure guard dogs aren’t freezing to death in the winter etc. you should really take a look at what the ASPCA does hands on NOW before you go throwing around what they did in 1910. and while i have watched animal precinct, i don’t need to. i’ve seen their work IRL. there’s even a glimpse of me in one of the episodes, lol!~ ;) the HLE arm of the ASPCA is also not perfect, but they have saved many, many animals from horrible conditions. i don’t know what would be wrong with that type of enforcement . . . and if the animals they save have issues such as food aggression (etc), they aren’t written off, they’re rehabbed. they also aren’t euthed for general and more severe medical, as they have a hospital. nor do they euth because of breed or because it’s a fighting pit.
here’s their current position on euth:
http://www.aspca.org/site/Page.....euthanasia
and a full list of their positions:
http://www.aspca.org/site/Page.....pp_content
it’s a shame you can’t see them for what they are now. an org working towards no-kill, not just in nyc, but nationwide. i’ve said before they aren’t perfect, but they are making a major effort. but if you want to judge them by their past, i don’t see how no-kill can work. many, many agencies need to change . . . should we continue to condemn them, or support those that change? and believe me, they are not pulling red-listed dogs from the CACC just to euth them at the ASPCA. none of the no-kills here are. that’s absurd!
Comment by straybaby — December 22, 2007 @ 3:29 am
Reading this makes me proud of our local Humane Society. They live up to their name - Humane. Only the sickest and most beligerent animals meet a bad end there. One coon hound named Wally came in that had been shot with a shotgun and had to have surgery to survive. The manager writes a collumn for the local shopper and put out an appear for the $750.00 to save him. The money came in like a snap. I donated a beef joint to give him something to chew on since he was barking that coon hound yodel all the time driving everyone nuts. He eventually got adopted too.
I’ve never read Redemtion but my guess is that it applies to more than dogs. We see how hard it is to get people’s attitudes to change when animals are not seen as living feeling beings. You get kids like Huckabee’s who hung that dog just because “He looked mangey…”
If we are going to talk about redemption we need to learn how to give people a choice which means we have to let them know that they came cross over without the perpetual stigma of the past. From that we need to at least consider the possibility that even guys like Vick can choose to learn from what they have done and maybe make up for it in substantive ways if we just allow them to turn the corner.
There can never be real redepmtion without forgiveness.
Sometimes it is harder to make a friend than to make an enemy and in order to make progress we need all the friends we can get.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 22, 2007 @ 7:36 am
Christopher, I agree with you that folks like straybaby should read “Redemption”, if only to expose themselves to some ways of thinking about things that may not have occurred to them before.
But I have to say that my biggest complaint while reading it (I don’t currently have it in my posession to find you examples) was the lack of cites and footnotes to the many “facts” that Winograd liberally sprinkled throughout the book. Having every fact, figure, and quotation footnoted to a citation would have really helped support what he was saying, IMHO.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 22, 2007 @ 7:39 am
Pat,
what do you think i’ll learn from Redemption that i haven’t learned from working in the shelters here and participating in the no-kill movement from the beginning. the goal in NYC is to not have any pet of reasonable health and temperament euthed because they don’t have a home. the Alliance has been working with Maddie’s Fund since the beginning and i wouldn’t be surprised if NYC’s plans are pretty much in line with NW. the city’s come a long way from the days of the NYCACC horror stories.
From Christopher above’ “And I suppose that means axing existing leadership and replacing it with people who believe or starting new organizations that can and will compete, making the old organizations obsolete or forcing them to change.” we’ve done that, thank dog! it was a key step at the NYCACC, imo, along with the change of Mayors. the change at the nycacc was pretty immediate as far as rescuing went from my personal experience. a lot of good things have happened in the last few years, although not fast enough for my taste, but then i am a tad impatient ;)
i have no doubt i would agree with most, if not all, of NW’s “path” and i have prob traveled on some of it. i have a stack of other books staring me in the face at the moment though (and collecting dust!) :) my main grip has been what i feel is a misrepresentation of the ASPCA by lumping them in with PETA and HSUS and other remarks. and in the end, all that does is hurt the animals that they are out there helping. counterproductive, eh?
Comment by straybaby — December 22, 2007 @ 11:50 am
straybaby writes:
“what do you think i’ll learn from Redemption that i haven’t learned from working in the shelters here and participating in the no-kill movement from the beginning.”
Um, unless you READ it, you’ll never know what you might learn. That’s kinda the point that’s being made.
Personally, I’ve never turned down the opportunity to learn something. The day you decide you know it all is the day you admit you don’t know much of anything, and are fine with that.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 22, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
The more I learn, the more ignorant I realize I am.
Comment by Lynn — December 22, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Re comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 22, 2007 @ 7:36 am
“…even guys like Vick can choose to learn from what they have done and maybe make up for it in substantive ways if we just allow them to turn the corner. There can never be real redepmtion without forgiveness.”
Until there is genuine remorse, there can be no forgiveness or redemption….at least not from me.
Comment by Lynn — December 22, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
uh, Gina, i didn’t say i knew it all. nor am i against learning more. and from what i’ve heard/seen of redemption, i’m sure i agree with most of it. what i don’t agree with is saying that the ASPCA kills MOST of the animals it gets it’s hands on, etc. is that so hard to understand? will my opinion change regarding that if i read redemption? i doubt it because afaik it’s not true and so far no one seems to be able to support that comment. the NYCACC has been around since 1995, so i’m guessing that’s when the ASPCA gave up their contract with the city and refocused on their mission. how can anyone expect change if this is going to be the attitude? maybe we should be looking at what they are doing NOW, not pre-1995?
i will read redemption eventually, but honestly, i do have projects in front of it at the moment. if that makes my experiences invalid, well, so be it.
Comment by straybaby — December 22, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
The OTHER Pat -
Oh, I agree, I think he should remedy that situation on his website. I know real data is hard to find and there are problems with even the current data… but a complete airing of the truth should be encouraged.
That goes for shelters fessing up to their kill/save numbers too.
He has an EXTENSIVE bibliography in the back, but as you say, his choice of notation isn’t as scientific and specific as it could (should) be.
straybaby -
I gave you TWO links to those exact words, on the ASPCA website. If you are unable to read, that’s your problem.
I challenge YOU to show me the ASPCA’s Asilomar euthanization records. I found them within SECONDS of going to the SF/SPCA’s website as well as my own Denver Dumb Friends League.
Why should those be so hard to find at the ASPCA?
With a little effort, you can read the Richmond SPCA records on the ASPCA website (Winograd talks about them in his book), and the SF/SPCA records are very easy to find (Winograd talks about them in his book). So where are the New York numbers?
That’s an ASPCA disclosure issue right there.
Asilomar data is by no means perfect, Winograd gives a breakdown of why they are deceptive and even unenforceable or verifiable in the book, but at least they are data.
You don’t even have to buy the book to read about it, here’s a free PDF file that explains the problems with Asilomar:
http://tinyurl.com/3792qn
Here’s an article from one year ago that still shows that New York kills more animals than it adopts, even if you count RETURNED TO OWNER as “adoptions.”
http://tinyurl.com/2ojdpa
It’s a wonderful article about $5,000,000 worth of renovations the ASPCA did to make their shelter posh and visitor friendly. How nice, that’s one of the things Winograd and others suggest to help improve adoption numbers.
But it still means that New York is MOSTLY killing. And if you’re going to complain that it’s not the ASPCA doing the killing, I’ll note that the SF/SPCA took over all “to be killed” animals from the City Pound when they renounced their role and gave up their city contract to kill pets. They didn’t just abandon the dogs and cats when they abandoned their contract. They made SF a No Kill City even without the SF Pound being No Kill.
The more the *SPCAs get back to their mission of stopping animal cruelty, the better. To the extent that they have done so, they deserve credit. No one is saying otherwise.
But history is relevant, and no one is demanding perfection. Saying something is “not perfect” can excuse any level of evil or incompetency.
We could say that the Nazis were not perfect in their mission to eradicate Jews (and others) from the planet. Should we reward them for their failures (i.e. the countless numbers of emaciated near-death Jews, gays, gypsies, Catholics, etc. that were liberated from the death camps by the Allies)?
The Nazis aren’t killing any Jews NOW, so why don’t we look at the good work they’re doing today and give them a second chance?
You might find my analogy inappropriate, especially since the ASPCA was out to do good, but what do you think the Nazi party was out to do and how do you think they rose to power? They didn’t run on a platform of Evil! They convinced a nation of people that they had to do the hard work, even go to war (i.e. kill other people) for their self preservation. They compromised their morals for what they convinced themselves was self preservation.
The historical ASPCA did the same thing. They gave up their mission to sell out for self preservation. And they carried out a hundred years of animal genocide because of that.
The fact that the ASPCA sold out their cause as soon as their founder died and became the model organization for other SPCAs to “fall in line” is a history they are going to have to fess up to and live with.
You keep hinting that the ASPCA is now different, well good! All the credit they deserve for every step they have taken to abandon what doesn’t work and adopt what does! I sure hope they are different and continue to distance themselves from their past failures and learn from their past successes.
I’ve read those position statements you link to, they even have one about the Asilomar accords and they advertise them self as the “founding signatory” …. but good luck FINDING the actual records.
Winograd also makes an interesting point about the meaningless of their position statements, specifically their Feral Cat statement that seems to support TNR, but is so convoluted and conditioned as to be ‘all things to all people’ and sitting on the fence. That smacks of telling people what they want to hear without making a commitment, waiting to see which side wins out and then claiming that they’ve been supporters all along.
Is that leadership or is that changing only because you have to, to keep the money flowing in?
Despite being illuminating to the horrible paradigm that the ASPCA (and the country at large) adopted towards the “animal overpopulation problem,” Winograd’s book isn’t anti-SPCA, most of his success stories come from SPCAs! The movement he is championing is about getting all of the independent SPCAs to “fall in line” with the new paradigm of shelter ethic. He gives plenty of examples of SPCAs and other shelters that are on-their-way but not there yet and the role model SF/SPCA is the jewel in the crown of the movement.
Winograd isn’t all doom-and-gloom about the SPCA. I am. I’m rather pissed off that groups like the SPCA, HSUS, and PETA cash in on all the wonderful work they are supposedly doing, all the while they are antiquated and hypocritical and they BLAME THE PUBLIC for all the ills, and they blame breeders, and they blame… blame… blame. But once you read the history, you find out that killing isn’t a necessary part of the equation, it’s the SPCAs and HSs being ineffective at beating the enemy, so they joined the enemy or BECAME the enemy.
That pisses me off. It pisses me off that they have killed, killed, killed in the name of “overpopulation” when such a thing does not exist, nor has it. They kill for supposed disease prevention when again, such an element does not exist nor has it existed. They justify killing based on Dogma, not on facts.
How many animals have died at the hands of these people, simply because the public perceived them as GOOD at the job of rehoming animals? How many people turned their pet into a shelter because they thought the shelter would be better at rehoming their pet than they would be on their own? How many of those people were ignorant of the fact that shelters only save 30-40%? If they had that on their front door, how many people would take their pets back home, or perhaps put in just a little effort to find their pet a home themselves.
I have saved a few animals off the street, the most recent this summer, but I did the work of finding their former owners myself. My first dog was also rescued off the street by my Grandmother who drove him all the way across the country to live with me. I never relied on a shelter because I didn’t need to, I could do the work myself. But before now, I would have had no problem dropping a dog off at a shelter if that was more convenient… they save animals professionally after all!
Well, I wouldn’t do so today, unless I looked up their kill rate before hand, and I’d certainly prefer No Kill.
I’m not a No Kill advocate because I don’t believe animals should be killed at all… I am a No Kill advocate because I just found out that they don’t HAVE to be. I was always told that they HAD to be killed and there was no better way. I was fine with that. I’m not now, a better way has been found.
I wrote not so long ago on my blog that the ethic of demanding breeders take back their animals for any reason at any time (the ASPCA lists this as their ethic for breeders on those position statements, too) was silly. And I still think it is. But I have changed my practical position on the matter, since the shelter alternative is such a poor alternative.
Even though something like 20% of dogs in shelters are purebred and 25% are reported to have been purchased from breeders, and even though the same surveys show that only some 20-25% of all the dogs in the country are obtained for a market price from a hobby/professional breeder (those stats are available on the ASPCA FAQ section)…. I would never want a dog that I bred to possibly end up in a shelter that was so incompetent at rehoming dogs.
It’s just like demanding that parents school their own children or that parents take them back if they are bad… well, that seems silly when the schools are good and the jails are efficient, but when the schools suck, many parents DO homeschool their children… and our jails are such failures, it’s no wonder we haven’t demanded that parents take back their delinquent children yet!
Any way, until the ASPCA comes out and apologizes for a century of backward thinking and genocide, and until they apologize for blaming the victim, and until they fess up that there isn’t a pet overpopulation problem and that it isn’t breeders that have fed what problem does exist… I don’t see any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. I’m tired of being lied to.
Comment by Christopher — December 22, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Nathan Winograd just added a speaking engagement on January 15, 2008, in Los Angeles.
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/.....ad_037.htm
Comment by Lynn — December 22, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Christopher,
those numbers are the NYCACC ones. if you don’t know already, the head of the ASPCA came from the SFSPCA. He’s been here for 5yrs i believe. You can bash the ASPCA all you want, but the fact is, for the last 10yrs they have been on a positive road. and they have not abandoned anyone here. just keep in mind that the more you make them out to be the enemy based on their past, the more you hurt the animals we are all trying to help, imo. what about the 5mil grant they gave to nyc or mission orange? we can’t ask people to change if we don’t support the effort.
btw, 2 of my bridge kitties were from the SFSPCA back when they were first starting the road to no-kill. NW may have even been there at the time. sadly, they were still euthing for simple things such as URI’s at the time (a litter went down while i was there getting my boys). yet they claimed a 90+ % success rate for the month. ;)
“until they fess up that there isn’t a pet overpopulation problem . . .”
have they said there isn’t?! responsible breeders taking back their animals keeps them from adding to the shelter overpopulation, same as rescues and shelters also making the same pledge.i ‘m glad you see the practical side of that :) i’m on the microchips of the rescues i’ve placed (not the main contact) and they were chipped through my local no-kill so they can also be traced to them, should need be.
anyway, i hope someday you can see the change at the ASPCA (and other shelters that are trying to be on the right path) :) they really do go above and beyond for the animals there. many shelters would euth for “medical” or “behavior” to make the numbers, they don’t from what i’ve seen.
many good people have turned their pets into shelters believing they would find a home. but on the flip side, there are those that turn in their pets when they become an inconvenience. they actually put things like vacation as the reason for surrender! OY! we really do need the publics’ help to stop the killing, imo. while our euth rates have gone down and adoptions are up (not counting return to owner!), intake isn’t budging as much :( and with our warm fall, we were running a 2fer adoption special on kittens last month at the city shelter. sigh.
oh, and just so you know, their S/N van fixes many, many ferals and works with the local groups. they did 20+ for me one summer, free of charge (at the same time!). they also s/n for free anyone’s pets on PA and 25 bucks for everyone else. they take care of the city shelters s/n’s a couple times a week along with the no kill by me. all steps in the right direction, imo. we’ll get there . . .
bottom line, while i may agree of some of what you say/your feelings, we need the aspca here. i can’t think of another agency that can supply the services they do. and as they reach out more nationally, others will need them also. it’s all towards the same end goal, at least ;)
if you ever want any links to what it was like here before the no-kill commitment, let me know.
Comment by straybaby — December 22, 2007 @ 5:41 pm