Why bother calling it a ’shelter’?
By Christie Keith
September 4, 2008
I’m watching the responses to my foreclosure pets piece, both public comments and private emails, and still seeing the exact same pattern that drove the article in the first place.
On one side, people like Cheryl Lang and Bonney Brown who are actually trying to show some compassion for people facing hard times, and give their pets a hand.
On the other side? Blame, blame, and more blame, wrapped up with judgmentalism. “I’d never abandon my dog! Never!” “Anyone who abandons their pet should be put in jail!” “I was in an abusive relationship/lost my home/was on the streets and I still kept my dog!” “I’d live in my car before I’d give up my pets!” “I work/volunteer in a shelter, and people come in and dump their dogs and cats all the time. Of course it’s their fault, although I guess if someone was being beaten daily by their spouse it might be okay if they had to put their pet in a shelter.”
As Gina said to me the other day, if that’s your attitude, “Why are you calling it a shelter?” She pointed out that when shelters don’t want to help people who walk in their doors, they’re justifying their actions with a circular argument:
Responsible pet-lovers don’t take pets to shelters no matter what. So by definition they’re not helping anyone who was responsible, because if you take a pet to a shelter you’re a bad pet-owner.
So who IS allowed to take a pet to a shelter without being ripped a new one? Are you granted a pass only if you drop dead without family?
I suspect even then, Gina, you’d just be blamed for not making better plans.
I particularly loved what Petfinder.com’s Betsy Saul had to say in my interview with her:
Someone like that has clearly not had a sick child or has not been in real trouble; it must be a wonderful, wonderful place. But we’ll all be there at some point in our lives. We shouldn’t be that naive. And God willing, we could all be there, in that space, right? But usually life touches us, and we’re humbled, and we realize that there but for the grace of God go I, right?
I’m the president of Petfinder.com. And I have been so fortunate to never have been in a situation where I had to make that decision. And yet, I’ve had enough craziness in my life, and I’ve been touched by things that are not in your control, that I know that moment where you sit up in bed and you think, I can’t handle any more responsibility. I have to get rid of the responsibility. And I’m always surprised to meet adults who haven’t done that.
I mean, I think it’s great and amazing, to never ever feel that way. But haven’t you had those periods in your life? A lack of humility in someone I think, who doesn’t get that sometimes life gets out of control. And that being said, I’ll also say that I’ve known homeless people who I think were better pet parents than some of the richest people I know.
And one final point is that I always like to point out to people on that front is that you look at my dog, one of the best dogs in the universe, you look at your dog, all these rescued dogs out there that have great lives, and how can you think anything other than thank God someone gave you up, so I could have you?
I used to spend a lot of time hating on whoever stuffed my beautiful dog Colleen in the night deposit box at the Peninsula Humane Society. But like Betsy, now I’m so grateful that they did, because that dog? She was everything to me.
More to the point, I guess, is simply this: Lack of compassion and empathy, lectures, and being judgmental don’t work. They simply do not have the effect you think they have, that you want them to have. As I said the other day, you catch flies with honey, not vinegar.
And as Nathan Winograd points out in his public presentations on creating no kill communities across America, irresponsible people will always be with us. They’ll fail to pay child support, drive drunk, cheat on their spouses, and not help their kids with their homework. They’ll also be irresponsible with their pets.
That’s what shelters are for. That’s what they should be for. That is what animal control policy should be based on.
Of course we need to reduce the upstream flow of unwanted pets, but we’ve very nearly done that. Almost all owned dogs and cats are already spayed and neutered. Kill rates at shelters have plummeted in the last 20 years, down from 27 million a year to around 4 million a year, a huge percentage of which are the offspring of unowned cats. Richard Avanzino of Maddie’s Fund has calculated that just by nudging shelters as a source of pets up from 23 to 25 percent, we will get every pet in every shelter in America into a home, every single year, instead of killing them for shelter space.
This is in our grasp, folks. If we just have the will to do it, and stop pursuing pointless, self-defeating policies based on our judgment that some people just don’t love their pets the way we want them to.
It’s not just the compassionate thing to do. It’s what works.
I just had this discussion on a breed rescue group, with the same sentiments expressed — “I would NEVER give up MY dog!”.
Way to turn off the very people we’re there to try to woo. And yes, ‘woo’ is the right word, because breed rescue has to try to convince people not to put dogs into shelters, or place them through the newspaper, or sell them via free on line ad sites. We’re supposed to be there to be compassionate, nonjudgmental, and ready to take that dog, no matter what.
As a woman who had to place several of her dogs after a nasty, evil divorce, I know full well never to say never. If you’d asked me five years earlier, I’d have laughed at you, but things change and people have to make choices. It was five years before I was secure enough again to get them back, but thankfully the friends who took them in never judged me for it.
Comment by Carol — September 4, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Even if you grant that these people are evil and totally irresponsible (and I know that isn’t true—but just grant it), should the animals pay with their lives for the people’s shortcomings?
Comment by Arlene — September 4, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Well, I’ve been homeless with my pets and I can say it isn’t easy. (I was injured, couldn’t work and it just snowballed.)
Although I still get physical treatment for the injury, the worse part was how long it has taken to recover emotionally and mentally from the experience…and the most stress came from my concerns over how to care for my pets.
It never crossed my mind that abandoning them was an option. Local agencies were helpful and I am glad you mentioned many options in your article.
It was someone at church who was willing to take me in with them a hundred pound dog and a parrot.
When I was writing, What Animals Can Teach Us about Spirituality, I met a homeless man with his dog.
Their story made it into the book because he found ways to take care of his animals despite all the troubles surrounding him.
It is sad to see how people choose to be harsh instead of offering help or pooling their ideas and resources together to help such situations.
I hated working at a low kill shelter because many animals could have gone into homes instead of living for ages at a shelter if the majority of the staff just changed their “ideas” of what made a good pet owner.
We need to shift the perspective to helping furry family members stay with their families.
Comment by Diana L Guerrero — September 4, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
It’s this kind of attitude that prevents shelters from serving their communities. After all, don’t people take animals to shelters to try and give them a second chance? Doesn’t that indicate some level of caring and concern? Certainly a lot more than the jerk who takes a litter of puppies and dumps them in a field…
Some shelters put up huge obstacles not only for people bringing animals in, but for people trying to adopt. The system needs to change - and it can’t do that until the attitudes change, first.
Comment by mikken — September 4, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
Dropping dead doesn’t get you off with these people. A friend heard about a pair of dogs of her breed at the local shelter. She went to see about rescuing them. They had been brought to the shelter by the police after the owner had died. She recognized the dogs and contacted the breeder. The breeder wasn’t allowed to adopt the dogs because she was a breeder. The breeder contacted the deceased’s only living relative. He couldn’t adopt the dogs because he had abandoned them for two days in the deceased’s house. He didn’t even know his relative was dead. After much pleading a couple the breeder knew was allowed to adopt the pair with the strict condition that they never be returned to the breeder. Without that condition the shelter workers preferred to kill the dogs. Crazy.
Comment by grahund — September 4, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Is this issue kind of similar to what happened during hurricane Katrina?
Pets were not judged important by the powers that be…and instead of being evacuated, were left to die or be killed. This time, with hurricane Gustav, people were encouraged to take their pets. It’s so sad that in our nation, lessons are so often learned the hard way, and after the fact.
There should be some type of system in place for circumstances such as this, where people facing or going through foreclosure would be able to reclaim their pets, after relocating. Are these “shelters” or “killing machines?”
Why are our pets always taking the brunt of our society’s mistakes? Katrina, the pet food recalls, and now the foreclosures! Not acceptible.
Comment by Marcy — September 4, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
This whole debate is incredibly ironic because while they judge and condemn others, they cry foul when you offer judgment in return. But if anyone should be judgmental, if anyone deserves to be judgmental, it is those of us who truly love animals and are angry that too many shelters find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it. But when you call it into question, they label you divisive and unfair for judging them.
The irreconcilable hypocrisy here is that while blame-oriented shelter staff decries the public’s “irresponsibility,” they themselves refuse to accept responsibility for the lives of the animals, content as they are to pass the blame to others.
First, it is to care for animals in need that shelters exist in the first place. Second, it is often the very practices of the shelter itself that lead to killing. If a shelter does not maintain adequate adoption hours or has poor customer service, refuses to work with volunteers, foster parents, or rescue groups, fails to treat and rehabilitate sick, injured, or traumatized animals, or does not offer lifesaving alternatives as an option, the shelter is not doing much to prevent killing. And too many shelters are not doing all these things and more.
And while they tell people not to treat animals as disposable, they themselves treat them exactly that way by killing them and then literally disposing their bodies into landfills.
There are so many layers of hypocrisy here you’d need a Ph.D. in Psychology to unearth it all.
Comment by Nathan J. Winograd — September 5, 2008 @ 9:13 am
And bitching about things will make them better………How?
If anyone wants to roll up your sleeves and get to work, C’mon on in. We’ve got a few projects in the bay area that could use some help.
Folks eager to play the blame game on either* side of the fence need not apply.
Comment by Donna — September 5, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Calling folks on their BS absolutely does help, and Donna, you should know, since BADRAP has done plenty of it with regard to pit bulls and PETA, pit bull and the HSUS, pit bulls and the media, and more. By not accepting things as they are, and challenging perception, you have worked miracles.
Christie’s earlier point is a good one to restate: Would you say that a critic not pan a performance unless she can do it better? A journalist not expose a government scandal unless he can also step in and reform the beauracracy?
Actions need start as ideas, and that’s how change begins.
But I do understand the frustration in the meantime, as expressed in this recent post on the BADRAP blog.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 5, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
To add to what Gina said: This IS my work. I’m a writer, a journalist. I’m not “bitching,” I’m informing, critiquing, raising awareness, and putting things into a bigger perspective.
Does that mean I haven’t ever rolled up my sleeves? Absolutely not. I have, and I will continue to do so. But to imply that there’s no utility to the word is absurd. It was reading “Redemption” that started me down this path — and it was in reading “Bandit” by Vicki Hearne that I began to question the conventional wisdom on pit bulls, too.
Never underestimate the power of the word. It’s why freedom of speech and of the press are our first and oldest guaranteed rights in this country.
Comment by Christie Keith — September 5, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Christie, critiquing comes with heavy responsibility. Every time we rail (which we admittedly due quite often) it comes with a high price tag because we know we’re going to alienate someone.
Do you really want to alienate the shelter workers that read you?
Are these people discouraged and tired? Of course they are. Sometimes pet owners really REALLY suck. Sometimes backyard breeding trends surge beyond the carrying capacity of their community. Sometimes people surrender beautiful animals or really neglected animals because they just don’t want to be bothered with them anymore.
Richard Avanzino’s fantasy of getting every pet in every shelter in America into a home is for a select group of dogs. The shelter workers will still be euthanizing the ‘undesirables’ (insert whatever definition you want to use for undesirable) and they’ll still be fighting back compassion fatigue for having to stuff them in the freezer. To condemn these people for showing judgment when another chemical burned, bred-into-the-ground dog is surrendered by its owner (citing a real live example from this week) is to misunderstand what it is to be human. You hurt for an animal that you know you have to kill, and you blame the former caretaker for making you do it — That’s just a coping mechanism; it’s just being a human.
Rather than blame shelters for being cranky at the intake desk, why not help staff with this horrible reality they face… Whether its to help euthanize their favorite dog so they don’t have to (one of my contributions this week) or take the broken dog home and give it a week of TLC before it dies so they feel okay about putting it down. Or bring a box of bully sticks in and ask the staff to give one to every dog that they have to kill as a parting gesture.
In other words, show some friggin compassion for the people who are getting broken in pieces by the sad job of killing people’s rejected pets — and maybe you’ll give them enough hope to do their job a little bit differently when it comes to dealing with the public.
Comment by Donna — September 5, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
In other words, show some friggin compassion for the people who are getting broken in pieces by the sad job of killing people’s rejected pets — and maybe you’ll give them enough hope to do their job a little bit differently when it comes to dealing with the public.
Comment by Donna — September 5, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
The shelter industry is a broken system, and all the compassion in the world for the angry people working in that system isn’t going to change a thing when it comes to helping the animals and people the shelter system is supposed to care about.
How about a little friggin compassion for them, too?
Do you really think the current system is working so very well for pit bulls? Would it not be worth it to try something that may work better?
My “heavy responsibility” is to speak up. Honestly, it’s a whole heckalot easier not to alienate people, but accepting the status quo, reporting only what someone wants and not digging for the facts never accomplished a thing.
Do you think the pet-food companies liked us reporting on the recall? Do you think the FDA folks called afterward wanting to take us to lunch? Do you think the AKC always likes what we write? The HSUS? The AVMA? No, no, no and no.
I know a lot of people who work in shelters, and I agree that it’s brutal, demoralizing work. But my sympathy will not stop me from questioning what works and what doesn’t, and what needs to be changed.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 5, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Do you really want to alienate the shelter workers that read you?
What a great way to silence criticism!
Richard Avanzino’s fantasy of getting every pet in every shelter in America into a home is for a select group of dogs.
No Kill has been successfully implemented in urban areas, rural areas, rich communities, and poor communities.
The shelter workers will still be euthanizing the ‘undesirables’ (insert whatever definition you want to use for undesirable) and they’ll still be fighting back compassion fatigue for having to stuff them in the freezer. To condemn these people for showing judgment when another chemical burned, bred-into-the-ground dog is surrendered by its owner (citing a real live example from this week) is to misunderstand what it is to be human. You hurt for an animal that you know you have to kill, and you blame the former caretaker for making you do it — That’s just a coping mechanism; it’s just being a human.
And what about some compassion for the people who are losing their homes, are barely able, or not able, to find housing for themselves, and are trying to do the right thing by bringing their animals to a shelter—only to be told that their animals will be killed, and that they are worthless human beings? Is it okay to expect shelter workers to be compassionate to them, or should we be understanding and supportive of the shelter workers who decide that these people need to be beaten some more while they’re already down, and then be further punished by having their animals (whom they were trying to bring to safety) will be killed?
My dog at least has a responsible breeder, so that if the worst happens to me and my family can’t care for her, at least she won’t be dependent on the dubious “mercy” of a “shelter” that kills healthy, adoptable animals for convenience or for vindictiveness towards the people who brought them in.
Or at least, I hope she won’t. What if I drop dead, and it’s not my family that finds me? What if she gets taken to a shelter before my family or her breeder know I’m dead? Did you read grahund’s story?
I’m sorry, but I have little sympathy for the judgmentalism that holds people responsible for things beyond their control, and that would rather kill a speutered pet whose owner has died than return it to its breeder because breeders are Bad.
Comment by Lis — September 5, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
Compassion for shelter workers as individuals is a completely separate issue from enabling shelters that persist in doing sheltering 1.0 in a sheltering 3.0 world.
Burned out, demoralized shelter workers are the fault of management and its policies.
Keeping people on the front lines when they’re angry and sad and blaming the community — the community that is their greatest source of potential support, but is being framed to them as the cause of all their problems — and letting them sink into depression and despair is a management failure that creates a harmful, self-perpetuating “us against them” mentality that ensures animals will unnecessarily die and shelter workers will continue to be demoralized.
I think the greatest thing I can do for demoralized shelter workers is show them that there’s another way, and it’s not just hopeless and unending sadness.
As to Richard’s numbers being a fantasy, they’re not. It’s a constantly used anti-no kill talking point that no-kill is based on a manipulated category of “adoptable,” but no kill aims for a live release rate, community wide, of over 90 percent, bringing their standards for killing in line with those used by loving pet owners for the euthanasia of their own animals. That is what no kill IS.
It’s a lie that there are not enough homes in America for the animals that are in our shelters. It would take a very small percentage increase in shelter adoptions to absorb all the animals currently being killed for shelter space. You can’t “game” that statistic, because it doesn’t rely on some arbitrary definition of “adoptable,” but simply looks at things like “how many pets in America come from shelters?” and “how many pets entering the shelter system come out alive?”
It’s not like “from shelters” and “alive” are subjective terms.
And again: it doesn’t matter if I’m being mean. It doesn’t matter if some owners are bad. What matters is that negativity, blaming pet owners, and being pissed off DO NOT WORK as strategies to reduce shelter killing and get more animals into homes.
What works is activating your community to work together to create a community wide plan to stop using killing as a tool of animal population control.
And that’s something that should make every shelter worker smile.
Comment by Christie Keith — September 5, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
Comment by Donna — September 5, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
“Sometimes backyard breeding trends surge beyond the carrying capacity of their community. Sometimes people surrender beautiful animals or really neglected animals because they just don’t want to be bothered with them anymore.”
(snip)
“To condemn these people for showing judgment when another chemical burned, bred-into-the-ground dog is surrendered by its owner (citing a real live example from this week) is to misunderstand what it is to be human. You hurt for an animal that you know you have to kill, and you blame the former caretaker for making you do it.”
To be angry at and blame THAT PARTICULAR former caretaker in cases of the kinds of horrors you’ve described here is completely understandable.
But to generalize that anger and blame to ALL pet owners who require the services of a shelter is not excusable and - worse yet - counterproductive, because it tends to drive people away.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 5, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
It’s been my experience that if you keep quiet on an issue…it doesn’t go away…it keeps happening, unhindered.
This country was founded by people who spoke out on injustices. And just because these are animals, and not people, doesn’t make it any less of an injustice to life.
They do not deserve to die.
Comment by Marcy — September 5, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
>Do you really think the current system is working so very well for pit bulls? Would it not be worth it to try something that may work better?
Something better, as in SF’s compassionate example?
No-kill is a wonderful concept, but the presentation has been really distasteful - I’m not sure why it’s being marketed with such angry attitude.
>It’s a lie that there are not enough homes in America for the animals that are in our shelters.
Okay Christie. America’s fad breeds wish you the best of luck proving everybody wrong.
Comment by Donna — September 6, 2008 @ 12:45 am
Carol—I’m frankly surprised that your friends didn’t sue you for custody of your former pets! After keeping them for five years would make anyone become attached! I found homes for my 3 cats when I was marrying someone who was allergic. I knew the people and they had good lives—but I’d never do that again. The marriage, of course, ended up failing. But I never would have expected them to give my cats back to me.
I can understand people who work in shelters getting upset at people who view pets as disposable. But situations happen and some of these shelter people are too zealous. Running people down is only going to make them dump the pet on the side of the road if there is a next time. Be glad they were responsible enough to not leave them in the empty house!
And being that most shelters have adopted pets neutered, why they wouldn’t let the breeder have them back to re-home is ridiculous unless they can prove it’s a bad situation. Most puppy mill types are NOT going to take back a dog, but a responsible breeder will and often require that if you cannot keep them that you bring them back!
Comment by Cheryl — September 6, 2008 @ 2:59 am
Being filled with a negative attitude, wallowing in frustration, anger, you name it - I don’t care what type of profession you are in - you will not be in a frame of mind that will allow you to accomplish great things. No successful professional in the world wastes their time laying blame. Successful people focus their energy in positive ways.
As a person who has had a lot of challenges in my life including almost losing all of my pets after a bitter divorce and losing my home, I had to re-evaluate my life to survive. A part of that included cognitive therapy that changed both my personal and professional life. Cognitive therapy showed me how my negative thoughts were destroying my life. That, in and of itself, taught me to be positive about my work which is in animal sheltering. I used to hate people for what they did (or what I imagined they did) to animals, now all of my energy is focused on saving lives and creating change. That includes challenging the status quo.
If you work in a shelter or rescue and you are caught in the cycle if anger, negativity and blame - quit or get help. Don’t wait for a reporter to point out the obvious flaws in your distorted thinking.
Comment by Susan Cosby — September 6, 2008 @ 5:40 am
Something better, as in SF’s compassionate example?
No-kill is a wonderful concept, but the presentation has been really distasteful - I’m not sure why it’s being marketed with such angry attitude.
Comment by Donna — September 6, 2008
The SFSPCA has changed dramatically since Avanzino and Winograd left, although the perception remains that the same innovative policies and thinking are there. (My guess is that they don’t try to change that perception because it’s good for fund-raising.)
As for the “angry attitude,” well, here’s the thing. It’s not for nothing that I’ve nicknamed Nathan Winograd the “no-kill flamethrower.” And in fact, his strident passion makes me wince sometimes.
But I’ve known Avanzino for decades and followed Maddie’s Fund’s slow, deliberate approach.
And then “Redemption.” I read it on a plane, and had to get out of my seat to rummage through the overhead bin for a pen to mark passages and post-its to mark pages — and I haven’t done that since college. I wanted to wake up the guy next to me and read bits of it to him. And when I hit the ground, I called Christie, who’d already read it. “Oh my Gawd!” I said. “Everyone has to read this!”
Honestly, in all my years of writing about pets, I’ve read only two books that changed everything for me: “Redemption” and Karen Pryor’s “Don’t Shoot the Dog.”
In the year since “Redemption” came out, Winograd has managed to do more to advance shelter reform than anything and anyone in 10 years before.
More than that, “Redemption” changed my life. I now wince to remember my own judgmental approach to taking in pets when I was running NorCal Sheltie rescue.
I remember in particular one sobbing woman who gave up her dog after having to sell her house post-divorce. Some 20 years ago, at the smug-smart age of 30, I thought the usual stuff, that she really didn’t love her dog, that she should have tried harder to find dog-friendly housing, that *I* would live in my car before giving up my dog, etc., etc.
This woman was standing before me with her life in tatters, sobbing, and I felt … angry and “better” than she was, because she was “dumping” her dog.
If I could find that woman now, I’d apologize and ask her forgiveness. And tell her that even though I was wrong to judge her, I did find a great home for her dog, who lived to be 16 with a wonderful family who stayed in touch and contacted me for advice about another dog when that dog died.
There are always going to be “bad people.” But most are just people who need help. Helping them and their pets is what “shelters” are supposed to be doing. Killing 90 percent of what comes in, no matter what spin you put on it, is killing, not euthanasia.
Finally, because we just can’t seem to say this enough, it’s not “no-kill” shelters vs. “open-admission” shelters. No-kill is about communities, not hoarding, no matter what PETA tells you.
The challenge is for shelters — directors, boards of directors — to engage the community in programs that make the shelter the center of the animal-loving universe for all people, and to engage those people in helping to make life better for everyone who has animals in the community. It mean shelters not fighting with rescue groups, reputable breeders or veterinarians. It means engaging people and foundations to fund outreach to get help to the people who need it, with mobile free spay-neuter, with outreach to property owners to help tip them to accept pets, and more.
And it means not treating people like trash when they are reaching out for “shelter” for their pets. And not treating other people like potential serial-killers-in-training when adopting out pets.
And, most of all, it means moving those people-hating front deskers to other, non-public-facing jobs — or moving them out the back door.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 6, 2008 @ 6:47 am
Seems like a good place for Pat to come in and offer the stages of change information … paging Pat …
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 6, 2008 @ 6:57 am
At your service!
Karen Pryor’s article “On Being a Changemaker” is about clicker training. However, the concepts it discusses have far broader applicability:
“What people do when you start to institute a change (in chronological order)
1. Ignore you
2. Pretend to agree but actually do nothing
3. Resist, delay, obstruct
4. Openly attack you (the dangerous phase, but also a sign that change is starting)
5. Absorb
6. Utilize
7. Take credit
8. Proselytize”
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 6, 2008 @ 7:16 am
> The challenge is for shelters — directors, boards of directors — to engage the community in programs
That’s just common sense, and it certainly works. But SF has never* approached no-kill in regards to pit bulls, and celebrating them as an example is a snow job. Rather than embrace programs to help their owners, they did just the opposite and decided to blame the breed for the difficult problems they find themselves in.
No-kill will never be a reality as long at that’s allowed - and yes, you are allowing it every time you cite them as an example.
Most of the (foreclosed, etc) pet owners who need help in my* shelter world are coming from situations that can’t be helped. Poverty is a reality shelters can’t fix. And these good people should not be teased with the idea of a no-kill nation when the reality is that their dog will not* survive the system after it falls out of their home. There aren’t enough homes for their most wonderful pets, there aren’t enough rescues willing to take them in and no angry, flame-throwing book is going to scare up the kind of help that they need.
Comment by Donna — September 6, 2008 @ 8:40 am
There aren’t enough homes for their most wonderful pets, there aren’t enough rescues willing to take them in and no angry, flame-throwing book is going to scare up the kind of help that they need.
Comment by Donna — September 6, 2008
Again … please explain to me how you get from stating that the shelter system is broken to believing that shelter reform will be worse?
And Donna, speaking as someone who cycled in and out of rescue several times and has covered animal issues for 30 years — long enough to see a lot of people jump in, do great work, get demoralized and leave — let me just say that you’ve been through a lot in the last couple of years, good and bad. Made a huge difference, and changed a lot of minds. But I gotta tell ya … you might think about taking a little break. Because I’d hate to see a person like you get to a total crash and burn and just walk away. That would be a huge, huge loss.
Take care of yourself, please. The dogs need you, and so do we.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 6, 2008 @ 8:55 am
Most of the (foreclosed, etc) pet owners who need help in my* shelter world are coming from situations that can’t be helped. Poverty is a reality shelters can’t fix. And these good people should not be teased with the idea of a no-kill nation when the reality is that their dog will not* survive the system after it falls out of their home.
So, it’s better to tell them that, not only are you going to kill (not euthanize, that word doesn’t apply in those circumstances) the pet they love and can no longer keep, but that they are worthless human beings and irresponsible pet owners, because they are forced to give up their pets.
Have I got that right? Because that’s what you’re defending—the people who don’t just kill healthy, adoptable animals whose owners were trying to provide for their safety as their lives fall apart, but ripping those grieving owners a new one in the bargain.
That’s sadism, not sheltering.
There aren’t enough homes for their most wonderful pets, there aren’t enough rescues willing to take them in and no angry, flame-throwing book is going to scare up the kind of help that they need.
No Kill has worked in rural communities, urban communities, rich communities, poor communities. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting “na-na-na-na” won’t change that fact.
Comment by Lis — September 6, 2008 @ 9:07 am
Gina, it would be healthier for no-kill advocates to acknowledge the flaws in their models - and set out to change them - then it would be to gloss over them and dismiss their critics as burned out. If you don’t have a solid base of really good working examples, you have nothing but theory.
I’ll let this one rest. The one thing I’ve learned in 20 years of doing this work is to pick your battles, and battles on message boards tend to distract way more than they help.
Comment by Donna — September 6, 2008 @ 10:27 am
There are always going to be “bad people.” But most are just people who need help. Helping them and their pets is what “shelters” are supposed to be doing. Killing 90 percent of what comes in, no matter what spin you put on it, is killing, not euthanasia.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 6, 2008 @ 6:57 am
amen, Gina…amen.
Comment by Marcy — September 6, 2008 @ 11:08 am
I am finding this really confusing. Are you saying if we don’t have a perfect model of no-kill we shouldn’t try? The only way to figure it all out in my beady little brain is to try a no-kill model, then adapt it to fit in the community. I live in the boonies. The model that works here may be different from a city model. We are trying to figure it out in my county. Sure, we’ll find problems. And we’ll address them as we can. But we really want a no-kill community.
Comment by Roberto — September 6, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Roberto, I’m not sure what you’re asking. I don’t think anyone (or at least not very many) are saying that you have to have the No-Kill model perfectly implemented overnight. It’s a process, and processes take time.
But one of the first prerequisites to getting this thing off the ground is buy-in by the people involved. And front desk staff that demonize people who surrender animals due to circumstances beyond their control is not “buy-in”.
Establishing foster programs, outreach, adoption centers, networks with local rescues, etc. all also take time. But if you don’t start, you never get there, right?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 6, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
“Gina, it would be healthier for no-kill advocates to acknowledge the flaws in their models - and set out to change them - then it would be to gloss over them and dismiss their critics as burned out. If you don’t have a solid base of really good working examples, you have nothing but theory.”
The above quote from Donna is what I was referring to. We are trying in my community to figure out no-kill. Donna said acknowledge the flaws. We have to find them first. I don’t think there is a one size fits all model for the whole world. So not every area will have the same flaws.
We are doing the best we can. I realize many people think we “Boondockians” don’t know what we are doing. We are trying.
Comment by Roberto — September 6, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Oh - okay. That makes more sense.
I think it’s great that you’re trying. And I think Winograd was pretty clear that the model can work - “Boondockians” or not!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 6, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Isn’t Tompkins County, the centerpiece of Redemption, pretty “Boondockian” ?
Comment by Lis — September 6, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
The shelter industry is a broken system, and all the compassion in the world for the angry people working in that system isn’t going to change a thing when it comes to helping the animals and people the shelter system is supposed to care about.
How about a little friggin compassion for them, too?
This comment thread is like a weird doppelganger of the DNA/closed registries/dog show/kennel club thread.
* System broke
* Rejection of dramatic paradigm shift by those inside the system
* Institutional support for atrocious conduct
* Non-evil people behaving evilly
* How about a little friggin’ compassion for the animals who suffer and die — and the broken-hearted pet owners — because of the dysfunctional institutions, and the “insiders’” resistance to the necessary revolutionary change?
Same thread.
Coincidence?
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 6, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Except we’re saying the shelter system CAN be improved. We’re not advocating throwing out the entire system just because there are individuals who are invested in it and resistant to change.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 6, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Donna:
Never say never. Every day you are able to get out of bed, go to a job that covers your expenses, and remain self sufficient is a good day. Do you recognize that one little thing could change your life forever?
Perhaps you’ll lose your job when your company moves, or maybe you’ll be replaced by someone half your age at half the price.
And if your spouse works, what happens if you both lose your jobs?
Maybe you’ll be walking home from church and you and your spouse will be hit by a drunk driver. Your spouse is killed outright and you linger in a coma for 3 months. The extensive medical expenses not covered by insurance leave you bankrupt.
Maybe you’ll go your doctor for a minor sore throat and find out you have stage 3 lymph cancer.
Perhaps your spouse will leave you after 34 years of marriage after cleaning out all the bank accounts and running up all the credit card accounts.
Maybe your long hoped for child will be born with disabilities so numerous and profound that there isn’t even a name for whats happening.
Think I’m making up a bunch of really outrageous events? Every one of these tragedies have happened to friends and relatives and neighbors of mine and my parents in the LAST 1 YEAR.
If you don’t know what its like to be faced with these types of tragedies, count yourself lucky. Instead of being judgmental try the following mantra; There but for the grace of
G-d go I.”
What people are telling you when they surrender an aminal is often the tip of the iceberg. Sure there are irresponsible bad people, but regardless your job is to help the animal. Leaving the judgment to a higher power.
Comment by 2CatMom — September 6, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
“…it would be healthier for no-kill advocates to acknowledge the flaws in their models - and set out to change them - then it would be to gloss over them and dismiss their critics as burned out.”
It would be healthier if traditional sheltering and rescue people acknowledge the flaws in their thinking and actions - and set out the change them - then it would be to gloss over them and dismiss their critics.
Or should we shelter workers all continue to strive for mediocrity?
Comment by Susan Cosby — September 7, 2008 @ 6:29 am
Why do so many shelter/rescue workers seem personally offended when someone suggests they improve the manner in which they communicate with the pet-surrendering or even pet-adopting public? Is it really all that challenging to just try to be a little more pleasant to the people using these services? Why does it always come down to blame?
Comment by Joy — September 7, 2008 @ 8:53 am
Because a lot of them are operating from a position of perceived moral superiority. “I’m better than you because you’re doing something I would NEVER do - you’re giving up a pet! Therefore, I’m justified in treating you with disgust and disdain because you’re a morally repugnant human being!”
That’s an attitude that just has to change. Or - at the very least - the shelter community has to make sure that anyone who interacts with the public is not someone who has that attitude.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 7, 2008 @ 9:37 am
Isn’t it just as hurtful (and I’m certain, as ineffective) when those same shelter workers hear from the public that they are detested for “doing what I would never do” which is to kill/euthanize animals?
Comment by Joy — September 7, 2008 @ 9:54 am
That’s like opening up a drug rehab center offering services to drug addicts and then getting angry at your clients for being drug-addicted.
Comment by Joy — September 7, 2008 @ 9:59 am
“Isn’t it just as hurtful (and I’m certain, as ineffective) when those same shelter workers hear from the public that they are detested for ‘doing what I would never do’ which is to kill/euthanize animals?”
No, because I don’t think a lot of the public blames the shelter workers for the killing. Rather, I think much of the public shares the perception that the shelter workers are placed into a situation where they are left with no other choice than to kill the dogs and cats brought in because of the “negligence” of “those irresponsible pet owners”.
“That’s like opening up a drug rehab center offering services to drug addicts and then getting angry at your clients for being drug-addicted.”
Actually, I’m sure that happens. Just like my father used to get angry at us kids for the “necessity” of punishing us, and then his anger over “having” to punish us often caused him to punish us even more. It’s a weird little cycle, but it happens.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 7, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Often in life we are forced to do things we don’t like (treating drug addictions, firing employees, punishing children/animals, killing unwanted pets). Some of these activities are far worse than others but they all cause negative feelings in both parties. Most people are able to reconcile the painful task by understanding its for the greater good. At some point, we get overwhelmed by having to be the bad guy and we become bitter and start taking it out on others. When we find ourselves in that situation, its time to step down and let someone else do the dirty work for a little while. In the meantime, we should find an activity that restores our faith in the system so we can come back with a renewed spirit and perform our work to the best of our abilities.
I can see where this would be a serious problem in shelter work. If you become burnt out by killing animals but don’t have another occupation to use for a break, where do you go to renew your spirit? Obviously retiring to the front desk where you take out your anger on the customers is not a good plan, but have to keep working to support your family. Tough situation.
Comment by Shannon Watts — September 7, 2008 @ 10:35 am
“Victim blame” is related to something called “The Just World Hypothesis” - the idea that the world is just, and that bad things “happen for a reason”. Therefore, if something bad happens to someone, it must be their fault - they must have done something to bring it on.
Here’s an article about it:
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publ.....world.html
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 7, 2008 @ 11:35 am
As someone who moved to a community I didn’t want to live in to keep my three cats, I guess I should be able to turn up my nose at those who didn’t do that. But I can’t. I had a lot of other things going for me: no children, good credit(important for tenants seeking pet-friendly housing), a husband who could move his job easily (our primary income). Had we not had all of these things going for us, we’d have been in bad trouble. People don’t give up 10-year-old cats because they’re irresponsible; they do it because they have no choice. And as we should see from the present economic situation, it has nothing to do with “personal responsibility,” but lack of political power. Compare, for instance, the situation of a typical foreclosed homeowner and that of the head of AIG.
Comment by PeonInChief — October 16, 2008 @ 9:47 am