pet connection

Seems it’s a little hotter at PETA these days, and they can’t take it as well as they can dish it out. Ripped by some animal-lovers for their shelter kill rates (90-plus percent) and for their fighting against the promise of “no-kill” communities,  they’re flooding Google ads with links offering  their spin on the criticism.

On their killing: Ingrid Newkirk on “why we euthanize.”  Spin without what we need to see to believe what’s being written: Proof that these animals were not truly adoptable (or could not be made adoptable on PETA’s multimillion-dollar budget). In other words: PETA shows us a few truly stomach-turning pictures of sick, injured and neglected animals.  Are they candidates for a humane death? Probably …  but we have all seen abuse/neglect cases as bad as these recover and go on to good homes forever.

Instead of the shocking pictures, show us the veterinary  and behavioral evaluations of the 2,000-plus pets (animals taken in for the “purpose of adoption,” according to the Commonwealth of Virginia report all shelters must file) who left the premises in body bags last year.  Until PETA ponies up the paperwork, it’s hard not to remember those animals said to be adoptable in sworn court testimony, given the needle in a van and dumped by PETA workers in grocery store garbage bins. Newkirk writes:

I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion—aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can’t afford euthanasia, for instance—as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring “technicians,” or animal abusers.

Don’t know about you, but I absolutely get that it’s a mercy to euthanize an animal whose suffering cannot be relieved. But I also recognize that in many cases “euthanizing” is just a a nice word for “killing,” which is what happens every day to animals who are adoptable or could be made adoptable — and would be adopted with leadership not being shown by PETA.

When you learn what no-kill is really about, you know what a crock the above statement is. There are more than two choices, kill or let suffer.  High time the high priestess of animal rights looked at the options.  There is not a “crisis” of pet overpopulation (shelter populations and deaths have dropped steadily for decades); there is a crisis of the leadership needed to get programs to target people who want to do right, and to get shelter animals into homes.

On the “no kill” movement: PETA continues to claim that “no kill” is about hoarding and warehousing:

Some people have suggested that the solution to companion animal overpopulation lies with so-called “no-kill,” or “limited-admission,” shelters. Sadly, these facilities often have major problems that affect animals. Animals at “no-kill” shelters who have been deemed unadoptable may be “warehoused” in cages for years. They become withdrawn, severely depressed, or aggressive, which further decreases their chances for adoption. Cageless facilities avoid the cruelty of constant confinement but unintentionally encourage fighting and the spread of disease among animals.

The problem with this is that “no kill” is not about hoarding and warehousing. It’s about shelters providing shelter for pets who need it temporarilly, and working with animal-lovers in the community to develop and fund pro-active programs to bring spay-neuter services to people who want to alter their pets but can’t because of money or transportation issues, programs to elicit volunteers to foster pets and help with adoption outreach. And finally, programs to target special needs populations, such as working to manage feral cat colonies through trap-neuter-release program. (PETA’s answer to feral cats, by the way, is here. Surprise! They carefully parse a policy statement that’s largely against feral cat colony management.)

Why does PETA choose blaming others and spreading hate  over working for change and building bridges?  Why is anyone still listening to PETA?

Last night’s earthquake in Italy hit a region known not only for seismic activity but also for beautiful old buildings that aren’t even in good repair, much less up to anyone’s idea of modern earthquake standards.

That means a lot of downed buildings with people trapped under rubble. More than 70 are already reported dead, with countless more trapped and thousands homeless.

This morning, I am thankful for search and rescue dogs and their handlers, who are ready on short notice to head into dangerous conditions to save lives when they can, and bodies when they can help in no other way.

The International Rescue-Dog Organisation reports teams in Italy are already on the site, and other teams are staging throughout Europe and will be on-site within hours.

Looking for something important to do this weekend? Check out the fifth annual Tony La Russa’s Animal Rescue Foundation “Business of Saving Lives” conference today and Sunday in Walnut Creek, Calif.

Pet Connection contributing editor (and star blogger) Christie Keith will be joining Rich Avanzino of Maddie’s Fund for a session called “Wags Work,” aimed at helping shelters develop customer service strategies to boost pet adoptions,

The session takes place from 2:30 to 4 p.m. today. Find out more about the conference and the other speakers and discussions here.

When the HSUS made some moves towards accepting the basic premise of no-kill — that killing pets for population control won’t be necessary if the shelter industry will change its business model — even no-kill flame-thrower Nathan Winograd had some good words for the nation’s largest, richest and most influential animal-advocacy group:

In 2008, HSUS stated that the public does care about companion animals and is not to blame for their killing in shelters, that killing animals in shelters is “needless,” that we can be a No Kill nation today, and that “pet overpopulation” is more myth than fact. [...] This [came] after announcing that staunch and unapologetic pro-No Kill advocates Susanne Kogut and Bonney Brown will be speaking at Expo 2009, HSUS’ animal sheltering conference. ‘

{…]

This language is like nothing that has ever come out of HSUS on the companion animal issue, and it is my most fervent hope that it will signal a permanent shift away from HSUS’ historical role of legitimizing and providing political cover for shelters mired in killing. And while it is still much too early to uncork the champagne [...], there is some reason for hope.

So much for hope. Winograd now joins Best Friends, BADRAP and other groups — and countless pet-lovers — in blistering the HSUS for its role in the killing of 145 dogs seized — or born after — a dog-fighting bust.  (Winograd notes that some puppies were actually taken from their foster homes to be killed.)

Yesterday, Best Friends led the charge, leading a coalition of outrage and issuing a withering statement:

The court-ordered destruction of 145 dogs, including about 75 puppies, who were seized from a fighting-dog breeding operation in December, was based on the faulty assumption that all dogs seized in dog-fighting-related busts should be deemed dangerous – and consequently euthanized.

The decision to kill the dogs was supported by the largest animal-welfare organization in the country, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). According to the Winston-Salem Journal, representatives of HSUS testified in Wilkes County Superior Court that the dogs had to be destroyed because they had been “bred for generations to be aggressive.”

HSUS reasserted its outdated policy, written more than 20 years ago: “Any dog who has been specifically bred or conditioned for fighting, or for which there is evidence that the dog has been used for fighting should not be placed for adoption by an animal shelter but humanely euthanized as soon as legally possible.”

A coalition of animal welfare organizations, led by Best Friends Animal Society, offered resources to the county to evaluate, spay/neuter, and find homes for qualified dogs.

For his part, Winograd writes that the actions of the HSUS shows that group still doesn’t “get it” when it comes to changing the attitudes and practices at the nation’s shelters, both of which the HSUS was in large part responsible for creating over the last half-century:

Before the dogs were killed, rescue groups were offering to help and calling for HSUS and Wilkes County officials to give the dogs clemency unless and until they are individually assessed and a rehabilitation plan, where possible, was devised for each of the dogs. HSUS refused. In reply, HSUS’ John Goodwin wrote:

Wilkes County euthanizes 3,000 healthy, adoptable animals a year simply because there are not enough good homes opening their doors to these needy animals. I find it disturbing that the groups clamoring for media attention over these 127 dogs raise no fuss, and offer no assistance, for the other 3,000 dogs put down in that county each year.

Are Goodwin and his cohorts at HSUS out of their minds? Are we back to blaming pet overpopulation? What happened to HSUS’ claims of just a few short months ago that that the public does care and is not to blame for their killing, that killing animals in shelters is “needless,” that we can be a No Kill nation today, and that “pet overpopulation” is more myth than fact?

[...]

What happened is that when they made those statements, Maddie’s Fund was dangling a check in front of them and the check came with the statement attached for their signature.

Read more here. In the meantime, the HSUS spent the week patting itself on the back for a puppy-mill bust, for fighting factory farms and for its pay cuts. On its home page, press release page and top dog Wayne Pacelle’s blog, nothing at all about the group’s role in the decision to kill the dogs it had patted itself on the back for saving from a dog-fighter.

I’m guessing there are lots of people inside the HSUS who have real problem with killing these dogs without individual evaluations, especially the puppies, especially those puppies born in foster homes. The Vick case proved that being born a fighter didn’t mean you weren’t really a lover — why doesn’t the HSUS officially and institutionally get that and support individual evaluations for fight-bust dogs?

If one of the progressive voices within the organization isn’t put in job of the HSUS’ John Goodwin very soon, then there really will be no reason for any pet-lover to send this organization a check, despite all their notable accomplishments in other areas.

If an organization founded to improve shelters can no longer recognize the way forward or continue forward itself, then it needs to step aside for those who can.  And we as pet-lovers need to support the future, not the past.

(Image: Vick survivor Jonny Justice, image courtesy of BADRAP)

Hat tip and a high five to Heather Houlahan of the Raised By Wolves blog for this one, reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Donald D. Chambers, 40, of Amherst, [Ohio], was sentenced [Jan. 30] to a year in prison, fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $62,124 in restitution to the Best Friends Animal Society in Utah.

Chambers had told the nonprofit group caring for dogs rescued after Hurricane Katrina that he would take some of them and find them homes.

He received 28 dogs from the Best Friends Animal Society and $36,720 to care for them until they were adopted.

Chambers didn’t spend the money on the dogs, and just three of them landed in homes. Most are dead.

Heather tells the backstory:

[Best Friends] cold-call emailed me and offered me a bunch of money to do something I normally do for free.

Seems that their hundreds of paid staff were not able to handle or train the herds of pit bulls they had brought back from Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. They said that they couldn’t house the pit bulls, that these dogs didn’t do well in a “sanctuary” environment. [...]  They wanted to pay professional trainers to take these dogs off their hands, train them, and place them in homes. [...]

M’Kay. And the catch is?

I had to promise to use only “positive” training techniques.

Never mind correctly defining what “positive” means. I knew what they meant. They knew what they meant. And it had nothing to do with the training needs of any real live dog.

They were sending dogs to be out of sight, out of mind. (Katrina dogs were no longer a good direct-mail pitch.) Since this charity spends money like a sailor in port — private plane, anyone? — the money was the easy way to make the pit bulls go away. Part of the pretty story for the donors about Spike going to live on the Farm was that only “positive” dog trainers were going to fix these animals that their expert in-house staff could not handle.

I wrote back, telling them to look me up when they got their heads out of their colons. Or something to that effect. I also told them that they were guaranteeing that they were going to be sending money and dogs to liars. Because anyone can lie and claim to be using nothing but cookies ‘n’ love, while the reality is quite different. Seen it. I told them that they were going to be selecting out all the truthful, ethical trainers — the ones who would refuse to lie about using balanced training methods, or would refuse to promise something that they could not guarantee would be the right thing to do.

They did not respond.

Here’s the rest. And her withering conclusion:

[N]o one could have predicted such an outcome from offering money to people in exchange for them telling you what you want to hear.

Who could have foreseen that the levies could fail?

No one. Of course.

And also: Been meaning to get to this one for a couple days.  Lancaster, Calif., is trying to jump in with a novel approach to “fighting crime”: Let’s kill some pit bulls because they won’t let us kill young dark-skinned guys who like pit bulls, play rap music and scare the white folks. 

Luisa on Lassie Get Help (and hey, Luisa, congrats on finding that rare Shenandoah Mountain Cur in the shelter), offers this:

Ingrid Newkirk of PETA and R. Rex Parris, the Mayor of Lancaster, California, both hope your dogs get bone sarcoma. Bone cancer, for crissakes! It’s the law. Move out of town, minority scum, or we’ll kill your Rottweilers and your pit bulls! Ingrid says: I love this law! Let’s kill all the pit bulls!

This just in: when you slap a mandatory spay/neuter law on a breed like the Rottweiler [and in 2009, what society hacks off body parts as punishment?], you are sentencing dogs to death by cancer. Don’t believe me? Here’s the PubMed abstract.

[...}

Seriously, people — bone cancer. One in four Rotties will suffer from it, if spayed or neutered before a year of age. [Other large breeds are also at risk.] Lancaster wants them all “fixed” before they’re four months old.

It should be glaringly obvious by now that Newkirk, the so-called “animal rights” pooh-bah, doesn’t give a rat’s patoot about dogs. She wants them gone from our lives, one breed at a time or in bunches, by lingering deaths or quick ones, by stealth or by whatever canine version of Jim Crow she can espouse.

And Mayor R. Rex Parris doesn’t give a rat’s patoot about his law-abiding fellow citizens. He’s happy as a clam to impose a death sentence on their dogs and subject families to the anguish of losing a friendly companion to confiscation or cancer. Maybe you shouldn’t have let your tattoo show when you took the dog for a walk, eh? Maybe your son shouldn’t have dressed like a normal middle-school student the last time he was in the front yard playing with your new Rott mix, eh? That’ll teach you. Lancaster doesn’t want your kind.

Gosh, Luisa, don’t be afraid to have a strong opinion, OK?

Sadly, people are still listening to PETA.  But we’re working on it.