pet connection

Many times positive changes come out of the most trying of times. That is certainly true when it comes to animals in the post-Katrina era of disaster response. Authorities now know that helping people evacuate with their animals is a life-saver not only for animals but also for people. That’s because many people will not leave their animals behind.

More good-from-bad situations may be developing now, and again, animals and people will benefit in the long run.

The deepening economic turmoil has forced many from their homes for reasons as sad and varied as the loss of a job, the adjustment of the interest rate and payment on a mortgage or bankruptcy from a health crisis for the uninsured (by the way, the PBS series “Frontline” recently looked at five other developed nations and concluded that ours in the only one that piles economic disaster on top of a family’s health crisis. Watch the show here.)

When people must make abrupt  and tragic adjustments to their lives, animals often suffer in the aftermath.

Shelters are seeing drop-offs increase, but instead of acting like shelters — a place of last resort to care for those in need — the organizations and people running them are too often condemning the very people who cared enough to bring their pets in hopes of their animals being rehomed. (As opposed to leaving them in abandoned houses or simply turning them loose to fend for themselves.)

Christie wrote about the problem, in her SFGate.com column, “Your Whole Pet“:

[P]et owners who don’t want to abandon their pets to an uncertain fate seek help at their local shelter. But rather than being offered assistance, they sometimes are lectured about their “irresponsibility.” Some are simply told that their pets will be put down. This harsh scenario exposes a weakness in this country’s reigning animal-shelter philosophy, which may not be serving the unwitting animal victims of the foreclosure crisis well. [...] The sheltering philosophy that has dominated animal control policy in this country since at least the 1970s is one that lays the blame for every pet problem, including large numbers of animals being killed in shelters every day, squarely at the feet of irresponsible pet owners. [...] Proponents of this approach believe that high kill rates in shelters are simply their best attempt at cleaning up after an uncaring and careless public.

I can’t tell you how many times I have listened to people in rescue or sheltering talk about pet-lovers sobbing as they gave up their pets, only to have the folks who are supposed to be helping dismiss the pet-owner’s tears as being “just for show,” make a dramatic point of stressing how quickly the pet would be killed in the “shelter” and offer contemptuous diatribes on how “if they really cared, they’d …. ” [fill in the blank with some unrealistic solution].

But even as Katrina changed the way we think of animals as part of disaster relief, the economic meltdown may be forcing welcome change in the way we think of “sheltering” and “rescue.” The result may be a true no-kill nation in which animal-lovers and animal advocacy organizations work together to provide a real safety net and true compassion — not just death and lectures.

Maddie’s Fund and Nathan Winograd have been at the forefront of this movement, and now, the Humane Society of the United States seems to be shifting its massive resources into helping to hasten this change.

As Winograd wrote last week:

In announcing a partnership for a national advertising campaigning promoting adoptions being launched by Maddie’s Fund, HSUS, and the Ad Council, Wayne Pacelle stated:

“It will make a life-saving difference in securing loving homes for untold numbers of pets and get us closer to a no-kill nation.”

But, most importantly, HSUS states 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.

On his blog, Pacelle says:

If the humane movement had a signature issue, it would be the euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals in shelters. The numbers have been moving in our direction, with The HSUS and other animal protection groups spurring steady progress through legislation, education, and sterilization. Euthanasia is down from 15-20 million dogs and cats 30 years ago to about 4 million today—but this is a preventable tragedy and there’s still too much killing of our best friends. We can do better and we must do better.

[...]

Now, just 20 percent or so of dogs in homes come from shelters and rescue groups. If we raise this number to 35 percent, we would solve the bulk of the homeless dog problem.

Yes, and we can do it without the Pet Extinction Acts known as forced spay-neuter, without bans on the scary breed de jour and without demonizing people who are truly trying to do their best.

Things just seem to come in threes … disaster response, no-kill nation and, and, and … a growing demand for changes in the “closed book” system of dog-breeding that has done incredible damage to the health of many wonderful dogs.

Earlier this year, the BBC took a look at the problems of purebreds, and although we had our problems with the show, the basic premise was spot-on: Current breeding practices based on maintaining breed “purity” continue to produce dogs that are riddled with congenital defects. Opening breeding practices to more programs like the Dalmatian-Pointer outcross and demanding that no dog be given a “championship” without being able to demonstrate health, soundness and some degree of ability  — or even be able to breathe without sitting on an ice pack (like the pathetic Crufts Best In Show Peke above) — is the very minimum we can do for our dogs. We can protect and preserve our heritage breeds, but we need to make some changes in how we breed to do so.

Terrierman has been all over this like a, well, Jack Russell … here and here, as he reports on sponsors abandoning the Crufts dog show as quickly as they can. For major sponsor Pedigree, the pull-out represents a shift not only to get away from the mess of sick and deformed dogs but also an embrace of pet adoptions, seen last year in its ads for the Westminster Kennel Club Dog show, which it also sponsors.  Instead of touting the “show champions” that eat Pedigree dog food, the company pushed shelter adoptions.

Yes, change is in the air.

***

Speaking of disasters …

So look at this. Where I was with McKenzie last weekend ? Facing a wall of fire this week.  That little green spot on the map just east of Highway 71 is where I was.

The only thing to find encouraging about this map are those horse icons — evacuation stations for people in the area who need a safe place to put their livestock. Yes, after Katrina, the situation regarding animals and disasters will never be the same, and than heavens for that.

Which reminds me to remind you: Are you ready to leave your home now? The most important item for evacuating household pets is a crate or carrier. You need to have one for every animal. It keeps them safe, makes them transportable and provides them with temporary housing where ever you are. And make sure you can get to those crates when you need them. You don’t want to be wondering where they are or fishing them out of the garage rafters when you need to evacuate.

We have a several archived articles on disaster preparation in our searchable library, online thanks to a grant from Pfizer Animal Health. Here’s the most recent, and here’s the page to search for more.

The tragic fate of many pets left behind in foreclosed properties by their distraught, overwhelmed, or optionless owners has caught the attention of the good folks at PETA. They’re spreading the world via letters to the editor from coast to coast that the fault for these terrible circumstances lies not with national economic policies, nor the unethical practices of the financial institutions who engaged in predatory and irresponsible lending practices, nor with local agencies that weren’t prepared to deal with the overwhelming crash of real estate values and economic collapse.

No, it’s the fault of those great enemies of animals everywhere, the people in the no-kill movement.

Few things make me feel think I’ve fallen through the looking glass so surely as the fierce and unbending opposition of PETA to the emerging no-kill movement in America. They never miss an opportunity to frame any issue, from Michael Vick’s pit bulls to the fight against forced sterilization of pets, in terms that both misrepresent the no-kill movement, and insist that saving animal lives is actually worse than killing them.

The first such letter came to me via Nathan Winograd, signed by Lindsay Pollard-Post, a staff writer at PETA’s headquarters in Norfolk, VA. It was published three weeks ago in the Vallejo Times-Herald, a paper in an area not far from San Francisco where foreclosures are skyrocketing:

Please, never hand animals over to uncertain fates with strangers or leave them at “nokill” shelters where animals may be warehoused in cages for months or years, either.

She goes on tell pet owners to instead take their pets to what is, in PETA-land, the opposite of a no-kill shelter, a “well run open admission shelter.”

Which I guess will make some poor person who lives in a community where there’s a well run, open admission, no-kill shelter just turn into a frazzled little pile of liquefied neurons, right? Because guess what, PETA? Plenty of communities seem to have figured out how to make that work, no thanks to you.

(Which is a good time for a reminder that the “no kill movement” is not about individual shelters, but about communities. But no wonder PETA and its ilk keep attacking imaginary targets; unlike the real thing, they fall down so easy.)

So in addition to fostering the “blame the pet owner” culture that results in national shelter kill rates of around 50 percent (still nowhere near PETA’s own kill rate of over 90 percent — which is, interestingly, the SAVE rate for dogs in Washoe County, Nevada, since it began implementing the policies and programs of the no-kill movement), PETA is actively spreading a description of no-kill that doesn’t match the definition of its proponents and leaders, and encouraging people to take their pets only to shelters that kill half the animals that come in their doors.

The second letter went even further than just advising individual pet owners to abandon all hope of a no-kill solution for their pets. This one, entitled “No kill shelters have ripple effect of cruelty,” was published a week or so ago in the Northwest Indiana and Illinois Times, and was signed by PETA spokesperson Daphna Nachminovitch, who actually blames the no-kill movement for creating the problem in the first place:

It’s not surprising that “no-kill” crusader Nathan Winograd’s assessment of the Porter County Animal Shelter didn’t mention that just weeks ago when Porter County implemented its new, dangerous “no-kill” policies, neighboring LaPorte County reported receiving calls from distressed Porter County residents who had been turned away from Porter County with both stray and owned animals for whom they could no longer care.

According to news reports, three cats died what must have been slow and terrifying deaths, locked in an abandoned house in after their guardians were asked to make an appointment to bring them to the shelter — something they evidently could or wouldn’t do. This sad case is just one of many where animals have paid the price because shelters policies were based on numbers and statistics instead of compassion and reason.

Both letters conclude with PETA’s real agenda, universal spay/neuter of all dogs and cats. That’s what will solve this problem, they conclude… not economic reform and recovery, not compassion and a helping hand, not an overhaul of animal sheltering and animal control in this country, none of it:

No one wants to end the euthanasia of healthy homeless animals more than the caring shelter workers who hold the syringe. But the way to do that is by preventing more animals from being born, by spaying and neutering — not by slamming the door on the noses of animals who need refuge.

Trying to link the foreclosure crisis to “pet overpopulation” and solve it by reducing pet births is the stupidest and most misguided thing I’ve ever heard. This crisis has nothing to do with pet overpopulation. It has to do with the economy, and the fact that people don’t know what else to do with their pets and despite what Ms. Nachminovitch advises, don’t want to leave them at as shelter where they’ll be killed, because they care about them and want them to live.

Doesn’t it seem just a little cruel, not to mention cynical, that PETA should try so hard to take away the hope that people cherish that their beloved pets might find a better future than death, in the care of a no-kill shelter or rescue group? Can it be that PETA feels threatened by the buy-in apparent on the part of the public for the no-kill movement? Does it make it too hard to keep blaming everything on bad pet owners when the public is clamoring for more no-kill options in their communities, because they actually do give a damn about their pets?

Gina’s asked it many times before. I’ll ask it myself now:

Why is anyone still listening to PETA?

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.

More than a million homes are in foreclosure, which means a million families of all kinds — including those with pets — are struggling to figure out how how to survive. While the media has reported on many of the sad cases of abandoned pets, the even sadder reality is that people who try to do the right thing may run into the buzz-saw of the culture wars when they try to take their pet to a shelter.

Our Christie Keith explores this situation in her “Your Whole Pet” column on the San Francisco Chronicle’s SFGate.com Web site:

Reasonably, pet owners who don’t want to abandon their pets to an uncertain fate seek help at their local shelter. But rather than being offered assistance, they sometimes are lectured about their “irresponsibility.” Some are simply told that their pets will be put down. This harsh scenario exposes a weakness in this country’s reigning animal-shelter philosophy, which may not be serving the unwitting animal victims of the foreclosure crisis well. But luckily, as in most crises, there are also signs of emerging strength and compassion.

The sheltering philosophy that has dominated animal control policy in this country since at least the 1970s is one that lays the blame for every pet problem, including large numbers of animals being killed in shelters every day, squarely at the feet of irresponsible pet owners.

Proponents of this approach believe that high kill rates in shelters are simply their best attempt at cleaning up after an uncaring and careless public. Their efforts to change people’s behavior come in the form of policies such as mandatory spay/neuter legislation, strict limit and licensing laws, restrictions or outright bans on breeding, and compulsory microchipping. They also rely on their own version of “shock and awe” to punish the public for bad behavior, as when the former director of the Peninsula Humane Society, Kim Sturla, allowed the killing of four kittens, a cat and three dogs to be seen on the evening news back in 1990. She justified her shock tactics by saying that if bad pet owners wouldn’t shape up, “It’s time to take a 2-by-4 and hit them over the head.”

They may have been trying to hit the pet owners, but it should be noted that it was the animals who died. And it’s no different now as they’re using the same tactics on the human and animal victims of the foreclosure crisis.

Here’s the rest. Links to Christie’s complete interviews with Bonney Brown, Cheryl Lang, Betsy Saul and Nathan Winograd, as well as her communication with Traci Jennings, are here.

Also: See Christie’s earlier post discussing how the shelter industry, its staff and volunteers almost universally embrace positive training methods — but respond to people in need with the human equivalent of a sharp and painful jerk of the collar. Guilty until proven innocent.

No vote today again in the California State Senate, with time running out. Still time to call and fax your Senators if you’re a California resident to ask them to vote NO on AB 1634, which will INCREASE shelter population and kill rates and INCREASE the cost to taxpayers per the California Dept. of Finance report. It also inserts the state into a medical decision that should be made by a pet owner after consultation with a veterinarian.

Why are animal-rights advocates pushing this? Christie’s post from yesterday offers some answers.

And speaking of animal-rights activists, hat tip to Nathan Winograd for pointing out that PETA is encouraging people who have to give up pets because they’re losing their homes to take them to an “open admission” shelter (here’s the letter).

Writes Winograd:

In a recent letter to the Editor, PETA tells people not to abandon their animals if they lose their homes to foreclosure. More than that, they tell people not to take their dog to a No Kill shelter but rather to a kill shelter. In the most glaring read given PETA’s history and shelter overkill: they are basically telling people not to abandon their pets but to have them killed at shelters. Once again, they recommend that people not take the animals to shelters which will guarantee to save the life of the animals under the delusional notion that No Kill means hoarding.

In New Jersey, a No Kill shelter does more adoptions than any other in the entire state. In New York, a No Kill shelter does more adoptions than any other in the entire state. In community after community, No Kill shelters are adopting out animals that would be killed elsewhere. Why shouldn’t these animals be guaranteed a loving, new home? Instead, they suggest that people take their pets to a “well run open admission shelter.” Well, I’ve got news for PETA: a well run open admission shelter is No Kill!

I know Christie has been working on an article that gets into this foreclosure situation with regards to pets. We’ll link it up when we have it.