pet connection

Toledo, Ohio municipal judge Michael Goulding sent a little love note recently to the city of  Toledo, informing them that their current policy of seizing and killing any dog who could, if you squinted your eyes and drank a bucket of stoopid, vaguely resemble a pit bull, was unconstitutional.

Brent Toellner at KCDogBlog, who keeps an eagle eye on all things dog-law related, made an interesting connection between that decision and Lucas County’s infamous puppy-murdering ex-dog warden, Tom Skeldon, after reading an article about the court case in the Toledo Blade:

The city of Toledo has a contract with the county dog warden to enforce its local laws. Last year the contract was for up to $146,882. The contract calls for the city to pay the dog warden’s office $100 for every citation issued against a “pit bull” or “pit bull” mix dog.

So, in other words, Toledo was providing an incentive to Lucas County’s dog wardens to pick up ‘pit bulls’ and kill them in the shelter (the shelter has a well-known policy against adopting out ‘pit bull type’ dogs). Last year, Lucas County took in and killed over 1000 ‘pit bulls’ — which could have meant up to $100,000 in incremental revenue for the dog warden’s office based on the city incentive to do so. No wonder Skeldon and his crew were so focused on ‘pit bulls’, allowing dog bites to increase and shelter kill rates to hover around 77%. Their incentive was to capture, and kill, ‘pit bulls’.

Hopefully the city of Toledo will not only re-write their law to not include breed specific language (which was ruled to be unconstitutional by the court), but also rewrite their contract with the Lucas County Dog Warden’s office to incent activities that are good for citizens and for dogs — like maybe declining bite rates, decreased shelter killing, better return-to-owner rates, etc. Now THAT would be real success.

Then there are the crazy-ass folks in Chicago who are actually, get this, requiring their shelter volunteers to be fingerprinted before being allowed to volunteer. Not just background checked, folks: fingerprinted. From Dancing Dog Blog:

City budgets have sliced the life out of dollars allotted to Animal Care and Control (ACC) agencies across the US.  Skeleton crews work the problems of caring for and tending to the needs of dogs and cats. Those needs would not be met by most measures if volunteers did not step in to fill the gaps.

In Chicago, cutbacks forced ACC to reduce adoption hours from 49 per week to 17, closing for adoption on Sundays.  Volunteers revolted, the Sun-Times reported it, and a semblance of sanity was restored to the program’s hours.  Volunteers and the work they do should be respected. They are the life’s blood of many organizations.  I don’t think many would disagree, so this news comes as a surprise.

According to Fran Spielman, City Hall reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, the city “overlooked” the fact that Animal Care and Control volunteers (more than 250) have not been subject to what is said to have been policy since 2008. All 110 other volunteers for city departments have provided and allowed: social security numbers, background checks, and fingerprints.

That last was not a typo. Fingerprints are required of volunteers just as if they were applying for a civil service or federal job. To do work no one else will do in a noisy, stressful environment and all without a paycheck, you now have to be subjected to jumping through more hoops than if you were actually getting hired by a corporation.

Check out the comments section — it’s insanity. It’s all part of the same mentality that would rather see animals dead than adopted out to the evil irresponsible public, justified by the animal world’s version of Godwin’s Law, “It’s all about the people who would sell pit bulls into fighting rings.”

I wouldn’t allow the government to fingerprint me in order to volunteer at an animal shelter. So, good work at screening me out of your volunteer program, Chicago! Wouldn’t want someone who has actually read and cherishes the constitution scooping poop in your kennel runs!

Update: Bad Rap weighs in on Toledo.

I was a little reluctant to tackle the topic of Oreo’s Law in my SFGate.com column this week. The debate tends to descend into a battle about whether the ASPCA was right or wrong about Oreo, and whether Pets Alive would have been a good place for her, and really, given that Oreo’s dead, I’m not sure how much any of that matters.

What does matter is the fate of other dogs and cats in shelters not just in New York, but everywhere. Because I firmly believe that no shelter or animal control agency should kill any pet if a qualified rescue group or shelter is willing to take him.

That’s been the law here in California for nearly 12 years now, and amazingly, all the horrific things predicted by opponents of that law when it was first proposed have not come to pass. Nor have we reached nirvanah; there are places where the law is ignored or only spottily applied, and there aren’t always rescue safety nets for all the shelter dogs and cats who run out of time in the state’s shelters.

But the law exists, and it’s often used to prevent the kinds of abuses that are so sadly common in other parts of the country. From my column today:

I support Oreo’s Law, and this is why: All over New York, indeed, all over the United States, there are shelters right now killing dogs and cats who could be saved if only they’d let qualified local rescue groups and foster volunteers take animals out of their facilities.

That’s true in Toledo, Ohio, where animal control warden Tom Skeldon was recently forced to resign over his unwillingness to let even puppies go to another humane society or rescue group, and insisted on killing them instead.

It’s true in Dallas, N.C., where rescuers begged and pleaded fruitlessly to be allowed to take sick dogs for veterinary care and potential adoption, instead of seeing them killed in the animal control facility’s antiquated gas chamber.

It’s true in Rochester, N.Y., where Kellner told me that qualified rescue groups are prevented from taking pit bulls out of the city shelter, because the agency doesn’t allow pit bulls, not even puppies, to leave its facility alive.

It’s true in a thousand places, where volunteers keep silent about abuses out of fear of being prevented from transferring animals to rescue groups or even providing basic care to animals.

Oreo’s Law is not for Oreo, and it’s not aimed at the ASPCA. It’s for the animals in every shelter and animal control facility in New York state.

I interview New York State Assembly Member Micah Kellner, the co-author of Oreo’s Law. We discuss his proposed amendments to the law, intended to address some of the concerns of its opponents. We also talked about why he feels the law will help New York’s animals and its shelters, and what kind of support it’s getting (here’s a hint: it’s massive).

The full story is here.

Photo: New York State Assembly Member Micah Kellner and his dog, Nina.

I have an uncle who has become an avid Pet Connection reader since I joined the staff (Hi Fred!).  He’s a cat-lover, and has told me I’m too dog-centric in my posts.  For Fred and all other similarly-inclined cat owners, this morning’s post is for you.  Not all cats, but mostly.   Never let it be said I can’t take a hint…

Lower your cholesterol — get a cat! An article courtesy of my friend Pete Hansen, who acquired a cat a few months back.  You’ve probably seen essays and news stories saying that owning a pet relaxes you, therefore lowering blood pressure.  Now there’s some evidence indicating it helps your cholesterol, too!

The cat who came in from the cold:  The first paragraph of this heartwarming story from the Edmonton Journal, by way of Gina, made me reach for my parka and boots, while still sitting in my living room:

Bob the cat showed up at Air Canada cargo services’ warehouse at the international airport on a morning when a Siberian front swept through Edmonton, plunging temperatures into the -30s.

I don’t care if it is celsius, thirty below is still way too cold.   Bob, who the airport workers soon learned is female, settled in over time.  Now,

there’s never any doubt she runs the place, though, and that she has the men wrapped around her little paw.

Always be prepared.  It’s not expensive, and could make all the difference. You may have a first aid kit at home for your adults and non-furry children, but do you have one for the ones with tails and paws?    You should.   I admit that I don’t, but I’ll be using this well organized, easy-to-follow post from Smartdogs to create one.   It’s a great idea, because you never know.  Don’t wait.  Please take advantage of the great hints here.  I know I will.

Tiger Ranch operator sentenced to 27 years probation for cruelty: Sorry, I didn’t promise these would all be happy stories.   A tip of the cap to Mary Mary for the final chapter of this terribly sad saga from Pittsburgh.  She and I are both convinced that the Tiger Ranch venture probably started out as a terrific idea, but quickly spun out of control.  Now, almost two years later, it stands as a tragic cautionary tale.  My personal belief is there was likely some mental illness in play as well, but in any case, the judge’s words at sentencing remain accurate:

“I came into this case thinking … you were most likely a woman who had good intentions but became overwhelmed. From that perspective until today, I have learned quite a lot,” said Rangos, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “You have chosen not to cooperate and spew vitriol in others’ direction without taking any personal responsibility for the disaster that Tiger Ranch became.”

Kudos to Amy Worden at Philly Dawg for her work on this story.  She has followed it from the beginning, and Amy is always worth reading.

Three new breeds at Westminster: Petville tells us there will be three new breeds shown at the 2010 WKC Dog Show at Madison Square Garden on February 15 & 16:  the Irish Red and White Setter (pictured: not just a color variant, but a different breed from the Irish Setter), the Norwegian Buhund, and the Pyrenean Shepherd.  If I may say so, these are three gorgeous dogs, and I’m looking forward to seeing them in the show.

Have a great morning.  I’ll be back later today with something completely different. And don’t forget: If you have something good to read, add a link to the comments, or e-mail me.

Photo credit: Codie McLachlan, edmontonjournal.com

.

Nathan Winograd starts the new year noting that although many of us consider the last few years to be pretty crappy, one good thing was the growth of the no-kill movement.  It’s now a force to be reckoned with, one that’s challenging the status quo in groups large and small — and ringing true with an animal-loving population. Winograd writes:

As the decade opened ten years ago, the humane movement was (erroneously) united in its perception of who was to blame for the killing and the hopelessness that it would ever end. But the truth came out, and splintered the movement—dividing us into two opposing camps: those who embrace the No Kill philosophy, its achievability, and the great promise held out by the American public’s great love for companion animals; and those who cling to the old paradigm of killing and blaming, on which their hold on power is based.

Here’s the rest. We don’t need new laws. We need new leaders.  And now, they are stepping up.

Must-read update: The year in review by the KC Dog Blog. With links. Great work, B!

More, grab tissues first: Happy ending for three rescued dogs. Heather, they look wonderful.

Image: Ilario, who says this blog has too many dog pictures.

In the news today, a story challenging whether a shelter in Florida is, as it claims, a “no-kill” facility, raised for the billionth time a question in my mind about what “no-kill” truly means.

I’m speaking only for myself here, and not for anyone else in the animal welfare movement or among the general population, even if I’ve written for them, interviewed them, or had dinner with them. This is just me. And this is how I see it:

“No-kill” is a policy of animal management. It is a policy that no animal who can be saved is killed. That means no killing because a pet will be difficult to re-home, nor because a pet’s medical or behavioral issues will be costly or hard to treat, nor because a healthy animal became sick while in your facility, nor because your cages and kennels and adoption rooms are full.

I also believe that “no-kill” needs to be defined on a community-wide level, not that of the individual facility. The “no-kill” of which I’m an advocate is a community-wide animal management policy that does not kill homeless animals within its borders if they are healthy or treatable.

Now, that sounds clear, but I live in the real world. And in the real world, words like “treatable” or even “healthy” are not always clearly defined. After all, I know people who can’t afford to treat their cat’s ear mites, and people who have gotten kidney transplants for their dogs. What does it mean to say a pet is “treatable” in rural Alabama as compared to Beverly Hills?

The Asilomar Accords, which I consider to be a nice idea that went astray, call for that question to be answered as follows: The standard for determining if a pet is “treatable” at a shelter should be the same standard that exists for the community’s owned pets. Athough shelters and animal control agencies may, of course, go above that standard, they may not go below it.

The problem is that, however objective that sounds, it’s not. How do you even know what “the community” would do or is doing? Focus groups? Surveys of veterinarians? The Psychic Friends Network?

Besides, even when money isn’t an issue, individual pet owners don’t always know what is and isn’t “treatable.” I’ve seen friends who made euthanasia decisions for their much-loved pets that I considered to be based on factual errors or bad information from their veterinarians; certainly the same thing can happen at shelters.

Because the “community standards” metric is so subjective, I instead welcome a “safety net” definition of no-kill that lies under the “kill no healthy or treatable animals” definition: No-kill also means that more than 90 percent of the animals that come into your community’s animal control and shelter system leave it alive. Rich communities might hit 99 percent, and poor ones 90.5, but they are both, in my personal view, “no kill.”

That’s a definition with which I’m comfortable, and one that I’m very sure is an achievable goal in the United States — it has, in fact, been reached by several communities across the country.

It does have at least one flaw, though.

One of the ways communities become no-kill is by working with pet lovers to build safety nets beyond the shelter and animal control agency — foster homes, for instance, and programs to help people retain their animals when they lose jobs or housing or become elderly or ill. And if a community does a really outstanding job of developing and implementing such a safety net, many animals won’t ever enter the animal control and shelter system at all.

And those that do will always end up being the ones who are too big a challenge for individuals, and who need the resources of an institution.

I mean, does a community stop being “no-kill” when it kills 100 percent of the two animals it took into its animal control facility that year, both of whom were in painful end-stage cancer that could not be cured or even palliated?

On the other hand, won’t it be a wonderful day when we’re actually fighting over that question?