No Kill -- Politically Speaking

Last week, Nathan Winograd wrote an article for The No Kill Nation about howNo Kill was a truly bipartisan issue.  Winograd's article talks about how people of all different political beliefs -- from the very conservative to the very liberal -- can all mostly agree that philosophically, they love animals, and that unnecessarily killing animals is wrong.

The conversation of No Kill and politics really resonated with me this week. One of the things that KC Dog Advocates has been working hard on over the past couple of months in assembling political rankingsof local politicians and their thoughts on various laws and policies that are impacting our abilities as a community to reach no kill in time for our local elections on April 6th.

After reading through dozens of political surveys over the past few years, I tend to agree with Winograd's analysis -- most people (and politicians) do tend to love their pets. And most, regardless of how they stand on all other social issues, believe that at least philosophically, that we should be working to end the senseless killing of dogs and cats in our local shelters.

Why is it then, that so many of them support policies that are causing more animals to die in our shelters?

*****

Our local Kansas City area politicians for the most part love animals. Most are pet owners themselves -- or at least have been in the past. Many have adopted their pets from local shelters and are more than happy to tell us stories about their pets. Some are even currently volunteering with local rescues.  They realize that most of their constituents love pets to0 -- as a couple have commented at the large number of pet owners they see when they are out on the campaign trail, knocking on doors, visiting voters.

And it's true most of their constituents own pets.  According to the AVMA Census, approximately 60% of people in the U.S. own pets -- 37% own dogs and 32% own cats. Two-thirds of the petting owning population owns more than one pet and 50% consider their pet to be part of their family. Kansas City is a little above average in all forms of pet ownership - -and it's even more pronounced in our suburban areas where people have higher incomes and larger homes and yards that make pet ownership easier.

Yet in spite of having politicians that love animals, and in spite of having constituents that love animals, many still unknowingly, unwittingly, or for reasons I can't quite understand, support legislation legislation that leads to the killing of animals and seem to want to ignore what the laws are doing.

******

In general, there are four types of legislation that we've found that many of our politicians support that are causing more animals to be impounded and thus, causing shelter overcrowding, and thus, more deaths.

Not supporting feral cat programs

Generally speaking, there are a lot of politicians that don't understand what it means to properly manage feral cat colonies. They don't realize that by altering all of the cats, that you can keep them from multiplying and having a huge colony of cats that create a public nuisance. And that by returning the cats to their neighborhoods, they will keep other colonies of cats from moving in. It's a humane way to deal with feral cat colonies that causes fewer problems in neighborhoods than simply removing all the cats and killing them.

Pit Bull Bans (or other breed bans)

A lot of politicians, even pet-loving ones, hide behind the disguise of "public safety" and support 'pit bull' bans. Bans lead to killing dogs. There is no other way around it. When 'pit bulls' are removed from homes there is no private beach they all get taken to to live happily ever after. They get removed from homes, go to the shelter, and get killed at the shelter.

Politicians will often hide behind the idea of killing 'pit bulls' because of "public safety", but there is nothing rational about killing all pit bulls. People do it because they say all pit bulls are "unsafe" or "unpredictable".  But this ignores the reality that all across the country, pit bull type dogs are used for service dogs, frisbee catching dogs, law enforcement dogs and family pets. Clearly, there is nothing genetically "wrong" with pit bull type dogs.

And the idea of banning breed ignores this. It also ignores the recommendations of every expert group of professionals in the animal welfare community-- including the recommendations of the AVMA, American Humane Association, No Kill Advocacy Center, ASPCA, HSUS, the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, AKC, International Association of Canine Professionals, National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors, the National Animal Control Association -- you get the idea.

BSL ignores facts. Ignores experts. And kills dogs.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter

A lot of well-meaning people think that mandatory spay/neuter laws will help end the killing of dogs and cats in our shelters.  The logic is that if you stop unwanted litters, you will end the killing of dogs in shelters. Unfortunately, while people who support the law are often well meaning, they are overlooking a couple of realities. 1) The primary reason that most people say they don't alter their animals now is because of the cost. Making a law doesn't change this, it just makes their dog now illegal and 2) Now that their dog is illegal, it then gets confiscated and added to the already over-crowded shelter system....increasing killing.

They also are ignoring the results from other cities that have tried similar mandatory spay/neuter laws like Los Angeles (killing increased 24% in year one, and rose again in year 2), Kansas City(approximately 2,000 pit bulls killed due to the MSN for pit bulls ordinance) and Little Rock(increased killing of animals affected by MSN by 44%).

The solution here is funding voluntary low-cost spay neuter programs and specifically targeting low-income neighborhoods for these services.

Pet Limit Laws

Many cities have restrictive pet limit laws with as few as 3 or four dogs or cats allowed to live in homes. As long as all pets are well cared for and living in good conditions, there should be no arbitrary pet limits. Often, it people in the rescue/fostering committee that are most negatively impacted by arbitrary pet limit laws. Pet limit laws limit the number of homes available, and limit the number of foster homes that are available because homes are "full" even though they may easily be able to keep additional pets.

******

Being a fan of animals is a non-partisan issue. It seems unlikely that anyone could get elected running on an anti-pet platform. However, whether it is because they do not know, do not understand or have ulterior motives, some politicos SAY they support No Kill, but actually support policies that are counter to the no kill vision -- and actually hurt the effort.

Pet owners make up the majority of voters in the United States. It is our job and responsibility as voters to:

1) Make informed decisions on who we vote for and be sure we vote for local candidates that are in favor of  responsible and effective animal control laws.

2) Educate well-meaning politicos about what make for good laws (and which seemingly good laws are ineffective -- this means educating ourselves on these laws too).

3) Be involved politically

Yes, No kill is a non-partisan issue....but it doesn't mean that people in both parties are well-educated on the issues and don't favor legislation that hurts the cause. 

If we all get involved, we can, and will make a difference. And if you're in some areas of the Kansas City metro, your first opportunity to make steps in that direction comes April 6.

Comments

[Nathan J. Winograd]

We have seen what can happen when we organize politically. As you reported, BSL candidates were soundly defeated during the last election cycle in droves, we passed shelter reform in CA over the objections of every kill shelter in the state, we removed dog killers like Tom Skeldon, we got a unanimous No Kill plan approved in Austin, TX, and we won over elected officials in places as diverse as KY, UT, VA, and elsewhere for the No Kill cause.

The fact that both Democrats & Republicans will vote for pro-animal legislation does not mean they vote smartly. It is our job to educate, inform, lobby, and when necessary, replace.

We are fighting 100 years of misinformation, we are fighting entrenched special interests, we are fighting the political mentality of the quick fix.

But we've got hearts and minds already on our side, if we can cut through the fog, and if we can offer viable alternatives.

So I soundly second Brent's call to make informed choices, educate politicians, and be involved politically.

[Alana]

I know the KC Dog Advocates are working on KC political recommendations (saw the ad in MetroPet) do you know when they will come out? And if we wanted to work in the KC area to repeal mandatory Spay and Neuter and do away with pet limits, how would we do that? Is it a city council vote type of thing? Thanks as always for all your great info :)

[Brent]

Thanks Alana -- we're keeping the rankings updated as we get new responses in -- so if you go to http://www.kcdogadvocates.org/dnn/ -- and then click on "politics" at the top you will go to an overview of our political rankings system and then if you click on "politics" and scroll to one of the various cities you can see an overview of the individual candidates and their views. We're updating the ratings as we go and plan to send them out in our e-newsletter in a couple of weeks so people have them before the elections.

As for KCMO, we REALY need to get rid of the MSN and the pet limits. It's such a mess right now -- especially when you add in the quota system. The city council would have to vote to get rid of the MSN & Pet Limits. The quota is a policy that we need AC to get rid of.

There is a small (but growing group) of us working on getting the pieces in place to work on the repeals. We'd love to have you involved.

[EmilyS]

most pit bull people believe that BSL, and other anti pet laws (such as msn) are generated by "liberals" who are ultimately in league with the PETA/HSUS faction to control us and our pets. (just read what the Canadians write about the Ontario politicians).

[meita and dog breeds]

nice president and cute dog

[Brent]

Emily,

It's an interesting topic for sure. Now, make no mistake, my argument is that "No Kill" is a bi-partisan issue...however, that doesn't mean there isn't an "except for..." in there.

BSL is a little different though. Traditional thinking is that conservatives are against BSL (they are historically for smaller government and individual rights -- although, more recently, they seem to just want to pick and choose more where they interfere). Liberals tend to be more empathetic -- and sometimes that goes toward victims, and sometimes toward dogs.

As far as my personal experience goes, I tend to see more problems on either extreme -- VERY liberal politicians tend to want the government to protect people from everything. However, very conservative older (typically men) tend to think that only gangsters have pit bulls (Susan Hunter's research reflects this also). We have very few problems here with people who are in the middle and just want to look at the situation rationally.

The Canadians are always referring to it that way because it was the Ontario Liberal Party (one of their 3 politcal parties) that actually pushed through their BSL...

[Lori]

I am a Republican and a No Kill advocate.

[Kurt Schmitt]

Well written and a lot of good points. No-kill might be a bi-partisan issue, but people are inconsistent.

At a local shelter, only the employees work with the cats, not the volunteers. I learned this in a rather abrupt way. During a training and orientation session for new volunteers, only the dogs were mentioned. The cats were totally ignored in the conversation.

The woman sitting next to me, a new volunteer, asked if she could work with the cats. The woman doing the training said no, and then added that there was really nothing to be done with respect to the cats except clean the cages and the litter boxes.

My ears went up, of course, and the woman sitting next to me seemed like she was fumbling for the right words for the occasion. I thought I'd try to help and use a term we could all understand.

When I asked about enrichment for the cats, however, I got a blank stare, as if cats are non-living and the word enrichment was alien language. We were a bit shocked.

We pressed the issue and started to explain about toys, affection, and playtime, but got no real answer or any hint that anyone cared.

The trainer moved on to another subject as if we'd just been talking about rocks. No light bulb went off in her head at all. So, the dogs need to be walked, played with, and shown affection, but the cats don't?

I was amazed that someone who works at a shelter and trains volunteers could actually be that insensitive, or at least come across that way.

To me, you either have empathy and concern or you don't. If you don't, then you wouldn't be working at a shelter. It's totally inconsistent behavior.

Taking a step back, how could a shelter have this kind of policy? The culture of the shelter itself should demand more from everyone there. Yet, you find these inconsistencies over and over again.

So, if you're trying to make sense of people's political viewpoints reconciled against what you think their personal beliefs might be, I wish you luck. People can't even be consistent in their own personal beliefs and actions.

[vitha]

nice dog and good president