KC DOG BLOG

Just when I thought HSUS couldn't get any more brazen

Last week, HSUS used dogs being cared for by other organizations in an email request seeking donations for their organization for their "Survivors Fund".

In response to the criticism that came from other bloggers, twitter, and other organizations (and possible legal ramifications), HSUS agreed to give $5,000 to help Fay (one of 500 dogs that were rescued from the dog fighting operations in the midwest that need help) - leading others to question whether HSUS was using bloggers as their moral compass.

So just when you think that maybe HSUS would be gun shy, they come up with this post on Wayne Pacelle's blog.  Go read it now. I'll wait.

In the post, Pacelle talks about the founding of the No Kill movement - -and tips his hat to people like Ed Duvin and Richard Avanzino (formerly of the San Francisco ASPCA now with Maddies Fund).

Then, there is the dig:

In the last few years—despite the shrill efforts of a few no-kill advocates whose work has retarded the progress of that cause by alienating so many people, especially within the sheltering community—there is broader acceptance of no-kill principles, and an acknowledgment that it must be our goal as a movement to find homes for healthy animals and to halt the killing of animals except when it’s medically necessary. There is a pathway, although a challenging and difficult one, to see an end in the years ahead to the routine euthanasia of animals in shelters. I know that among the celebrants will be the leaders of shelters, along with all other serious-minded animal advocates.

Well, clearly the dig is at Winograd. But is it justified?

It's no secret that Winograd has been very critical of HSUS -- and specifically of Wayne Pacelle. In fact, Winograd called for HSUS to fire Pacelle as its executive director.

However, Pacelle's lash back, while trying to lead others into thinking HSUS is a leader in the No Kill movement, is just a ridiculous notion.

For starters, this is ther first time I've ever seen anything from HSUS that has even mentioned the no kill movement. In fact, everything that they seem to do runs counter to what it takes to become No Kill.

Just two years ago, after dogs were rescued from Mike Vick's Bad Newz Kennels, HSUS called for all of the dogs seized from the "rescue" to be killed.  It was breed advocates, Bad Rap, Ledy Van Kavage of the ASPCA (now with Best Friends), and people like Winograd, who called for the dogs to be given a fair evaluation. The dogs were, all except one were found able to be rehabbd, and the success stories are well documented.

In spite of this, and in spite of protests from No Kill Advocates, earlier this year, HSUS stood in front of a court in Wilkes County, NC and encouraged the court to kill 147 dogs - -including 19 puppies that were still nursing.

It was only after the internet outrage from this incident, including criticism from Winograd, that HSUS changed its policy regarding bust dogs -- that would allow them to not be instantly killed, but to be evaluated for temperament.

It's not just their policies on bust dogs that are changing.

Earlier this summer, one HSUS represntative, Desiree Bender, supplied information to a city councilman in Indianapolis on how they could enact a bill that required all "pit bulls" be spayed or neutered. The bill resembled an ordinance passed by Little Rock, AR that led to a 44% increase in the number of 'pit bulls' killed in the shelter in just the first six months of existance.

Just a few years ago, at HSUS's animal sheltering conference, they had an "expert" speaker who tried to declare that euthanasia was not killing (Update: Here's the Link -- it's hard to determine what is worse in the clip, the "expert" saying killing is not killing or the crowd clapping when she did.)

So no HSUS, don't go acting like YOU are the leader of the No Kill movement and treat Winograd as the divisive one. If you really believe in the No Kill movement (which please -- I'd love it if you were), it is only because Winograd, and hundreds of other animal welfare advocates, have drug you into it by being your moral (and financial?) compass. But it has been BECAUSE the animal welfare industry has demanded it that you are changing decades-long policies that have caused unnecessary killing of rehabilitatable dogs and cats in this country.

Meanwhile -- I can honestly say, I really hope to hear more talk of No Kill from HSUS. It would be great to have the world's wealthiest "humane" organization on board with a movement to save all of the savable dogs and cats in our shelters. And as good as it is to see they may be getting on board, it is painful to see them acting like it was their idea and criticizing the advocates that pushed them there.

HSUS gives $5,000 to Fay, Others should matter too

Yesterday, HSUS announced via Twitter that they were going to contribute $5,000 toward the surgeries to help Fay -- a dog whose image and story they used for fundraising yet were not planning to actually help with the money. 

Mutts-n-stuff, the organization that is actually caring for Fay, has confirmed this on their webpage.

First of all, congrats to all the voices out there that applied pressure on HSUS to do the right thing and fork over some money to help Fay (although, I'm not sure they didn't have to do it legally).  And the $5,000 is only small part of the cost that it is going to take to fix Fay's lips -- so Mutts-n-Stuff is still seeking donations to help Fay -- and some of the other dogs they have taken in from the bust.  So if you feel you really want to help Fay, or other dogs like her, you can contribute money to Mutts-n-Stuff, Humane Society of Missouri,  MABBR, Our Pack, Bad Rap, Bless the Bullies, Butte Humane Society or any other group that has taken in these dogs. 

Meanwhile, there's HSUS. While it is nice of them to give $5,000 to help Fay, that is just a drop in the bucket to the money needed to help these dogs. As the world's largest and wealthiest "humane" organization, they have a responsibility to help ALL of the dogs from this bust. There are 499 more dogs (at least 250 of which are going to be rehomed) that also need help. The $5,000 will just skim the surface on the overall need for help for these animals - and would be a drop in the bucket for an organization that brought in over $82 million in donations last year and over $150 million in cash and investment assets.  Meanwhile, HSUS continues to raise money on the backs of the smaller local rescues and yet is not helping the dogs that are coming from these fighting operations.

HSUS, it is not enough to break up dog fighting rings and then leave the rehabilitation of the dogs to other organizations. The dogs need your help long after the fighting ring is broken up. And it is CERTAINLY not acceptable for you to raise money from people by making them THINK the money is going to the help "Animal Survivors" (it is even called the "Animal Survivor's Fund") when you're not caring for the animals -- and when other organizations really need that money to help them.  It is not enough to give money to one dog from the fight bust when hundreds of others need help.

We need to expect and demand more.

Added: YesBiscuit!: HSUS Relies on Bloggers for Moral Compass

IS HSUS trying to take credit/donations for the work of others?

I just got this email from the Humane Society of the United States (you can click on it to enlarge).

The email contains a link to a video of Faye -- one of the 500 dogs rescued last summer as a part of the 8 state dog fighting ring bust.

The request, as usual, asks readers to make a donation to HSUS and their Animal Survivor's Fund -- that they're hoping to raise $1 million to help dogs just like Faye.

Here's the rub. They're not caring for the vast majority (or any?) of the dogs that were rescued from the dog fighting ring bust from this summer.  The people actually CARING for the dogs -- at least the majority of them - are the folks at the Humane Society of Missouri (who is not affiliated with HSUS). And look, Faye is the cover girl on the Humane Society of Missouri's website.

It appears as if HSUS is trying to use the publicity from the Time Magazine article which refereed to HSMO as "the Humane Society" to raise money for dogs that aren't even in their care. This would not be the first time HSUS has pulled shananigans in such a regard. Just two years ago, HSUS asked for money to care for the dogs rescued from Mike Vick's Bad Newz Kennels -- when they as an organization were lobbying TO HAVE ALL THE DOGS KILLED.

Please everyone - if you want to help dogs like Faye, donate money to the Humane Society of Missouri --  or one of the many rescue organizations from around the country that are taking in these rescued dogs.

And shame on you, again, HSUS.

NFL Season Starts Tonight

The NFL season begins tonight.  So much of the NFL off-season has been centered around the league's reinstatement of its now-most-infamous player, Mike Vick -- who will now be suspended for only 2 games and will be allowed to make his league debut in week 3 vs the Kansas  City Chiefs.

A couple of weeks ago Vick and his new spokesperson Wayne Pacelle did a few interviews to "celebrate" Vick's reinstatement back into the league and his supposed involvement with HSUS's inner city programs to try to stop dog fighting in the inner city. 

LA Animal Watch had a couple of great videos at the time -- one on Pacelle talking about Mike Vick, and the other on Vick talking about himself.

Here are the two videos:

Meanwhile, Vick also did an exclusive interview with 60 Minutes -- which is worth watching. While his interview seemed very scripted and not sincere, I will note that one thing did give me some reason for hope in this is that when he stood up to speak, Tio Hardiman, who is someone I do admire for doing great work in the inner city of Chicago, was in the background. I do believe if it is possible for a man like Vick to be himself, rehabilitated, then Tio is the kind of man who can do it. 

Here's part 1 of that interview:

And Part 2:

All of the hubbub is enough to drive me to watching solely the college game of football this year. For the life of me, I have no idea why the most successful sports league in the world wants or needs Mike Vick And I have no idea why the the world's wealthiest animal welfare organization (HSUS) would be so quick to push authorities to have all of Vick's dogs killed after they were rescued, but then also so quick to grant the man responsible for terrorrizing and abusing these dogs a second chance.

  But there is some good news in the story. Many of the rehabilitated Vick dogs got second chances for exposure. Inside Edition ran a story on some of the successfully rehabbed dogs that are living at Dogtown.  KQDS TV in Duluth, MN ran an article on Hector - former Vick dog -  now serving as a Therapy dog in the hospitals in Rochester, MN.

There were other stories. But in all, the dogs showed themselves to be the great loving pets they had become....not the monsters often portrayed in the news media.  Dogs that even though they really were "bred and trained to fight", have learned to love from their new homes. It certainly makes a very strong case of nurture over nature in aggression -- and providing a trail for other dogs who are rescued from similar circumstances to follow -- and not be doomed to death by the likes of HSUS...who is so quick to offer second chances to dog fighters, but not to the victims themselves.

At least there is a happy ending....or happy new beginning....for the victims of Bad Newz kennels. 

AW/AR groups file claim regarding Leona Helmsley's $$$

Three prominent Animal Welfare and Animal Rights groups  - the ASPCA, HSUS and Maddies Fund - have filed a suit and against New York's Surrogate Court over Leona Helmsley's Trust fund.

Helmsley's estate is estimated to be worth $5 billion. Her trust expressed an intent that the enetir estate should go to "help dogs"...but so far, the Trust has decided to do other things with the dollars -- with less than $100,000 going to animal welfare groups thus far.

I'm always suspicious when animal welfare groups make a major play for money....especially when the Humane Society of the United States is involved.   HSUS is the world's wealthiest "humane" organization, but last year spent  more than $27 million of their $125 million in expenses on more fundraising...while spending less than $7 million on animal care facilities.  When Helmsley first died over a year ago, Wayne Pacelle of HSUS put his hand out almost instantly for the money.

While I'm skeptical of some of the large organizations*, it is hard not to imagine what could be done in animal welfare with such an influx of cash into the system. While money won't solve all problems -- especially archaic views that are still prevelent in animal welfare communities -- it could certainly benefit a lot of organizations who are on the ground working hard for animals. 

*It should be noted here that at least Maddies Fund has said publically (on Twitter) that they would be more than happy if the money went to other animal welfare organizations and they got none of the money.

I am not opposed to the suit filed by the three organizations. While it may seem crazy to many to put one's entire fortune on animal welfare, I certainly hope that when  I die, the courts honor my wishes for how my estate should be devided (it will be much less lucrative to everyone than Helmsley's to be sure).  And my hope is that instead of giving the money just to the large national organizations, that local organizations without the resources to lobby for the money will be able to get a take.

If Maddie's funds estimates of there being  5 million animals adopted out last year, we could award money to rescue organizations around the country based on the number of animals they adopted out. If we gave each and every 501c3 organization $500 for every dog or cat that they adopted out last year, that would still only use  $2.5 billion dollars of Helmsley's entire estate. Think about what $10,000 would mean to a small rescue organization that adopted out 20 dogs and cats last year....or what $100,000 would mean to a larger organization that adopted out 200 dogs and cats.

It would mean a lot.

And I'd love to see some type of system of distributing the money that got the money in the hands of these organizations that are on the ground actively adopting out dogs and cats. 

This and that

It's been a really busy week so blog posting has been down a little. But there have been several things this week that I wanted to get out there -- interesting, fun, and just downright wrong:

Yes Biscuit! has a great post about HSUS's document from their website on "Selecting Animals for Euthanasia." It's a really detailed report that specifically recommends how animals should be selected for euthanasia.  She does a great job of breaking down the document and what is wrong with the rationale in it.  Meanwhile, apparently someone from HSUS contacted her and noted that the document was "outdated" and would be taken down (which it has). My hope is that they replace it with a document that is equally thorough and helps provide guidance on how to SAVE animals, not kill them.  Meanwhile, I think this might be a good note for all of us that have organizations that have websites to look at all of the old material on there and ask the question -- is that information still current in the mindset of a nation that is quickly moving toward no kill?  We should really take a hard look at the information we are making available to the public and be sure the information we have out there is current, accurate, and helpful in moving us toward a no kill, no BSL nation.

According to most reports, it looks like NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is likely to conditionally reinstate Michael Vick into the NFL with a 4-6 game suspension to start the season. I know many in the animal welfare community are (rightfully) upset at this development. I am not sure why Goodell would think that the NFL -- which right now is the most successful sports league in the world -- needs or wants Vick who will only be a distraction from their on-field product. So keep sending letters to the commissioners office. But with that said, even if Vick is reinstated, and signs with a team, you can still make your voices heard. Money is a powerful motivator, and we need to continue to speak with our pocketbooks. If an NFL team signs Vick, wouldn't it send a powerful message if all of the pet owners who have season tickets cancelled them. Sixty percent of the US owns pets, and if a team signed Vick and the next day had 60% of their fan base call and cancel tickets it would send a very powerful message.  If he signs with your team, don't go to games. Don't watch them on TV. Don't buy jerseys. Money can be a very powerful motivator.

Meanwhile, I still can't help but think of the irony that could come out of all of this. One team that is notorious for bringing in players with troubled pasts is the Oakland Raiders -- and its a team that has struggled at the QB spot for several years. I can't help but think of the irony if he begins playing in the same city as the organization that is probably most responsible for giving his dogs a new and better life.

The stories of two of my three dogs are now up at the National Canine Research Council. Stella and SweetP both came to us under pretty horrible circumstances -- SweetP had nearly been starved to death and Stella had been hit by a car and left for dead along the side of the road in downtown Kansas City.  Both are doing great now -- are best buds and Canine Good Citizens. Thanks to Karen for posting their info.

And finally, over the weekend I was watching Kansas City native Tom Watson nearly making history at the British open, and got to see a new TV commercial from Traveler's Insurance. This is a great spot that really takes a neat twist on protecting your most prized possessions. It also is nice to give a nice nod to the large percentage of the population that loves their pets and can really associate with the spot.

It's really unfortunate that while Traveler's Insurance hit a home run with their advertising campaign, that they don't with pet owners. Traveler's does discriminate against owners of certain types of dogs. So A+ for your commercial...Fail for your internal insurance policies.

Knowing what to expect from proposed animal control laws

Last week, Indianapolis Councilman Mike Speedy wrote yet another article to the Indianapolis Star trying to justify his support for his own ordinance that would require all 'pit bull' type dogs to be licensed and spayed or neutered.  Last month, the rest of the Indianapolis city council voted to table the proposed bill.

According to councilman Speedy, his "targeted solution" would build on the success that other cities, such as Little Rock, AR and San Francisco, have experienced with their ordinances.  

It also completely unusual for well-meaning animal welfare people to support similar legislation and to wonder why so many people oppose legislation that would mandate the spay/neuter for pit bulls.  In this case, Speedy himself even said he was working with a representative from the Humane Society of the United States, Desiree Bender*, who was helping him with the ordinance and talking about Little Rock's "success" with the ordinance.

* It should also be noted here that Bender also testified in favor of BSL/MSN in the city of Jacksonville, AR back in 2005.  Her testimony is on page 4.  Jacksonville eventually passed a full-on ban of 'pit bull' type dogs which led to nearly 100 dogs being killed in the small community of about 31,000 residents.

But what type of results do cities that pass a mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls get from their ordinances?  Because looking at their results may give us a good idea of what to expect when another city passes a similar ordinance.

To my knowledge, there are only about 3 cities with much of  a track record on BSL/MSN to draw records from. I've spent a lot of time covering San Francisco and Kansas City, MO before -- so I won't spend time on those now. Essentially, San Francisco saw a significant increase in the number of dog bites following the law, and a small decrease in the number of pit bulls killed in the shelter following the ordinance*.  Kansas City saw no change in bite numbers, but an 80% increase in the number of pit bulls killed in the 18 months following the ordinance passing.

* San Francisco being able to salvage their kill rates is no doubt at least partially attributed to having one of the oldest and most established low cost/no cost spay/neuter services in the country.

On May 20th of 2008, Little Rock began enforcing their ordinance - -that required a very expensive licensing fee for 'pit bulls', required all 'pit bulls' to be vaccinated, microchipped, altered and confined behind a fence or structure (ie, forbidding tethering).  At the time, Fox 16 caught some excellent video of these "dangerous" dogs greeting animal control officers as they came to "rescue" the animals and take them from their homes (the video is in the upper right hand corner of the link provided -- Bender makes a guest appearance in this video as well).

So, what has the early "success" of the Little Rock ordinance look like? Not good if you're a 'pit bull'.

In 2007, the year before the ordinance passed, Little Rock 'euthanized' in its shelter 2,540 total dogs, of which, 823 (32.4%) were 'pit bulls'.

In 2008, with the new ordinance in affect for about 1/2 of the total number of dogs killed in the shelter rose to 2,847 -- of which, 1,188 (41.5%) were 'pit bulls' -- a 44% increase in total pit bulls killed in only 1/2 a year.*

* Interestingly, when I point out that last year, when Los Angeles has a 24% increase in total dog euthanasia following their first year with mandatory spay/neuter for all dogs, people have been quick to point to "the economy" as the reason for the increased killing. However, it's interesting that in Little Rock, total euthansia for all non-pit bull breeds actually decreased by about 3%, while 'pit bulls', who were the only ones affected by the spay/neuter, went up 44%. It is almost impossible to deny that in almost all cases, mandatory spay/neuter will cause an increase in impounds and kills among whatever category of animals in included.

For 2009, as of the end of May, they're tracking very close to 2008's year end numbers, with total dogs killed at 1,162 (on pace for 2,789) and 'pit bulls' at 490 (on pace for 1,176).

It's amazing how little of a fluke the Little Rock's kill numbers are -- as they mirror almost exactly what Kansas City saw when it passed a similar ordinance in 2006.

For the bite numbers, there is a bit of improvement.

2006 - 135 total bites, 47 by 'pit bulls' (35%)

2007 - 131 total bites , 42 by 'pit bulls (31%)

2008 (with ordinance in place) -- 118 total bites, 34 by 'pit bulls' (29%)

For 2009 - they are currently on pace for 116 total bites with 22% by 'pit bulls'.

It appears that dog bites were on a slight decline prior to the ordinance taking affect. With the ordinance in affect, bites dropped 10% overall -- with about equal drop in total bites among "pit bulls" and all others. For 2009, it looks like the pit bull numbers are going to continue to drop (likely due to the continued increased killing), but 'all others' will go up, likely as many of the people who have lost their dogs begin to get replacement dogs of different breeds.

So are these the results we are looking for? While cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul are passing breed neutral ordinances that are targeting irresponsible owners are having major decreases in bites -- with no increase in shelter killing. Meanwhile, Little Rock, the city Mike Speedy thinks is a "role model", has decreased their dog bites by less, while being on pace to kill nearly 800 'pit bulls' in the first 18 months of ordinance. While San Francisco, Speedy's other "success" story, saw a 13% increase in dog bites following the passing of their ordinance.

How are increased killing and high bite rates successes?

So why would Indianapolis WANT Mike Speedy's ordinance? Why would they want an ordinance that is costly to enforce (Little Rock's AC budget has gone up $100,000 (12%) over the past 4 years), that needs additional money for killing the influx of animals that come into the shelter, and is less affective than alternatives that are currently being worked on by the new director of animal control and the animal welfare community in his city?

And why would well-meaning animal welfare activists support an ordinance that has consistently led to hundreds of animals killed for now reason in a community with some mysterious hope that it just might work this time?

And why would the nation's largest animal "humane" organization, HSUS, have a staff member that would be continually pushing for an ordinance in communities that has consistently cost the lives of literally hundreds and often thousands of animals that are targeted by the laws? 

It is really important to look at the true effects of ordinances that are passed by other communities -- not just the ordinances themselves -- if we really want to build successful communities that are both safe for animals, and safe for people.

 

Mike Vick/HSUS Partnership may be what both parties need

Yesterday, Michael Vick left the prison in Leavenworth, KS, and headed home.

On the same day, Wayne Pacelle from the Humane Society of the United States, announced that Vick will be coming on board to help HSUS in their quest to end the heinous act of dog fighting.

While many have criticized HSUS for this decision, it may, in fact, be what both parties desparately need. Or, it could be a disaster.

In so many ways, the past two years for Mike Vick and for HSUS have been running on parallel paths. Mike Vick was a very good NFL football player. He was revered.  He was wealthy beyond most people's comprehension. And in the act of brutally killing a bunch of dogs, he threw all of it away. He lost his job, was thrown in jail, and his image was badly tarnished.

HSUS is not that far behind.  HSUS is the world's wealthiest "humane" organization.  They had a great image (at least among many). And yet, their reputation has begun to crumble -- in large part, because of them killing a bunch of dogs.  

Two years ago, the dogs from Mike Vick's Kennels were rescued -- even in spite of insistence from HSUS that the dogs be killed. Most have now moved on to great lives in homes (I will post more on this later today). In spite of the successful rehabilitation of these dogs, the next  time a group of dogs from a dog fighting ring were confiscated, HSUS once again insisted that all of the dogs be killed. The public outcry of HSUS's siding with killing -- in spite of the recent evidence that dogs from these situations could be rehabilitated, put HSUS on the defensive -- to the point where they've even said (at least kind of), that all dogs that were rescued from dog fighting rings would be given a chance to be evaluated and possibly rehabilitated.

And now, an organization that is trying to rebuild its reputation is joining forces with a man, who is trying to do the same. In some ways this appears desperate. In other ways, it makes so much sense.

Vick's future appears very up in the air. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has not said whether he plans to allow Vick to come back to the league once he serves his prison term. But the NFL doesn't need Mike Vick. The NFL is the single most successful professional sports league in the world. They're wealthy. They have tons of fans. Most stadiums are sold out on every Sunday. TV ratings are high. The league is rolling....and continues to do so without Mike Vick. If allowed to come back, Vick would be a distraction.  Teams would have to endure picketing outside of games. Opposing crowds will boo him unmercifully. The fact that 13,000 people on facebook (and growing) have already joined a group to "keep Vick out of the NFL" means there will be backlash.  The league doesn't need it. It is most likely time for them to part ways.

HSUS though, potentially has a spot for Vick -- that could be a perfect match.

A few years ago, HSUS partnered with Tio Hardiman.  Hardiman has been working the streets of inner-city Chicago trying to stamp out dog fighting among urban youth. His program is not designed around punishing youth for fighting dogs (something they have learned to accept from those around them, and have likely never even questioned the ethics of it, it literally, is all they know). Hardiman works with these  youth to change their hearts -- and to give the youth compassion for their four-legged partners. With the help of HSUS, they have added a training component to the program, where the youth learn to train their dogs -- so they can take pride in how well trained their dog is, not how well it fights.   The videos of his program are amazing to watch.

Vick could be a perfect fit for a program like this. If Vick is truly a changed man (I'm not yet convinced, but I would have no real reason to not believe it to be true either), I think his celebrity could allow him to easily connect with urban youth.  He could tell his story. He could (potentially) teach them compassion.  He could use his story to change their hearts.

Now it could not happen that way. HSUS could use him as little more than a propped up scarecrow in a few videos that they used for little more than to raise yet more money to "stamp out dogfighting."  We've seen their fundraising efforts before -- calling for money to help them care for and save the Vick dogs, but then calling for them all to be killed.  And this may well be HSUS's intent.

If Vick ends up being used merely as a prop for a fundraising campaign,  HSUS will continue to be seen by many as merely a fundraising machine that has little interest in actually saving the lives of animals. And Vick will look like the guy who took the money from an animal rights group and ran...without having shown true remorse for his past actions.

And that would be too bad. Because this union could be a good match for both parties -- and chance to rebuild tarnished reputations and truly benefiting the dogs that both are responsible for killing.  It would be a second chance for both -- which is what we've all claimed the dogs from fighting operations deserve. The dogs from Bad Newz Kennels have used their second chance to thrive in their new environments. It is a new environment for both Vick and HSUS.  Hopefully they will be at least half as successful as the dogs in adapting to it, and making the most of the opportunity. 

Stuff from around the internets

1) Yes Biscuit! has an interesting news report from out of Atlanta on the Humane Society of the United States, and where their donations go. Apparently a lot of people are taking notice that HSUS really takes in a lot of money -- but not a lot of money goes directly toward helping animals. While I can certainly appreciate the importance of legislation in helping animals, that isn't what HSUS says they do.  One thing the report doesn't talk about is the millions of dollars in funds they raised to "help" the dogs from Mike Vick's Bad News Kennels - -and the recommended that all of the dogs be killed. 

If you question the Citizens for Consumer Freedom and the news report's analysis of the situation, you can always check out HSUS's annual reports and tax records for yourself here.

2) "For the Pit Bulls" has another great post today about a woman who's child was attacked by three dogs that were running at-large in a pack.  The woman noted that she believed the dogs were bred for fighting.  The dogs three mixed breed dogs all with distinctively different looks....and the dogs weren't used for fighting. I think this story sadly highlights that all of the talk about fighting dogs that the media does has completely distorted reality in the minds of most people.   Even though it is sadly not uncommon to hear about fight busts, the reality is that the vast majority of dogs are not fight dogs, are not bred to fight, and have never been used to fight. But I don't think people's perception is all that accurate on these matters.

3) The mother of an 18 month old boy that was killed two months ago in Luling, TX was indicted this week.  The mother, 24 year old Melissa Miller, is facing felony charges for criminially negligent homicide and injury to a child. A lot of the initial media reports were very focused on the dog involved in this  unfortunate fatality -- but apparently the grand jury saw things a little differently. You can follow the story here -- but the nutshell version of this is that the mother was asleep at 12:30 in the afternoon when the 18 month old child wandered outside and up to a dog that was chained to a tree in the back yard and was found dead. Tragic, but I'm glad that it looks like instead of blaming the dog (like the media did) the court system is looking at placing the blame on the human element that led to this unfortunate occurrance.

4) In Council Bluffs, IA, three mail carriers have been bitten by dogs just in the past 10 days. Some out there have tried to use Council Bluffs as a case study about that breed bans work. Council Bluffs banned 'pit bulls' back in 2005 and has trumpeted the decrease in bites by 'pit bulls' since the ban was enacted (duh, they killed most of the 'pit bulls' there, so they of course bites by them have decreased significantly).  However, there has been no evidence that they are actually decreasing the total number of dog bites or major dog bites.  In fact, the year with the largest number of dog bites they've had in at least a decade has come AFTER they passed the ban.  Council Bluffs continues to have the same issues with dog bites as they've always had because they still have not dealt with the root of the problem....which were irresponsible owners that created the situations where the bites occurred in the first place.

HSUS Changes Policy on dogs seized from Fight Busts

Last week, members of several groups of animal welfare and animal rights member met in a summit in Las Vegas to discuss a potential change in HSUS policy for dogs that are seized from dog fighting busts.

In the past, HSUS policy was to recommend that all dogs that came from dog fighting operations, even puppies, would be systematically euthanized with no "need" for professional behavioral evaluations.

However, the success in the rehabiliation of the dogs confiscated from Mike Vick's Bad Newz Kennels (Hector, one of those dogs, is seen "viciously" snuggling with Missouri State Senator Jolie Justus), combined with the public outcry over HSUS' insistence that 127 dogs confiscated from Ed Faron's home be systematically killed, has finally led HSUS down a road to a change in policy.

No longer will HSUS insist that all dogs confiscated from fight busts be put down. 

Yay.  And it's about time.

While many dogs from these fighting operations may be put down in the future -- they will all be given professional behavioral evaluations before that happens. If a dog is decided to be too aggressive to ever have a public life, they will be euthanized. But if the prospects for a dog to be rehabilitated look good, the dog will be given that opportunity.

"The groups agree that all dogs should be treated as individuals, and they are the true victims of this organized crime," reads the Best Friends release.

Best Friends has the Press Release here.

Even Wayne Pacelle has issued the statement on his blog.

"In the past, animals seized from operations have been routinely euthanized. This may still be the outcome for the animal victims of dogfighters, but we agreed as a number of groups that all of us should do our best to evaluate dogs seized from these operations and adopt those dogs who can be saved."

That's progress.  It is still concerning that the nation's largest and richest animal advocacy group had to be pushed by the general public and other organizations to change a policy that declared that all of these dogs had to be killed even without an evaluation. But the good news is, the public demanded it to a point that HSUS DID change their policy. The public has charted a direction for how we treat animals in this country -- and that direction is no longer being led by HSUS. 

It's good to have HSUS along for the ride.  Saving these dogs is important. It should be our first notion.  If they cannot be saved, that is understandable, but "kill" should not be our first reaction when it comes to these victims. If the very people who are in a position to care about the welfare of these animals do not think their lives are worth saving, why would we ever think the people who fight these dogs would value their lives either?

Donna at Bad Rap, always the optimist, nicely put it:

"Welcome to the New World, bust dogs. From here on out, you will be counted among the many shelter animals who are also counting on humans to give them a second chance at a real life."

The news is being greeted with skepticism around the animal welfare world.

YesBiscuit is asking some tough questions.

Katie is wondering how an organization that only months ago encouraged Wilkes County, NC to kill 127 dogs, many of them young puppies -- some even born in the shelter - -can do a 180 on this topic in such a short amount of time.

Even Christie is a little skeptical (she has a great overview on everything that's well worth the read).

Who can blame them. HSUS hasn't always been the best of friends when it comes to 'pit bull' type dogs -- or any breeds of dogs for that matter. They've earned the skepticism.

I am surprisingly optimistic. Not because I trust HSUS . I don't. But because the animal welfare communities -- the people who are in the trenches every day saving the lives of animals -- has demanded change and gotten it. The people who truly care about saving the lives of animals and live their lives every day doing it, have charted a new course for animal welfare in this country.  Without HSUS's leadership - - in fact, in SPITE of HSUS's "leadership" - the animal welfare community has changed how they view the humane movement.

And that is very powerful indeed.

And in the end, it will be great for the animals....which is what it's all about.