Deliberately uninformed

Great post last week over at Seth Godin's blog -- where he notes the continuing trend in this country by people to almost willingly decide to be uninformed.

His premise is that for the first time in history, knowledge is largely unimpedd for the middle class. And yet, most people in this country still read less than one book a year, and many don't read blogs or newsletters on their own industry.

Maybe it's because I'm a huge skeptic, or maybe it's because my brain is wired analytically, but I find the lack of thirst for information to be somewhat perplexing. And yet, I see it a lot in animal welfare as well.

I still am amazed when groups like the (seemingly) well-meaning folks with the Humane Society of Huron Valley support mandatory spay/neuter for pit bulls -- even though the track record of these laws has been that they increase killing instead of decrease killing -- and pushed for the failed policy in Ypsilanti. Many people will say that they THINK mandatory spay/neuter will work, without recognizing that many communities have tried it and most have failed.

They aren't alone of course -- a lot of people in animal welfare don't do a lot of research on different aspects of animal welfare -- and end up making poor recommendations because of it.

They don't end up going to conferences like the No More Homeless Pets Conference or the No Kill Conference to learn about the success stories of other places.  They don't read a lot of blogs that are written by people who are doing a lot of this research for them. 

I'm still amazed that 4 years after the book was written, that so few people have read the book Redemption or it's follow-up Irreconcilable Differences.  I know a large number of people who have a strong opinion about the books but have never actually taken the time to read them.  Even if you read them and don't agree with everything in them, it seems that if you were involved in animal welfare, reading a book that challenged mainstream thinking would be something worth making the time to read even if you could learn just one or two things from the book.

Now I know one of the big arguments -- "I'm too busy saving animals to read all of this stuff".  And yes, I get that there are a lot of people in animal welfare who are busting their tails, day and night, to save the lives of animals. And you should be commended for your work. And I realize that there is far too much information out there for any one person to read or it would be overwhelming and you'd get nothing else done. 

But there is a happy medium. It's not always about working harder to save animal lives -- it's about working smarter.  And like any profession, if you are not keeping up with the best of current thinking when it comes to sheltering and saving animal lives, then you are probably not working as efficiently as you could be.

As someone who works as an advertising professional, I can tell you that if I didn't constantly work to keep up with my industry through industry newsletters, conferences, periodicals, etc, I'd be outdated and irrelevant in no less than 2 years. Maybe sooner.  I suspect that this is true for most people in their professional careers. And yet, there are many people in animal welfare who continue to do things the exact same way they did them 20 years ago.  That's no longer acceptable (if it ever was). The ability to get good information is too easy -- and in a lot of cases, it's free. 

On top of the books, there are a lot of great blogs out there that keep track of new products, shelter success stories and failures and case studies on implemented laws.  I have many on my current blog roll -- and plan to update that soon to get some of the newer blogs up that are out there and quite good. And it is pretty easy to tell which ones are reliable and which ones are not.

1) If it is written by someone who is unwilling to put their real name on the blog - -it's a waste of your time.

2) If it is written by someone who provides no data to support their points of view and only says it's that way because they say so -- it's a waste of your time.

3) If the only links they provide are to themselves, it's probably not worth your time (although it is very acceptable for people to link to past content they've written, it just should never be the only thing they link to -- you can't use yourself as a source to support your opinion).

But please, don't be deliberately uniformed.

Comments

[Bett Sundermeyer]

I have noticed this behavior as well. Some of the no kill naysayers here say that they disagree with everything Nathan Winograd says but then admit they've never even read his book. I've even offered to send them a copy for free, but they refused.

I see this behavior in people who seem to believe in No Kill too. Last weekend we had a booth at an animal themed festival. Many people were eager to sign our petition demanding No Kill in our city animal control, but when we offered our flyer so they could find out more about how to get to No Kill, some declined. They didn't even want to read a one page flyer. It was very odd to me.

[kelly]

I also have noticed this behavior among my friends...who are intelligent, and literally work 80 hours a week at their full time jobs, and on animal rescue. It is a weird environment to get sucked into. On one hand, I can't let these animals die because of our poor sheltering system, but on the other- I know it doesn't have to be this way. My own voice only carries so far... I lend out every extra copy of these books I have to those who are willing to read them... whether they actually do, is up to them.

[Anne Thomas]

Washington Animal Rescue League occasionally offers free spay/neuter for certain groups, and they frequently target pit bulls.

[Christie]

I have to admit I have a HUGE prejudice against anonymous bloggers or commentors (although I don't hold, say, a political dissident in a totalitarian state to that standard). I wish it only happened among the brain-dead critics who go into fits of manic insanity when they hear (or think they hear) the name of Nathan Winograd, but it happens in our movement, too.

If you're not a lesbian mother in Tennessee trying not to get your kids taken away from you, BLOG AND COMMENT IN YOUR OWN NAME, folks! It's the only way to have any credibility at all.

[Deanna]

I think people want a ready made solution, like I support the cause as long as it does not require any extra effort on my part, I think even the word activism has a negative connotation in America and that IS what will be required for change!

[Kellie Roberts]

Part of the problem, I believe, is that the people involved have been doing the same thing the same way for so long that they can't even fathom that there might be another way. And/or they are too afraid of change to do anything different. So if they have their head in the sand and don't educate themselves, then all runs along in a predictable way. That predictability keeps people in their comfort zone, even if that zone is a bad place to be.

I am looking for a position with in animal welfare but, time and time again, organizations end up hiring internally, perpetuating the cycle. In interviews I talk about ways that the adoption rate, shelter conditions, etc., can be improved and they smile at me and nod and then hire somebody who already works there and will seamlessly slip into that vacant position. Those places are still killing 80-90% of the animals that end up there, and all I can think is what a difference I could have made if those who were responsible for personnel decisions had had the guts to become informed.

[Joni]

Great article and I agree -- most people do NOT read enough or have a mind that is open to change.

I read books, blogs, news, and websites. It is what is needed if you want to gain a better more complete view of an issue.

Please people READ and read with an open mind. Then take some smart action and pay attention to outcomes. Repeat the actions that work the best and train others to do the same.

[Tom K]

Have you all read Winograd's words in support of Proposition B? Why don't you write me back when you finally UNDERSTAND what Winograd is and has been doing.

[Brent]

Oh, please enlighten us Tom...

[MichelleD]

Kellie - please keep trying! We need more like you!

[Suzette Watkins]

Love this post! Count Ft. Worth in as not thinking, not learning and not bending and certainly not being efficient. ($75M in the red.) City leaders are satisfied with the status quo. :(

[EmilyS]

Winograd has always stated that he is not philosophically opposed on principle to MSN. The opposition he has (previously) stated was on the basis of "it doesn't work". So he doesn't particular have principles on these legislative issues.

Here he is on Prop B http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=4473

Now his support for this measure seems to be based primarily on his weird (to me) notion that passage of the bill will somehow force the bigmoney players that he despises to fund the rescue of the puppy mill puppies that will have no place to go. So for him, this isn't about any principle of "will it work to shut down inhumane puppy mills and decrease the numbers of animals killed in shelters". It's about getting another club to beat HSUS, ASPCA and BF with.

I don't know what Tom K thinks Winograd is up to..

[Tom K]

Winograd is playing bait and switch. He tells us that the pet overpopulation problem is a myth, and I think that is true, but "puppy mills" must be eliminated because some breeders don't take good care of their animals.

Winograd is a swindler. So are the people who are trying to label licensed commercial breeders as puppy mills.

[Brent]

Emily,

It seems to me that the most recent piece was more based on the reality that the bill will likely pass (at least if the pollsters are even remotely close to accurate) - -and not wanting to kill all of the victims of the puppy mills that we're supposedly trying to "save" with this bill. I think it is fair to ask the organizations that are collectively spending literally millions of dollars to pass the law to help in cleaing up the mess it creates instead of sending the proverbial lambs (in this case puppies) to slaughter.

Tom, I think Winograd is very clear in his piece that puppy mills are not a driver of pet overpopulation - but that cruel conditions that exist in many commercial breeding operations is a huge issue. So it's less about their production of animals and more about ending cruelty. Don't mix and match the two because they can be mutually exclusive.

There is undeniably a problem with cruel conditions in commercial breeding operations in this state. I'm not saying in all of them, but in a sizable number of them. Unfortunately, the problem has gone on for far too long and all of the parties that had the ability to shut down the puppy mills (including those commercial breeders who were not keeping their animals in cruel conditions) did do it -- so they are now getting all grouped together.

But "overpopulation" and "cruelty" are very different -- one doesn't exist, and the other, sadly does.

[Tom K]

The swindle is in punishing breeders who have not been proven to maintain animals in cruel conditions. Proposition B punishes people for being in the dog breeding business.

You're sliding over into acting as an apologist for the people who want to shut down all breeding operations using cruelty as an excuse. Is this what you really want to do?

[Brent]

Tom - I don't blame anyone a bit for wanting to shut down cruel breeding operations. There would be far better, fairer, and more effective ways to do that than Prop B -- which I don't think will do much to solve the actual problem, will likely cause a lot of dogs to die, and actually drive demand up for the folks operating outside of the current regulations.

But that said, the writing has been on the wall for this for a long time -- and the breeding community has had opportunities to do more to control those operating outside of the law and have by and large done nothing. I was even kicked off a chat list for telling a group of breeders that if they didn't police themselves, they would have new laws made for them and wouldn't like it and was kicked off because I was perceived as a 'radical wingnut' and that either there was no problem or that they should be able to do with their animals as they please.

They can't.

So yes, I agree with people who think cruel breeding operations should be shut down. No, I don't think Prop B is the right way to try to go about doing it and will likely make problems worse. But too many on your side are fine with the status quo which is not ok either.

Fortunately, there are a lot of viable options between Prop B and the status quo that would, I think, be very good for the animals, and very good for the breeders out there who are trying to be compassionate for animals. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that we will ever take the time to discover it.

[Tom K]

How can anyone buy into the idea that breeders should "police themselves"?

[Brent]

Obviously breeders don't have 'police' powers - however, they had a lot of opportunities to create change that would solve the problems. For example:

1) They could have pushed for higher fees for breeding licenses -- (which in Missouri have not been raised in more than 20 years) and insist that all fees go into funding more state resources for enforcement against unlicense facilities.

2) Put more pressue on the AKC to cut off some of the problem people from being able to market their AKC dogs in spite of keeping them in horrible conditions.

Instead, they did nothing, pretended the problems didn't exist or that it wasnt't THEY"RE problem, and now want my sympathy. Very few of them have my sympathy, even though I still think the law is a bad idea.

[Tom K]

Winograd ingratiated himself with a segment of owners who would latch on to just about any hope of decent treatment from anyone involved in the "humane" community. He still supports IPB (Indecent Proposition B) in spite of its total lack of human decency and contempt for human rights.

Best Friends skeeped about Winograd allegedly backing off support of IPB. This puts Winograd in an even better position with people who haven't thought it out. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? What if the enemy of my enemy is pretending to be such? It's easy to pretend. There is so much dirt to be had on the ASPCA, Best Friends, and the HSUS, that a tiny fraction of it makes a man look like a hero when he writes a book about it.

Early on, before Winograd closed comments on his blog, I commented that he shouldn't give the HSUS any way to redeem itself (as in "Redemption") because they have already committed too many crimes against humanity. Now his latest, http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=4473 , sets up a condition that will buy redemption for the HSUS or other miscreants that satisfy it. If they come together and "rescue" all the dogs that are displaced by IPB, then they will be among the blessed, to paraphrase. Otherwise they're evil little devils.

In other words, they'll be the good guys if they stage a feeding frenzy on an entire state of breeders whose activities were previously legal.

It is a very bad thing to ask people to "police themselves" in a setup like dog breeding. Any attempts to do so quite rightly cause people to defend themselves and the intend is to split the group and make them suspicious of each other. There is no good way to conduct such a program, at all, and the attempts cause a lot of damage.

According to Winograd the big three humane organizations are absolutely loaded to the gills with dirt. That's gravy for those of us who have learned, quite rightly to despise them. It also means to me that they not only do not have the right to judge any breeders, they do not have the ability. They are also known for lying.

One of the harshest things about this is that it will do what was done to exotic animal owners in Missouri. It will punish people who have spent millions to become legal. This is the HSUS's incrementalism. First it imposed unnecessary burdens on breeders. Now it's going to chop their income tremendously while they're still paying off the financing.

It is better to have no solution than a solution this destructive. The destruction is on purpose, from Winograd, from the ASPCA, Best Friends, and the HSUS. The handwriting has been on the wall because these miscreants have been lying to people. We haven't the slightest chance of knowing what is really going on.

Winograd follows the pattern of labeling commercial breeders as "puppy mills", therefore commercial breeders, in his mind, are automatically abusive, and if they are bigger breeders they are automatically more abusive. This is far less insightful than his usual material, so he is definitely doing this on purpose. Winograd ingratiated himself with the breeders to some extent, who seem not to have realized that he does not exempt them from the "puppy mill" label, and like I said, the complaints that Winograd has allied himself with the breeders has created a false impression.

I don't know what Winograd's definition of a "puppy mill" is or what definition he will stand behind, or what yours is, but you, Brent Toellner, were quoted by Winograd as saying this: "According to the US Department of Agriculture, there are 1,525 licensed commercial breeders in the state—nearly [three times] more than any other state. The rest… are unlicensed. In other words, Missouri could cut in half the number of ‘puppy mills’ just by closing down all of the unlicensed operations in the state."

You and Winograd have both said in writing that all of the licensed breeders in Missouri are "puppy mills." Please explain.

[Brent]

Please note that in his quote of mine (which is accurate) that I put the term "puppy mills" in quotes. The original post was about the state bill that is called the "puppy mill cruelty act" -- so I put the word in quotes in how it was being referenced. If you read through all of my posts you will never see the term 'puppy mills' outside of quotation marks and usually i will refer to them in my voice as commercial breeding operations (or sometimes commercial kennels).

I won't even begin to speak on Winograd's beliefs on that.

Meanwhile, you often talk about how Prop B violates Human Rights. What Constitutional rights are being violated by the ordinance Tom?

Funny that you mention that "self policing" would divide the breeding community...because now they're all going down together. Maybe they should have been trying to help get rid of the problems instead of defending them for fear of dividing the group?

It's amazing - -that in spite of me being one of the few people in animal welfare who agrees with you on Prop B...and yet you still are extremely confrontational toward me. If you are the voice of the breeding community, it's no wonder so many are turned away by the attitude and have no sympathy for your "it's not fair" rationale.

[Tom K]

If you think that I am the voice of the breeding community then you obviously haven't been in touch with the breeding community.

[Tom K]

And what you just said about my "it's not fair attitude" is exactly why I am confrontational with you. You seem to have a problem with the idea that commercial breeders should be treated fairly.

[Brent]

I think dogs should be treated fairly.

And I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone who either a) denies there is a problem or b) sees the problem, but doesn't want to point it out because they feel like they will be dividing their "group".

I'm all for being fair. And I've said COUNTLESS times that I think there are better ways to go about solving this problem (but you only appear to read what you want to hear). Just saying that at some point, it's hard to defend people who have made no effort to help solve the obvious problem.

Some days I wonder if you're really on the side of the breeders, or if you're a plant by HSUS to try to get everyone to dislike breeders.

[Tom K]

Name some of those "better ways."

[kelly]

Tom, I have a way. Enforce current law. Dogs lying in their own mess, with matted fur, and rancid food isnt legal NOW. Prop B is not going to magically make more field officers appear on Mo's pay roll.