KC DOG BLOG

Two more great resources on Prop B

The Mike Ferguson Show on KSSZ Radio in Columbia, MO has had some great interviews discussing both sides of the issue on Prop B. He's posted most of the clips from his radio show on his personal website and the clips are worth the listen.  He has clips from Yes on Prop B spokesperson and animal rights activist Bob Barker (I still scratch my head as to why all of the Yes on Prop B experts are out-of-staters) .  U.S. Senator Kit Bond and Veternarian Dr. Alan Wessler were on the show speaking in opposition.

I think Mike does a great job on the interviews of providing a balanced and informed perspective on the issues as they relate to Prop B and I do think listening to the radio clips is well worth the time.

Here is the link to the radio program.  Links to the entirety of both the interview with Bob Barker and Dr. Wessler can be found at the bottom of the link.

Meanwhile, our friends at Paw Prints Radio had both sides of the issue on their radio program on earlier today -- so listen, enjoy, and decide who's side you're on.  The Prop B section starts at the 36 minute mark of the radiocast.  It's essentially just Stacy and Dale talking about all of the issues regarding Prop B and do a pretty solid job of covering the issue.

Some final thoughts on Missouri's Prop B

On Tuesday, Missourian's will vote on Proposition B -- a bill that will target Missouri's commercial breeding industry.

I've spoken a lot about the Proposition, and still think it's an ill-advised proposition that does nothing to solve the problem of lack of enforcement resources that have put us in the current mess we're in with abusive breeding operations.  I'll be voting against Prop B -- but not because I support abusive breeding operations. I just see way too many loopholes in this law that give the potential to a) make the lack of enforcement issue even worse and b) to cause a lot of dogs to die in our shelters in the aftermath.

Earlier this week, I wrote a blog posting about people who are deliberately uninformed.  I don't want you to be that person on election day, so I'm going to provide a few links that I think everyone should read before they go to the polls.  And please don't take this as me saying that everyone who is voting for Prop B is deliberately uniformed. I think that it is possible to read all of the information, look at the good and the bad, and decide that the potential downside is worth a yes vote. It's not to me because I think we should really take the time to create a solution that actually solves the problem of too little enforcement and in a way that won't lead to the likely deaths of thousands of shelter dogs.

But I want everyone to be informed and make their own decisions. That's the best I can ask.

So with that, there are several things I think everyone should read before heading to the polls:

First of all, read the act itself. Note that regardless of what other "agreements" that someone says exist, nothing is guaranteed outside of what is written in the law.  The law makes no mention of crackdowns on unlicensed breeding operations, no mentions of increased enforcement, and no mentions of a safety net that will keep all of the animals "saved" from these breeding operations from being killed.

Next, I think everyone should be familiar with what the current law says.  Many things included in Prop B seem like "no brainers" -- and they are, which is why they exist in the current law, the Animal Care and Facilities Act.  That act is 22 pages long and much more thorough than Prop B.  And while it does make some significant changes to the Animal Care Facilities Act, not all of them are stricter guidelines for the animals.  The MVMA put together a nice comparison chart of Prop B compared to the Animal Care Facilities Act that I think every person should read. It notes that the food and water requirements have gone from needed twice per day, to once. And that Prop B applies to only facilites with 10 or more breeding dogs, while the ACFA applies to all facilities with 3 or more breeding dogs.

I also think everyone should read the most read the most recent state auditor's report on the State Department of Ag's enforcement of the Animal Care Facilities Act. It paints a very clear picture of the lack of enforcement that has gone on in the state for the past decade -- even noting that only 60% of the licensed breeders were even inspected in 2007 even though state law requires it.

I still think that increasing enforcement is the primary issue - so that we can shut down more unlicensed facilities (HSUS estimates that there are 3,000 'puppy mills' in the state even though there are only 1525 licensed breeders) and to close down those that are currently treating animals poorly. The founding of Operation Bark Alert has helped -- as in 2009 (the first year of Operation Bark Alert) they closed down 164 breeding facilities and rescued 3500 dogs.  In 2010, 180 commercial breeders have already closed down. More work is obviously needed -- but it appears as if enforcement resources is the issue, which unfortunately is never addressed in the current law.

Prop B continues to have strong support -- with a recent poll showing 69% of people are in favor of the law -- but I hope that people will read up a lot on the law before Tuesday's election so we can focus resources on solving the actual enforcement issues. 

********

If you have time for more reading, here are a few other resources that you should check out.

The Columbia Missourian Editorial: Prop B is not the right answer to the problem -- noting that our existing laws are better than what is written in Prop B.

The Devil is in the Details -- from St. Louis Today

Prop B or not Prop B -- a pretty balanced article from the Independence/Blue Springs Examiner

Springfield, MO News Leader Editorial - Prop B Well-Intentioned but not in the State's Best Interests

Kansas City Star - Ballot Issue breeds contempt between dog breeders and aninmal rights activists -- instead of the two sides working together for the benefit of all pets, the wedge has been further driven between the groups.

The Columbia Missourian - A comparison of current and proposed dog breeding laws

The Vote Yes on Prop B people note that the state can't enforce a law that prevents unlawful dumping of dead animals by 'puppy mills' in the state and think that supports why Prop B should be passed -- but instead, continues to highlight the state's complete inability to enforce the current legislation.

HSUS vs Puppy Mills - from Dog Kinetics

Pet Overpopulation, Puppy Mills and Lessons frm Prop B - Winograd

Thinking Out Loud About Prop B - Winograd

Also of interest -- here's a list of where all of the donations of more than $250 have come from to support Prop B. You notice a lot of out-of-state folks (who I wonder are really very familiar with the situation here) and a lot of money coming in from the ASPCA, HSUS, Best Friends and a lot of HSUS employees (Wayne Pacelle donated $2000 personally for this). There is also $100,000 that was donated by the wife of one of the founders of Google.  This list is as of October 18 -- a lot more has come in sense then. In total, about $4 million has come in to support the legislation, and it just makes me sad to think about how much good could have been done such a large sum of money if it had been used for free/low cost spay/nueters,  for more inspections officers or for more promotion of Operation Bark Alert (which is never mentioned by the vote yes folks in spite of its success).

Tragic death of an infant near Jacksonville, FL

On Sunday night, a 3 or 4 day old toddler (reports are conflicting) was killed by the family pet. 

The new parents had just recently brought the child home, and apparently left the child alone in a room together with the family's pet 'pit bull' for "just a few seconds" and the dog bit the newborn and the child later died at the hospital.  The child has been identified as Justin Valentin.

This is obviously an awful tragedy for the family who went from having such joyous time in their lives turn into likely the most tragic.

Having a newborn brought into the family home is tough for a dog -- and takes a lot of diligence for the dog's owner to be sure to manage the newborn and the dog, understand the dog's behavior to avoid such tragedies. In fact, the fear over dog bites on children is a leading cause of dogs getting relinquished to shelters.

Most homes never have an incident like this -- and seldom are they so tragic to be fatal.  Since January 2008, there have been 11 fatalities involving newborn infants (less than 1 month old) in North America . While some will use this incident to try to create hysteria about the breed of dog involved, it should be pointed out that there were 7 different breeds of dogs involved in those 12 fatalities -- including a Jack Russell Terrier, a Labrador Retriever and a German Shepherd. In fact, Huskies have been responsible for 5 of those deaths.

Real progress can be made if, instead of looking at this as a breed-issue, we have an honest conversation with parents about dos and don'ts with a newborn infant and the family dog. If we can help people to understand dog body language, understand to never, even for a moment, leave their child alone with the family dog -- regardless of the breed of dog, and how to properly integrate the newborn into the family.

A couple of years ago I did an interview with Jennifer Shyrock of Dogs & Storks.  Jennifer founded Dogs & Storks -- which is a national dog training program designed for parents to teach them how to integrate their dog with children coming into the home. Programs like Dogs and Storks help educate dog owners/parents and focus on REAL solutions to helping prevent tragedies like this one and should be the first sources we go to for education about the causes of these tragedies (vs people with no canine experience who want to do nothing else except spread hysteria).

Speaking of the Dogs & Storks -- they have a great overview today of why dogs should not be left with infants even for just a moment in A Baby, A Dog and a "Moment".

This story has been picked up by well over 200 media outlets -- including national outlets like CNN and Fox News.

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.

Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 10/24/10

So, it's been 3 weeks since I've done a roundup - so there is a huge backlog of stories that need to be mentioned.  I'm going to hit the highlights and may leave out a few stories.  A lot of great blog entries out there that are worth your time to read.

Cities & Laws

Blair, NE is considering potential breed-specific legislation.

Comanche, IA is taking a look at a possible pit bull ban.

Kirksville, MO is still looking at a regulations targeting pit bulls -- even though 'pit bulls' have been responsible for only 3 of the city's 46 reported dog bites over the past 4 years.

Gwinnett County, GA rejected a proposed pit bull ban in their community. Most cities that actually do study the issue come back to the reality that such legislation is costly and ineffective -- and fortunately Gwinnett County came to the same conclusion.

Ypsilanti, MI approved their new ordinance that mandates the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' in the community. This type of ordinance has failed everywhere it has been instituted, and yet the local Humane Society was very active in pushing for the ordinance.

New 'pit bull' rules have taken effect in Lynn, MA -- which involves posting warning signs and having muzzles for the animals when off the owner's property.

El Paso, TX just passed a new ordinance that, among other things, will prevent puppies younger than 8 weeks old from being sold, and limiting pet stores from selling pets for a profit until after the animals are one year old.  I don't like this ordinance for a variety of reasons....

Port Washington is looking at updated their dangerous dog ordinance but do not plan to make it breed-specific.

Dearborn, MI has been looking at changes to their dangerous dog law -- they too intend to focus on dog/owner behavior and not breed.

A new bill in Massachusetts has been proposed to end the possibility of breed specific legislation in the entire state.

Macon, MS recently passed a new law that bans all 'pit bulls' from the city -- and at least several owners have expressed concerns because they say they cannot afford to move -- and yet, that is the only option for them to keep their dogs.

American Falls, ID is also looking at updating their dangerous dog ordinance -- and plans to make it based on a dog's behavior vs the dog's perceived breed.

Dog Bites/Attacks

In the UK, a top female athlete was attacked in a park by a Doberman Pinscher.  The UK of course has a long-time breed ban, but incidents like this are still very common occurrance because the laws are not focused on irresponsible dog owners.

The media in Redding, PA had a very dramatic headline about a 'pit bulls' that attacked a man in a wheelchair. The man sustained "scratches" and his dog was not seriously injured either. While no doubt the incident would be scary, it doesn't sound at all like what the headline made it out to be.

Speaking of media stir -- one day after Toledo replaced its breed-specific law with a behavior-based ordinance, the media found an incident to try to create controversy over the new ordinance. In this case, a 'pit bull" aparently "attacked" a pregnant woman (all of that is in the headline).  The dog was tied to a poll and went after the woman, leaving her with a "minor" bite wold and a couple of scratches.  Statistically, an incident like tihs happens virtually every day (and often, more than once a day) yet minor incidents like this never make the news there (nor should they) unless it is a pit bull involved and news media is trying to stir up controversy.

Two women in Gilbert, AZ were injured after being attacked by a Bloodhound.

A one year old Anderson, IN girl was severely attacked by a Rottweiler in the community.

An 11 month old boy in Fremont, NE was attacked by the family's 3 year old 'yellow lab'. Two years ago, the media in Omaha made a big deal out of 'pit bulls' when they could have been educating people on knowing and understanding dog behavior and teaching dogs how to interact around children and children around dogs.  In this case the toddler grabbed the dogs tail while it was sleeping and the dog lashed out at the child.

A San Antonio area woman was mauled by her son's Bull Mastiff.

A woman in Liberty, MI was hospitalized after being attacked by one or more of her own dogs -- she had 7 dogs, all mixes and all were listed as different breeds of mix.

Miscellaneous

A new study notes that many young children seem to be often bitten in the eyes by dogs. Interestingly, the report also notes the types of dogs that are most commonly involved to bites they see in hospitals to children -- "Mixed breeds" are the most comon attackers, followed by Labrador Retrievers, German Shepherds and Rottweilers.  This is a different "breed list" than you get from people who do reports based solely on media reports.  Meanwhile, the reality that mixed breeds are so common (and thus the most common biters) , helps point to the ridiculousness of breed-specific laws.

A shelter in Alaska just celebrated the one-year anniversary of being a no kill shelter.

Positive Press

A great story from out of Indianapolis about a 'pit bull' service dog that is helping patients by visiting them in hospitals.

Obedience class gives dogs better shot at adoption - some good press of a training program done by our friends at the Game Dog Guardian. Some more press on the organization is here.

Some great coverage the the No Kill Workshop in South Florida.

Fighting the past - Michael Vick's dogs find their true home -- from the NY Post

Blogs

Scared or feral?  How do you know?  -- Pet Connection takes a look at new ways of evaluating shelter cats.

Not so sweet charity 2 - Will My Dog Hate Me takes a look at why HSUS will nt be getting any of their donations.

We must kill the puppies to save them -- from the Pet Connection

Killing a healthy pet can't be called euthanasia - -from Dr. Patty Khuly

Animal Sheltering Fail -- Saving Pets has a look at a failing shelter in Australia that is saving just 9% of the cats it receives.

Are you a Tigger or an Eeyore -- Wisconsin Watchdog reflects on the No More Homeless Pets Conference in Las Vegas and the difference between people who are working to learn the newest ideas of shelter policies and those who are dinosaurs that are living in the past and using the same failed methods as before.

Memphis Animal Control -- which is 900 calls behind, has a new mandatory spay/neuter ordinance to enforce, and has overall been terribly ineffective -- allowed two dogs to starve to death when they were left in a vacant home.  YesBiscuit! has the story.

Black out on black-animal adoption only kills animals -- For the Pit Bulls addresses the old-fashioned notion of not adopting out Black animals for Halloween.  For the record, experts agree that the fear of ritual cat sacrifices for Halloween is only a myth.

A big, fun guide to saving cats this summer - Saving Pets has a GREAT post on ideas to save cats during their busy cat season.

Cats continue to be betrayed by cat "welfare" groups - more great stuff from Saving Pets on an issue that is not unique to Australia.

A feature on Susanne Kogut from Charlottesville Woman magazine that features her success at building Charlottesville into a No Kill community. Many people still insist that No Kill doesn't work, and yet, it has, and Susanne is just one example of someone who has had success with it.

Piles of Dead Kittens = the only solution -- or not -- from YesBiscuit!

We're getting good at this - WARL has a great post about their caring for 10 of the dogs from the Ohio 200.

Puppy Mills and Puppies in Pet Stores -- Again! -- From PetDocsOnCall

Another one gone -- a sad (and all too common) story from YesBiscuit!

Helping low-income pet owners (retention NOT removal) - -from Paw Prints the Magazine

Being held accountable -- A Great post from YesBiscuit!

Marketing, not blaming  -- if you want people to adopt your pets, you have to offer more than euthanasia statistics -- a brilliant post from Saving Pets.

Four million shelter animals want you ! -- Shelter directors with imagination are in demand - -from Winograd

My name is Brent, and I'm a Pit Bull Owner

Today is national Pit Bull Awareness Day.  And today I will be celebrating because I am a 'pit bull' owner.

I have a beautiful and awesome wife.  I have a college degree from the University of Missouri and a masters degree from the University of Kansas. I have great job working in advertising that I love and a beautiful home (that actually is the most recent yard-of-the-month winner for our neighborhood).

I have 3 dogs (2 'pit bulls'), all of whom have their Canine Good Citizen certificates.

I am angered by the people who mistreat these dogs that have led to them garnering their sometimes poor reputation. I dislike even more the people let that small minority of the population affect their views and treat the dogs as if it is somehow their fault they were abused -- and want all of them killed because of it.

And I am working to change the image of the "Pit bulls" in our society and the image of the  people who own them.

 My name is Brent. And I am  a proud pit bull owner.

All options don't include "euthanasia"

So, today I'm going to write about what appears to be a growing trend when it comes to rationalizing killing animals in the shelter - - as I've now been hit with three different examples of it just this week. 

Last Friday, Nathan Winograd wrote in his blog about Proposition B in Missouri. I'm going to write a little bit more about Prop B at a later time, but there was a key element that Winograd brought up that was an issue I raised a few weeks ago -- the issue that if Prop B passes and IF it works (which is debatable), there is absolutely no plan in place for the canine victims of the closed puppy mills in the state -- and most will end up dead in the state's kill shelters (or other dogs will be killed to make room for them).

I've talked to a lot of people about this possible scenerio over the past month and have heard - unfortunately a surprising number of times -- comments along the lines of "well, if we have to kill them now, at least we won't have to kill their offspring later".

And I find myself taken aback. These comments aren't coming from cold-hearted people - they're actually coming from people who care so much about animals that they are fighting to get rid of the horrible conditions that exist in puppy mills.  Yet, the idea of KILLING the animals doesn't seem all that appalling to them.  Meanwhile, their logic "if we kill them now, we won't have to kill all of their offspring later" sounds rational enough -- if those were the only two options available.  But they aren't.  There are plenty of other options that actually involve saving the lives of the animals both now, AND later. And yet because killing has become so ingrained, many of those other options are not even considered.

The Missouri Puppy Mill issue is far from the only example of this.

On Monday I wrote a post about mandatory spay/neuter  for pit bulls in Ypsilanti, MI. I noted that there were several other examples (one in my own city) where this type of legislation had been tried and led to an increase in killing of 'pit bulls' in these communities.

I then watched several discussions about Ypsilanti's ordinance having noted that killing will likely increase with the new ordinance. And I heard the same sentiment again, from multiple sources "well, even so, if we kill a few of them now, it will save us from having to kill a lot of them later when they have puppies."

Again, if those were the only two options, maybe -- but they're not the only two options. And if the whole point is to try and decrease the killing because we find it unethical to kill healthy animals, then it seems as if killing our way to less killing is even more morally wrong -- especially when there are other options.  Besides, if killing a lot of animals is a method to get to no kill, it seems as if the past several decades of massive slaughter in our shelters would have gotten us to that goal a long time ago.

Then, today, Christie Keith over at The Pet Connection has a post about an ASPCA staffer who visited a shelter in Mississippi who saw a litter of sick puppies and recommended that the shelter kill the litter of sick puppies so that instead of using all of the resources necessary to care for them, they would be able to save more lives with the money if they would just 'euthanize' the puppies.  Again, rational enough -- if those were the only two options available -- but they aren't.

I have just found it amazing over the past week just how ingrained the idea that killing is the only option has become within our shelter system and rescue community -- to the point that 'killing them now to save them later' has become a popular montra for a variety of topics. It doesn't have to be that way. There are other options in most cases besides killing. 

Earlier this summer, Winograd did an interview with Valerie Hays that he made a statement that I think has resonated very strongly with me.  It involed the point where his wife was talking about whether it was ethical to kill animals or not, and Winograd argued that he thought there were too many animals and not enough homes.  She responded to him that "if we took killing off the table, human ingenuity and human compassion would find a way to make it work."

We just need to take the time to explore the other options instead of insisting that there are only two - killing now or killing later - and quit accepting 'euthanasia' as the only alternative.

Roverlution on Sautrday, 10/23

 This is a reminder that Saturday, 10/23, is Pit Bull Awareness Day.  As is our tradition in Kansas City, we'll be hosting our now 4th annual Roverlution event to celebrate. Kansas City will be one of 80+ communities across North American that will be participating in the event.

In Kansas City, we use the event to support the initiatives to make Kansas City a completely No Kill metropolitan area.  We think this makes a lot of sense to do on Pit Bull Awareness Day as much of the shelter killing in this city involves 'pit bull' type dogs -- in large part because of the number of cities in our metropolitan area that have disallowed these types of dogs from their community.

There will be a lot of adoptable dogs and cats of all breeds and types available to meet on Saturday. No More Homless Pets Kansas City, Animal Haven, Wayside Waifs, Halfway Home Pet Adoption, Furry Kids Refuge will all have adoptables on hand -- as well as our two local "pit bull' rescue groups, Missouri Pit Bull Rescue and Mid-America Bully Breed Rescue.

Spay & Neuter Kansas City will also be there providing low cost microchipping.

Events will include a doggie costume contest and a hot dog bobbing contest. There will also be a lot of information available from all of the participating groups about how you can help make a difference for animals in Kansas City. 

The event is from 12-5 on Saturday -- at Mill Creek Park on the Plaza. Dogs are of course welcome, but please, leave your highly leash-reactive dogs at home. 

On Saturday night -- join many of us at the Velvet Dog (on 31st Street on Martini Corner) for the Pin Ups for Pit Bulls 2011 Midwest Calendar release party hosted by the folks at the Game Dog Guardian.  $5 at the door will go to a good cause and give you a chance to meet some of the Pin Ups girls as well as Leonidas the Amazing 3-legged dog.  That even will go on from 7 pm til around 2 am -- so stop in and say hello.

Thinking like a retailer - follow up

A few months ago, I wrote a blog posting about a new program being run by Ft. Worth Animal Care and Control division in cunjunction with Petsmart Charities in which FWACC is running adoptions out of a local Petsmart store.  Ft. Worth was using the retail concept to reach many more potential adopters than they were getting at their normal shelter location.

The initial results from the retail-location adoption center were great -- with more than 100 dogs and cats being adopted in just the first 12 days -- more than double the amount that would have normally been adopted at the shelter during that timeframe.

While the initial results were great, the longer-term results have been even more amazing.

From May 1 (when the retail location first opened) to September 19, the shelter had adopted 689 dogs and cats from the Petsmart stor location. Counting the animals adopted prior to May 1, and the ones adopted from the shelter location, FWACC had adopted 1,142 pets for the year through September 19 -- more than double the number that were adopted out in the same period in 2009 without the retail location.

Because of the huge increase in adoptions, the shelter has not killed a healthy, adoptable dog or cat since May 1st.  By creating a high-traffic location for their adoptables to be found, and thinking more like a retailer, they were able to more than double adoptions, and save the lives of all of the adoptable animals that came into their shelter. 

Those are results worth celebrating. By taking an innovative approach to creating more adoptions, the shelter has been rewarded with great success.

I'm really grateful that the great folks over at American Dog Magazine have decided to run this story. They have picked up my original blog entry, with a few edits and updated numbers and are running it in the Winter edition of their publication -- you can check out the article and its entirety here.

It looks to be yet another great article in a great magazine -- the Winter edition also contains a feature on No Kill Advocate Ryan Clinton and 10 ideas to increase adoptions from Nathan Winograd.

It is great that the retail location concept is getting such positive results -- and hopefully others will find ways to mirror this concept in their own communities.

The Winter issue of American Dog Magazine will go on sale on November 10th.

*****

Update: Since many people seem to have the same question but are not seeing it in the comments, I'm going to post an update here. There seems to be a lot of concern about whether or not Ft. Worth is a no kill shelter and it seems that there is a lot of reason to believe they are not. The info came via email from the person involved with Petsmart Charities, not the city, and it seems likely that she meant that no animals that entered their program had been killed, not within the entire FWACC. Regardless of that, this is still an outstanding program that IS dramatically increasing adoptions via a retail concept -- which is pretty cool -- even if there is a lot of work to do there. 

There is not need to reinvent the wheel with mandatory spay/neuter

Tomorrow night, the city of Ypsilanti, MI will be discussig the possibility of mandating spay/neuter for all "pit bulls" in the community.  While most in animal welfare should be highly upset by the proposal, the area's largest animal welfare organization, the Humane Society of Huron Valley, is actually supporting the proposed law.

Last week, the Executive Director of HSHV wrote a lengthy editorial for the Ann Arbor newspaper about why they support the law requiring altering of 'pit bulls' in the community. And yes, I agree with their overall premise that spaying and neutering outreach is extremely important, and I do believe that HSHV has good intentions with their pushing of the law, the last paragraph of their article is actually really disturbing on a lot of levels. Here's what it says:

A Risk Worth Taking

Frankly, we have no crystal ball that tells us this ordinance will work for certain and we are not so arrogant as to believe we are absolutely right. We are, however, 100 percent certain that only big acts will solve this big problem and we applaud the Ypsilanti Township for its leadership. Every public policy is initally a gamble....

What is so disturbing about this is it appears as if the Ypsilanti community, and the HSHV, think they are on their own little island of animal welfare policy.  Instead of going out and exploring what solutions to their problems others have tried and HAD SUCCESS with, they are going out and recreating policies that have actually FAILED in other places. There is no reason to recreate the wheel here. Most policies that you can think of in animal welfare have been tried before; some with great success, and others with great failure.  Your city's situation is not unique.  

By making decisions based on the SUCCESS of other communities, you can know with fair accuracy, that the policy will work for you. But making decisions based on policies that have failed elsewhere and hoping they will work out for you is either a) insanity or b) completely ignoring that it's been tried elsewhere.

And mandatory spay/neuter policies, whether for all breeds or breed-specific, have been failures everywhere.

**********

For about the past decade, animal welfare advocates have been trying to get the word out to the general public about the importance of spaying and neutering their pets. With so many dogs and cats dying in shelters, the idea of getting pets altered so we can prevent unwanted litters is certainly appealing.

The educating about spay/neuter – along with a large number of low-cost spay/neuter programs around the country -- has really helped. While shelters in this country used to kill 40 million pets annually as recently as 1978, we have successfully reduced that number to around 4 million today.  The success is great, but 4 million dead animals is still too many.

Out of desperation, many animal welfare advocates are looking to mandatory spay/neuter laws as the solution to end the killing. And rationally it makes sense. The logic is that if you can legislate spay/neuter, and force people to alter their pets, we can finally end the killing in our shelters.

It makes sense, logically. And six years ago I would have told you I supported mandatory sterilization laws.  But I’ve since changed my stance – because unfortunately, mandatory spay/neuter laws do not have a positive effect in decreasing the number of animals killed in shelters.  In fact, they tend to have the opposite effect. 

*******

In 2005, there were 4,026 dogs killed in the Kansas City, MO shelter – 981 of those (24%) were ‘pit bulls’.

In August of 2006, the city passed decided it need to pass an ordinance that mandated that all ‘pit bulls’ be spayed or neutered.  In 2006, the city ended up killing 4,531 dogs – 1,353 (30%) of them were ‘pit bulls’.

In 2007, the city killed 4,601 dogs, 1,722 of them ‘pit bulls’.

So from 2005 (no MSN ordinance) to 2007, the number of ‘pit bulls’ killed in the shelter increased 76% -- including killing more than 1100 more ‘pit bulls’ in just 18 months of the ordinance being in effect. This is an amazing number given that the supporters of the ordinance pushed it through with the idea and promise that it would DECREASE shelter killing. 

It didn’t.  In fact, it did just the opposite.  Meanwhile, through the work of the city’s low-cost VOLUNTARY spay/neuter programs, the city was able to reduce the killing of all non-pit bull breeds (who weren’t covered by the mandatory ordinance) by 5.5%.

In 2008, the number of dogs and 'pit bulls' dropped pretty dramatically, in large part due to a cut in animal control budget.  However, the number of 'pit bulls' killed was still higher than it was in the base year of 2005.

*******

These types of results are not unique to Kansas City.

In 2007, Little Rock, AR killed 2,540 dogs, 823 (32%) of them were ‘pit bulls’.

In May of 2008, Little Rock began enforcing its ordinance that mandated the spay/neuter of ‘pit bulls’. In 2008, the total number of dogs killed was 2.847, of which 1,188 were ‘pit bulls’.  So again, while the total number of dogs killed in the shelter of non-targeted breeds dropped by 3%, the total number of ‘pit bulls’ – the targeted breed who they once again were promised they would limit the killing of – increased by 44% -- 350 total dogs.

So how’d this happen?

Studies show that the number one reason people don’t alter their animals is because they cannot afford to do so. This is why low cost sterilization programs are so important. 

When laws are put in place to mandate altering, often people with lower or fixed incomes are most impacted by the ordinances. When they get caught not complying with the ordinance, they receive a heavy fine and are required to alter their dog. Often, they cannot afford the fines and the sterilization and are forced to give up their dog.  The dog then gets added into the shelter system and eventually euthanized.

Other people – for a variety of reasons – do not want to have their dogs altered. When they fail to comply, they end up with their dog confiscated – entering the shelter system and eventually killed.  Meanwhile, this owner wants to own a dog, so goes out and buys a new one (unaltered) and further encourages the backyard breeding market.

So in essence, the ordinance mandating sterilization, gives animal control a reason to seize animals, bring them into the shelter, where they get caught up in the system, and are eventually killed. Meanwhile, the people who still want a dog end up buying a new dog and create further demand for the dogs that are being bred – the exact opposite effect that the law was intended to have.  In 2009 -- four years after the MSN ordinance was passed, 25% of all 'pit bulls' that made their way into the Kansas City, MO shelter made their way into the shelter solely because of the ordinance.

*******

Given the results of Little Rock and Kansas City’s MSN ordinances, the results in Los Angeles should not be at all surprising. 

 In 2001, the city of Los Angeles euthanized 22,675 dogs. Over the next 6 years, with a steady stream of double digit declines in euthanasia, they were able to get the number of dogs killed in their shelter down to 6,051. That’s six straight years of double digit declines in euthanasia.  In January 2008, the city passed an ordinance that mandates that all dogs be spayed or neutered. Similar to what happened in Little Rock and in Kansas City, the number of dogs brought into the shelter increased (by 19%) and the total number that were killed went up to 7,518 – a 24% increase. 

So a city that had seen steady declines in shelter euthanasia for nearly a decade, passes an ordinance, and it reversed that trend to cause it to go up by double digit percentages.

In 2009, the trend continued, with another 1.5% increase in shelter killing following the passing of the ordinance.

*******

There are better alternatives that actually do work. Many, many organizations have had strong success by offering targeted, low-cost sterilizations for people in low-income areas. By targeting this outreach, they are able to help those most in need, and get dogs altered. By becoming a partner in the community to HELP, not punish, low-income owners, these groups have been able to not just solve problems with short-term altering, but have also had a positive impact in changing the overall attitude in these neighborhoods toward sterilization.  And that has long-term benefits.

However, mandatory laws have never had the desired impact.  Because of this, virtually every national organization is opposed to breed-specific laws.  Here are what these organizations have to say:

AVMA - "The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and may have other unintended consequences"

ASPCA -  "In contrast, the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law"

Best Friends - "Best Friends does not support mandatory spay-neuter legislation as a method of pet population control"

American Humane -  "We believe in general that expenses associated with mandatory spay/neuter legilsation would be beter spent on low-or no-cost spay/neuter programs"

No Kill Advocacy Center - At a time when shelters are killing a majority of the pets they are taking in they are successfully seeking legislation that gives them even more authority to impound even more animals. Since they claim to have little choice than to kill most animals, the animals now in violation of the new law or ordinance have little hope of getting out alive. It is hardly surprising that many of these juristictions actually see impound and kill rates increase after passage of these laws.

**********

There is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to animal welfare legislation. There are plenty of case studies out there to show us solutions that will work -- vs trying to rehash policies that have failed in virtually all incidences.  My hope is that the folks at the HSHV and in Ypsilanti will seek out alternatives from other cities vs trying to reinvent the wheel on their own. Advocate Stephanie Feldstein has provided a lot of options based on programs that have worked in other places that would be a great starting point for the folks in Ypsilanti.  Meanwhile, Change.org has a petition set up that will also send a message to the city and to HSHV.