KC DOG BLOG

Updated: The next 48 days (and how not to write a Petfinder profile)

Update: 3/14; 11:13 am - word is that the shelter is now once again allowing volunteers. With the crowding at the shelter and no volunteers they were completely overwhelmed and are now asking for help.  If you are a current or past volunteer, the shelter is now, apparently, willing to have your help back.  Obviously this is great news in the short term.  It goes to show how important and impactful volunteers can be to the overall success of a shelter. Embrace them.

-----------------------------------------------

Last week, the big news in Kansas City was that the city has opted to not renew the shelter contract with Veterinary Management Corp....and is seeking other organizations to run the city shelter.

The shelter contract expires on April 30.

Long term, this provides a great opportunity for the animals and for this city. However, there is much to be concerned about over the next 48 days.

VMC still manages the shelter for the next 6 weeks.  As a result of the legal allegations filed against them, and the loss of the contract, they have essentially blocked the majority of the volunteers from the shelter (there are some that are able to get in an help, but it seems sporadic about who and when they can help).

For the past 2 years, the volunteers have played a tremendous role in helping get dogs and cats out of the shelter into rescues and adopted homes. Without them, there are reports of a lot of over-crowding at the shelter.

Meanwhile, at least some on the shelter staff appear eager to take their frustrations out on the dogs. The two visuals here are actual Petfinder Profiles that were written by the staff about dogs down at the shelter (thanks to those who are still involved that have made these public).  You can make these images larger by clicking on them.

In Tyler's profile above, the writer gives little insight into the dog because they say they don't have time to spend with him.  They also blame the public for this because the public dumps the dogs on them. You then get a little "insight" in to the author's life, where she talks about how many dogs she has at home and can't take them all home herself.  And then makes sure the reader knows that killing is the likely result of  the public's irresponsiblity.

Makes you want to fall in love, right?

Meanwhile, in Molly's profile (left), we get the details of an "invisible" dog that no one pays attention to or even notices. 

Lovely.

I know things at a shelter can be frustrating - but your job as the person who writes petfinder profiles is to market these dogs so that people will want them. Your personal situation is irrelevant. This is the advertisement for these dogs....and if you say they are 'invisible' they will be.  Doing anything less than giving the dogs your best effort on "selling" them is not the public's fault, it's yours.

The next 48 days may be really bad for these dogs.  With limited volunteer support, there will be fewer people directly advocating for these dogs.  My hope is that the city will see these profiles (I know several council members have already received them) and take immediate action and find temporary new management at the shelter and replace the folks that are doing this.  In the meantime, if you live in or around the KC area and are thinking about adopting a new pet this spring, please do so now.  Go to the shelter -- find a great dog or cat and bring them home with you. Or, adopt from Animal Haven, or The Pet Connection -- both groups are also pulling a lot of dogs from the KCMO city shelter. 

Now, more than ever, the animals need our help. A new dawn awaits, but let's make the transition as good as possible.

 

Courts force Midwest City, OK to end breed ban

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma failed to take up a court case in which the city of Midwest City, OK had tried to enforce a city-wide breed ban. Oklahoma state law outlaws breed-specific laws.

The State Supreme Court decision then defers back to lower court rulings which had previously ruled that the ban violated state law.

So the ban in Midwest City, OK is now, officially gone.

This suit was initially filed in 2007. So for nearly four years, Midwest City has been tying up city and state taxpayer dollars trying to defend their clearly illegal breed ban.

Meanwhile, it should be noted, that the dogs in question had never shown signs of aggression -- but were only presumed to be aggressive based on breed stereotype. 

Dollars, and time, wasted; defending a law based on fear-mongering rather than rational thought.

Good for Jerry Stuckey -- who gets to keep his dogs and remain in his home - -and finally the lingering lawsuit is out from over him. Meanwhile, shame on Midwest City for wasting taxpayer dollars on a failed ordinance.

Missouri Senate Passes SB 113 - the good, the bad, and the politics of the matter (#Mo Prop B)

Earlier today, the Missouri State Senate passed SB 113 by a vote of 20-14. SB 113 is designed to replace Missouri's Prop B -- which was passed by a citizen's ballot initiative back in November.  Making changes to the bill is certainly within the state legislature's rights in the state of Missouri and is not at all uncommon in citizen ballot initiatives.

The bill now moves the House of Representatives - where it is expected to be approved and go to Governor Jay Nixon who is probably the last hope of supporters of Prop B to keep it in its current form

There have certainly been a lot of opinions out there about Prop B/SB 113 (I'll get to some of those in a bit), but I want to clear up exactly what SB 113 does (with a few comments). 

1) SB 113 changes the name of the law -- from the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Act" to the "Canine Cruelty Prevention Act".  This is clearly no big deal, and I think a good thing.  I'm actually stunned that the state Attorney General allowed the original law name to stay.

2) It applies the law to all commercial breeders, animal shelters, rescues and dog pounds in the state. In all honesty, there are a lot of civic animal shelters that do need to be cleaned up also.

3) It raises the maximum fee for obtaining a license from $500 to $2500. It also requires each licensee to pay $25 each year that is dedicated to the Department of Agriculture to help fund Operation Bark Alert.

First of all, the money for Operation Bark Alert is fantastic. The 2 year old program has been responsible for shutting down more than 360 breeding operations shut down in the past 2 years and more than 4300 dogs rescued from substandard breeding facilities. This program has been a huge success and to see more funding for the program is a great win.

As for the other fees, I don't know how they will be assigned. There is no note on how much fees will actually increase, but raising the minimum was very important. The lack of enforcement of the state's current laws has been well-documented, and the decision increase fees is consistent with recommendations from the State Auditor's Report and the Better Business Bureau.  Increasing funding, to increase enforcement (on not only adequately doing inspections, but also in enforcement actions against violators of the law) is essential to successfully dealing with the 'puppy mill' problem here in Missouri. I'm obviously concerned about how high the fees will get hiked up on shelters and rescues, but overall, the need for revenue here is really important to solving the problem and I obviously support higher fees for the breeding operations (which haven't been raised since 1993).

4) SB 113 removes the 50 breeding dog limit. I know a lot of people are really upset by this, but I think this one is a legal issue for the state and will cause a lot of problems with the opening of more breeding operations, dogs going to auction and dogs getting killed at our shelters. There has been little doubt in my mind that this provision was going away.

5) SB 113 removes the criminal codes which were somewhat poorly written. The law does replace these provisions with higher fees and penalties for repeat offenders of the act.  This is something that badly needed to be done and is also consistent with the recommendations from the State Auditor and the Better Business Bureau. I will be talking to some folks in the coming days to see if I can get a feel for how well-written these provisions are.

6) The new law also makes it a Class A misdemeanor to stack cages without an impervious layer between the cages.

7) Necessary Veterinary Care has been redefined so that instead of each animal needing an annual inspection, the facility must have a visual inspection of the shelter twice a year and any dog that shows signs of disease or injury must get a full inspection by a licenced veterinarian. 

8) Regular exercise has been redefined from "constant and unfettered access to the outdoors" to "the type and amount of exercise sufficient to comply with an exercise plan that is approved by a licensed veterinarian....and where such pan affords the dog maximum opportunity for outdoor exercise as weather permits."  I certainly like that they tried to keep the spirit of the law, and was never a fan of the "unfettered access" wording. I have been told by some this is more enforceable than it might sound. Also, keep in mind this rule applies to shelters and rescues also.

9) Sufficient Housing has been redefined. It is no longer necessary for cage to have a solid floor and the temperature restrictions have been eliminated. They have been replaced by to mandate that the dog have a solid surface to lie down on, properly ventilated and protected from the extremes of weather conditions.

10) It also eliminated prop B's cage size requirements.  I would be supportive of increasing the kennel sizes for animals kept in cages. But let's keep in mind that this one also applies to rescues -- which could have been problematic. I'm sure there is a way to increase the kennel sizes for long-term type of dogs vs those in short-term care, but this probably had to go away if they were going to make this law apply to all animal care facilities.

You can read the law in its entirety here (which I recommend -- it's only 7 pages. Wording in Bold is new language. Wording in brackets has been removed).

While I realize why some supporters or Prop B are upset, these changes are not "eviscerated" or "gutted" or "kicking puppies" or any of the other outrageous things that are being said. Certainly there are some elements that could have been better -- however, the Senate removed some of the obvious problems with the bill AND added some very important funding clauses, based on solid recommendations for state agencies, that will likely do more to solve the real enforcement issues than Prop B would have if left untouched.

And yet, there is outrage in some small circles.  It's amazing to me that Wayne Pacelle of HSUS can write a blog that states that the Senate passed a bill to "eviscerate" Prop B -- and that the Senate "gutted" Prop B (including the headline "Democracy Neutered") without mentioning, even once in the two blog posts, that the Senate addressed the key issue of lack of enforcement issues head on with higher fees or that they ensured the funding for Operation Bark -- a service that he credits for its success in the latter of the two links above. (For the record, this is inexplicably the first mention of Operation Bark's success I've seen from HSUS).  Providing more funding was badly needed and was foolishly omitted from the writing of Prop B.

Leaving out this information really does make it seem as if Pacelle is hiding some of the truth (cough) and is more concerned about getting HSUS's law passed than he is about solving the problem. In many ways, HSUS should be celebrating this change. Through the ballot initiative they were able to get the legislature to take action on something they have waited too long to do and provided funding options to help solve the problem. Wasn't that the point? Meanwhile, instead of recognizing some of Prop B's flaws and making some compromises, HSUS took themselves out of the equation by insisting that their law stand. As is. No exceptions. I think if they had come to the table willing to compromise they might have been able to keep some of the other provisions.

In November, Missouri voters for Prop B -- because they wanted the puppy mill problem in the state to end. If the law had been better written, it would have passed by 75% (not 51.6%).  People want the problems solved. My hope is that SB 113 will be an even better solution than Prop B....it at least tackles the core problem.

For more information:

MissouriNet -- at the bottom of the link is the audio to the 45 minute Senate Debate from today

Kansas City Dog's Examiner has a solid perspective on the issue

How each Senator Voted

How each of their districts voted in the election in November

KCMO terminates shelter contract -- opening up new opportunities for KC Animals

Today, the city of Kansas City, MO announced that it was terminating the contract with Veterinary Management Corp (owned by Dr.Wayne Steckelberg) -- who has been running the shelter for the past 2 years.  The city issued a press release today (I can't find it on the city's website, but KC Dog Advocates posted on their facebook page) announcing that they will be seeking proposals for new organizations to run the shelter.  An official RFP is expected to go out in the coming weeks, with proposals likely due back sometime around April 11.

The contract termination comes amid some recent controversy surrounding the shelter.  On January 18th, several high-profile folks in the city, including Britton Hunter, a board member of Halfway Home Pet Adoptions (an organization that oversees the shelter management), Teresa Johnson, the Executive Director at Animal Haven, a successful No Kill shelter in the metro, and Jackson County Legislator Denny Waits, filed a formal complaint against VMC saying that they were in violation of the city contract (you can read the entire complaint here).

The complaint features a series of allegatoins with 12 specific examples of these allegations.  Among the specific allegations:

1) Allowing an animal to die in its cage after being left untreated for 3 days in spite of several notifications by an employee of the dog's deteriorating health

2) Some faulty record keeping in terms of health care provided

3) A three-month old kitten that was listed as "adopted" was actually injured during surgery, left untreated, and then euthanized the next day. The family that was waiting to adopt this particular kitten had a different kitten slipped in its place.

4) A dog that entered the shelter with a large, painful tumor that was left completely untreated for 10 days at the shelter before the dog was euthanized.

5) Allegations that heartsticks were used without proper anesthetic drugs and that one employeed indicates that she had to pull live cats from the incinerator to complete the euthanasia process herself.  This was allegedly known by the overseer of the animal control division, Mike Schumacher, but no actions were taken.

All five allegations (as well as the others listed in the complaint), if true, would be in clear violation of VMC's contract with the city.  All of the allegations are currently under review by the state veterinary medical board. 

The city, wisely, has taken the allegations seriously and requested that Dr. Steckelberg take administrative leave (according to quotes by City Councilwoman Cindy Circo in an article written by The Pitch, this would be standard for any similar situation involving another city employee).  Dr. Steckelberg refused to take his leave, so the city announced it would terminate his contract.

Dr. Steckelberg has filed a counter to these allegations; and the group has filed a response to Dr. Steckelberg's response. (I confess that this one is 82 pages long and just filed yesterday, so I have not read it yet).

However, at this point, regardles of how the official review goes, the city has opted to not renew VMC's contract and is seeking more bids.

------------------------

Two years ago, the City Council decided to privatize the city's animal shelter and put the duties of running the shelter into the hands of a private group.  Not only did the move save the city an estimated $175,000 a year in expenses and the hope was that it would help create more positive outcomes for the animals.  And the results have proven that hope to be true.

In 2007 the city shelter, under the city's management, killed 6,769 dogs and cats.  In 2008 the city killed 4,912. 

In 2009, with nearly a year of managing the shelter under their belts, the folks with VMC killed 3,101 dogs and cats -- a 37% decrease in killing.  The number dropped again in 2010, to 2,722 dogs and cats.

In spite of the obvious improvements that came from privatizing the shelter, there has been increasing frustration by many of the shelter volunteers and some of the staff members regarding how the shelter was being managed and quality of care animals were receiving. I think most who have been involved with the shelter, have acknowledged the improvements that have been made, but also note that a change in management was going to be necessary if the shelter were to make the next step in improvements.

--------

In response to the allegations, VMC released the press release to the left.  They're response was to "relieve volunteers of the burden of dog walking".  While they weren't refusing volunteer help, they, in essence are now refusing to let volunteers handle the dogs and cats, which keeps them out of the shelter area, and thus, out of sight of all of the veterinary activities at the shelter. 

I guess the thinking is, if no one sees what is going on, no one can report it.

This type of abrupt policy is in direct opposition to 1983 laws (commonly known as whistle-blower laws) that protect people who speak out from retaliaton.  No longer having access to walking dogs would fall under the protections for these laws and would be seen as retaliation.

So their response to the allegations is to then potentially cause more problems for themselves and the city.

Meanwhile, the volunteers at the shelter have been working very hard over the last 20 months to help save the lives of animals. Without the vols having as much access to the animals, it will take away one of the biggest success stories for the shelter -- which was the hard work of the volunteers to help save the lives of the animals. 

Without that access (and current volunteers will now have to re-apply and be interviewed to be volunteers), many animal lives will inevitably be lost in the next 7 weeks until new shelter management takes over on May 1.

What's next

The great news is that so far, I've not heard any talk from city hall about the city taking over the contract.  Privatization has clearly shown itself to be a superior option to city control -- both in terms of total budget, and in animal lives saved.

Two years ago, none of the major rescue groups in the city stepped forward to bid on the contract (there were only two bids, and Dr. Steckelberg's was easily the right choice between the two) in part because the shelter situation was such a mess under the city management. The task of saving the lives of all the healthy animals at the shelter now seems achievable. 

Given this, I would expect one or more of the accomplished shelter organizations in this city to step up and bid on the contract and for the city to have some good options in front of it.  A well-managed shelter that embraces its volunteers, the community, and the new and innovative sheltering policies that have been used successfully in other cities (including a consistent off-site adoption program),  has every reason to believe that KCMO can achieve No Kill.  There are already generous volunteers and donors in place that are committed to its success.

No extra money needed. Only good leadership.

Our situation here is not much different than the situation that faced Austin, TX only a couple of years ago.  And, after years of high kill rates, that open-admission shelter has now seen 3 consecutive months of 90+% save rates. Th

 As the center of the Animal Health Corridor, Kansas City has an opportunity to be a case study in how a well-run animal-shelter system.  Regardless of whether or not the allegations against VMC are true, expanding the search for new management for the shelter opens up an outstanding opportunity for the animals in KC, and for this city to provide a service to its taxpayers that we all can be proud of.

Two more no kill success stories

Last week, I noted two shelters that had seen dramatic reductions in shelter killing after implementing the No Kill Equation -- and then followed that up in the weekly roundup with a great blog post from the Lynchburg (VA) Humane Society on the arguments they got about how what they were planning to do wouldn't work (even though it has).

This is all, of course, excellent news. 

But wait, there's more.

Last week, Austin, TX announced that its February save rate was 92%. This is the first time in the 60 year history of the Town Lake Animal Shelter has ever had such an impressive save rate as an open-admission shelter for the city.

In March of 2010, the Austin City Council passed a resolution to make the city shelter into a no kill facility.  Just over a year ago, in 2009, the city killed more than 7,000 animals (down from 12,000 in 2008).  Now, after finding a new shelter director, and providing for all of the initiatives for no kill, they have had 3 consecutive months of being above 90% save rates.  While things will get tougher as they move into the spring and summer months, this is HUGE progress for a city with a population of nearly 800,000 people and an amazing drop in killing in just 2 years.

But wait, there's more.

Also last week, the Allegany County Animal Shelter (MD) announced that since November 29th, only 19 of the 311 animals taken in by the shelter have been euthanized -- a 93.9% save rate.  This is an amazing turnaround as under previous shelter "management" the shelter reported an 85% kill rate. 

What a difference leadership makes.

The Queen City Animal Rescue president Jodi Sweitzer notes that it hasn't been easy. And the Vice President of the Animal Welfare Society of Allegany County, John McDaniel agrees:

"The idea of no-kill at a county-owned open admission facility is almost physically and monetarily impossible," said McDaniel. "Just because you don't have the space. You're going to come to the point where all of your rescues can't take any in, all of your foster families are going to be full. Then you're going to have to tow loads of kittens and puppies come in. What are you going to do then?"

However, as success has grown, so has the number of volunteers and foster homes -- which Sweitzer says is growing by the day.

Again, success was achieved not by calling the public irresponsible and blaming them for the 85% kill rate, but by embracing the public's ability to help them achieve their goals of killing fewer animals. This has all also happened without the support of the County Animal Control Board -- which voted 4-0 two months ago to not go no kill. And while the current volunteer groups are pleading with the county to embrace the no kill initiatives they've achieved, and for the county to hire a new shelter director that embraces No Kill, there is some doubt on what direction the county will decide to go.

Congrats to the success in these communities. Thanks for serving as a model and inspiration of what can be done when entire communities put their minds to becoming no kill, get the proper shelter management in place (both of these cities had major changes in shelter management before their goals were achieved), and may both continue your success well into the future.

You can read more about Austin's success here.

 

 

Dog attack Fatality -- and Panic Policy Making in action

Update 3/7: The young victim has been identified as Vanessa Elizabeth Husmann.

On Saturday, a 3 year old Hopkinton, IA girl was fatally attacked by two Rottweilers in the backyard of her grandparent's home. The girl was being babysat by her 18 year old half brother when the girl went outside without him noticing and was fatally attacked by the two dogs owned by her grandparents. The girl was taken to the hospital and was declared dead upon arrival. 

The family apparently breeds Rottweilers.

Hopkinton is a small community of just over 600 people and the story has been picked up by 30+ media outlets.

The attack is a tragedy, and my heart goes out to the family.

The follow up to the story by the media and politicians is also painful.  Instead of focusing on the real issue here -- which was very clearly the reality that there was an 18 year old boy who was not adequately watching the toddler, when the toddler wandered outside among two dogs that clearly had not been socialized with the child, the media, and the mayor seem content to focus on 'breed' instead of the circumstances.

Nope, less than 24 hours after the fatility, the Mayor of the city is discussing banning Rottweilers from the city.  The city already bans 'pit bulls' in the community (and how's that working for you?). 

Yeah, this is exactly what they mean by Panic Policy Making.

Meanwhile, where in the world is the Des Moines Register getting their statistical data? According to their report, they said that 'pit bulls' were responsible for 22  fatalities last year and two of the attacks involved small children -- one 4 years old and one 8 months old.   For the record, if 4 years old is their definition of a "small child" -- then according to my data 15 of last year's fatal attacks had victims under the age of 4....and the number of 'pit bulls' involved was closer to 15 than 22 (the actual number varies depending on how you count the various mixed breeds and multiple dog incidents.

No, sadly instead of focusing on the tragedy for what it is...a tragic, isolated incident involving a teenage boy not supervising his toddler half-sister as she roamed into the backyard with 2 large dogs that were not socialized with her, the media continues to mis-inform people of the reasons behind the attacks, misreresents the data behind fatal attacks, and the mayor announces his plan to add another breed to the city's breed ban as if that is going to be the solution to the problem.

It's not.

And the media and our civic leaders need to do better....and listen to the experts in animal welfare and adopt behavior-based ordinances that have proven effective at improving public safety.

Weekly Roundup -- Week ending 3/6/11

 There are a lot of great things going on out there right now - -more cities looking at implementing the no kill equation and a couple potential breed ban repeals.  Keep up the good work out there in your own communities, as momentum is starting to build in the right direction.

Now, onto the top news of the week.

Cities/States and Laws

Town of Ladysmith, BC is considering repealing its breed-specific languange.

The House of Lords in the UK is still discussing repealing their 20 year old breed ban.

Grande Prairie, AB is working on re-writing its dangerous dog ordinance -- part of which will be to get rid of it's breed-specific regulations.

After a lot of debate, Aberdeen, SD chooses breed-neutral legislation.  They had previously had multple breeds potentially banned, but wisely chose to go breed-neutral. Most cities that take an objective look at dangerous dog laws and don't succomb to panic policy-making come to this conclusion.

After nearly a year of discussion, Mexico, MO has also decided to go with breed-neutral legislation in their community.

Texas Lawmakers are considering mandating that owners carry special insurance for all dogs over 20 lbs.  The law itself is pretty silly as a person's homeowners insurance already covers them in case the dog bites someone...

Dog bites and attacks

A doctor was bitten by a German Shepherd type dog while he was running on the beach in the UK...the UK bans four different breeds of dogs and bite numbers continue to climb.

Two other dog attacks in the UK, these from out of White Haven.  One child was attacked by a 'cross-breed' dog, and the other by what is believed to be a Mastiff.

An off-duty police officer fired gunshots to protect a 7 year old El Paso girl who was being bitten by a dog described as a German Shepherd/Boxer mix.

A Connecticut woman described a scene in which she and her cat were attacked by two 140 lbs Great Danes.

A postman in Fulton, MO was bitten by two 'pit bulls' that escaped from their home and attacked the postal worker.

A Nacagdoches, TX man was taken to the hospital and treated for injuries as was a police officer after the elderly man was attacked by a Blue Heeler mix.

Media Reports

In Roseburg, OR, a small dog (of unnamed breed) ate off three toes and part of the foot from a man. The man suffers from neuropathy due to diabetes and doesn't have feeling in that foot -- and thus, didn't wake up from his sleep while the dog ate of part of his foot. A local vet says the dog was likely just trying to help and was likely just trying to help clean a wound and remove dead tissue from the owner's foot. Officials don't believe the dog has to be euthanized. While this all sounds reasonable enough, it is amazing to highlight the difference between this and a nearly identical story from a couple of years ago that involved a 'pit bull' type dog that ended with a dead dog and a child's mother getting 4 years in prison and a lot of hysteria over child-eating 'pit bulls'.

In my "favorite" story of week, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports about a police department detective that was bitten by a 'pit ubll' while he was investigating a homicide. The amazing thing here is that in the fairly brief story, more than half of the editorial content is about the man getting bitten by one of 13 dogs found on the property and not about the man found dead with multiple gunshot wounds. Apparently murders are so common in Philly they are barely worth reporting on...

Miscellaneous

A dog that was used to help defuse bombs in Afghanistan died shortly after the British dog handler died in battle.

An extremely touching story about a German Shepherd that served as a seeing eye dog for a blind Spaniel. The Spaniel's owner had a surgery for the dog that allowed her to finally be able to see, and just one week after the surgery, the German Shepherd had to be euthanized due to a painful tumor. The owner suspects the GSD worked to keep himself alive just long enough for his buddy to be able to take care of herself.

Foster families nurture troubled pets -- a good story about the importance of foster homes helping with animals that need extra attention at local Kansas City Shelters.

An organization in Myrtle Beach, SC is working to bring positive attention on pit bull type dogs.

Blogs you should read

There are a lot of great blogs out there that are worth reading. I'm always looking for more suggestions -- so feel free to post others in the comments section of the roundup.

Is there always a happily ever after? -- Helen Nicholls reports on when sometimes dog behavioral issues and good intentioned trainers and dog owners can't make a home/dog work in tandem together.

A remarkable recovery for the "saddest little puppy in England" - a story of triumph from the Poodle and Dog Blog

Animal Hoarding: It's time we showed compassion to animal and human victims -- No Pit Bull Bans takes a very thought-provoking look at animal hoarding and wonders if it makes sense to recognize the animals as victims, recognize the human problem as being a disease, and yet still make felons out of the humans...

Dog attack numbers from New South Wales -- For the Pit Bulls takes a look at dog bite numbers from NSW and notes that only a small percentage of the reported dog bites ended with moe than very minor injuries....and also notes that some of the media outlets tried to use the data to create fear and hysteria in their own local communities.

Memphis Animal Control impounds a dog and kills it on the same day -- for the Pit Bulls takes a look.  Pet Docs on Call has an opinion on the same story.

37 dogs gassed due to suspected skin mites -- YesBiscuit! explores a case where the Brown County (OH) Dog Warden confiscated 37 dogs from a woman's property because the animals were not properly cared for and then gassed them because they had mange.  I'm not sure when "saving" dogs from bad situations only to gas them became the legal alternative but there certainly has to be a better way.

Accidents and Miracles -- Another great post from YesBiscuit! who has been on a roll of late.

They know what they know so don't give them the facts -- an outstanding blog from the Lynchburg Humane Society who's save rate is now up to 84% after being a high kill shelter just the year prior talking about how naysayers kept saying getting to no kill couldn't be done and why...and how they are proving them wrong.  If you click through to just one link and read it this week, this should be it.

Legislature should tackle flawed Proposition B -- an editorial from the Columbia Missourian

Why Animal Welfare Advocates need to work with Breeders to Pass Puppy Mill Legislation -- this is a great post from Animal Ark that helps explain why the two groups working together for responsible pet breeding legislation is preferred to having one group hammer the other with a law....which is part of the reason Prop B is struggling in Missouri.  If you click through to two links, this should be the other.

What is Aggression?  -- Jim Crosby defines it as he comes back to blogging after a 3 year hiatus.

How many animals does HSUS actually care for? -- about 38,000 or so, via Humanewatch

The Alabama 44: This is not a Rescue -- YesBiscuit! details the Alabama 44 and how 15 of the 44 dogs "rescued" are dead.

Choose your Charity Wisely -- O is for Onward takes a look at the three large national animal rights organizations....and where you should give your money to (hint: none of the above).

Making the facts fit the theory around dog surrenders - a brilliant post from Saving Pets.

Fake service dogs -- not a good idea at all -- from the new blog Dog Safety and Danger Prevention -- by Sam the Dog Trainer

The earth is flat, pet overpopulation exists, and other myths we've been told -- from the Houston Animal Shelters Examiner

Top 5 + 1 for February, 2011

The Top 5 is my monthly look at the 5 most popular posts for the month based on information from Google Analytics.

The +1 allows me the opportunity to highlight a post that wasn't among the most popular, but I felt was worth re-noting.

Here's the top 5:

1) On working dogs, culling and stepping up to the plate -- The story of more than 100 sled dogs being brutally killed in British Columbia was the most popular post of the month

2) Unreasonable -- and why we're lucky to have people who "unreasonably" expect to save the lives of healthy/treatable animals in our shelters.

3) Ohio Residents - HB 14 on the docket for Wednesday, Feb 9 -- the power of social media to spread the word on testimony on a bill that would repeal statewide BSL helped get a high turnout of people in favor of this bill

4) Age disparity in views of dog breeds -- a GfK Roper survey notes that most pet owners do not support breed bans, and those that do tend to be older.

5) Prop B "Changes" moving forward, and the need to replace the current voice against puppy mills - some thoughts on HSUS as the Missouri legislature continues to move forward with a new law that eliminates most of the provisions of Prop B in Missouri that targets "puppy mills".

And the +1 (which, again this month is a +2)

+1) Omaha: Don't look at our numbers, the law is working great -- Omaha again claims sucess in spite of numbers that prove otherwise.

+2) Getting involved in politics and what we've learned -- one good or bad law can mean the difference between life and death for literally thousands of animals....and what our organization has learned over the years of being politically active (and I really hope others will begin doing more in this arena as pet owners make up 60% or so of the population and yet we continue to elect officials who support anti-animal policies).

Thanks for reading -- and don't forget -- you can follow me at KC Dog Blog on Facebook, or @kcdogblog on Twitter

The Placebo Effect: And why traditional shelter philosphy fails

A few weeks ago, Seth Godin (did you hear he'll be presenting at the No Kill Conference this year?) noted on his blog some new research about Placebos. Placebos work -- even if the patient is told there is no real medicine in it.  According to Godin:

"We've come to understand that the placebo effect is real. If we believe we're going to get better, perform better, make the sale, etc., it often occurs that we do. That's because the brain is the single best marketing agent when it comes to selling ourselves something. If we think we're going to get better, we're much more likely to actually get better."

Sounds like the mere belief that you will get better, can actually help you get better.  But how?  Why would even pills that we know don't contain any medicine make us better? Again, from Godin:

"Because of the process. The ritual. The steps we go through to remember to take them, to open the bottle, to get the water, to swallow. Over time, we don't remind ourselves so much about what's in the pill and remind ourselves a lot that we're taking significant action."

Is it any wonder then, why high kill shelters fail to make progress?

Too many shelters continue to do the same things every day that have made them broken. They continue with their mantra of "there are too many dogs, and not enough homes", eliminating any hope (in their minds, and thus in reality) of fixing the problem. Without hope in fixing the problems, there are no significant actions taken to change the killing.  And with the attitude that they can't save them all, regardless of how hard they try, many fail to even make basic changes that would allow them to save more. 

The power of the mind to drive success based on the belief of success is nothing new. Leadership and entreprenuership courses for years have focused on the importance of believing you will succeed.  But is it any wonder then that shelter that make significant changes to become No Kill so often succeed at doing so?  And shelters that believe that the killing is inevitable because of the "irresponsible public" take no action and continue with their failure?

The movement based on hope, the power to make changes and succeed, will always win out over the one based on a broken status quo.  And believing that you will fail, regardless of how hard you try, is a sure-fire recipe to meet your expectations.

Embrace change, and believe in its power to end the killing.

Two shelters see dramatic changes in kill numbers from adopting No Kill philosophies

Last week, two similar stories, in two different parts of the country, struck me about the success of shelters that adopt No Kill philosophies.  I've noted before how quickly shelters can turn from high-kill facilities to low-kill (or no kill) facilities by adopting No Kill philosophies, and these two shelters highlight that, indeed, these aren't isolated cases.

Sangamon County(IL) Animal Control

In 2006, the Sangamon County Animal Control (which contains Springfield, the state capitol) killed 1,077 dogs and cats.  In order to lower shelter kill rates, they began a low cost spay/neuter clinic.

In 2007, they killed 1,115 dogs and cats.

In 2008, the number of animals killed "dropped" to 861.

In 2009, the shelter killed only 280 dogs and cats.

In 2010, the number became 192.

Since 2007, the shelter has seen an 83% decrease in its kill rate (these numbers are based on healthy/treatable animals killed and don't include sick or animals with behavioral problems).

To what do they credit their success?

Aggressive marketing. More off-site adoption events.  Development of a volunteer group that makes the shelter more friendly to potential adopters and provides socialization for the animals.  And the low cost spay/neuter clinic. Do these sound familiar?

"The real drop we've seen between 2009 and 2010, I think, is because of the off-site adoptions," said Jane McBride, President of Illinois Humane, a local nonprofit rescue group. "They've also had a good group of volunteers at animal control. They work out there every day, and they make it friendlier and warmer. They socialize with the animals, walk the dogs."

McBride says spay/neuter programs and microchips that lead to animals being reclaimed has also helped.  As for off-site adoptions, on a recent Saturday, SCAC had off-site adoption events at three different high-traffic locations. One adoptor noted that the family had been wanting to rescue some kitties, and the time was right, and the convenience of the off-site adoption prompted them to adopt two.  I've talked about this before also.

Congrats to the success of SCAC -- and here's to finishing the loop that will end the killing of healthy and treatable animals in your community.

Lynchburg, VA Humane Society

In 2009, Lynchburg, VA Humane Society killed 35% of the animals that came into their shelter. 2010 market the shelter's first year in a transition to a no kill community.  In 2010, the shetler save rate was 84% -- decreasing the shelter kill rate by 61% in their first year of the transition.  This equates to 421 fewer animals killed -- even during the middle of the down economy.

To what do they owe the increase in save rate?

New programs for rehoming pets

Low Cost Spay/Neuter

Ground-breaking adoption specials

A lot of hard work from volunteers + the community as a whole

"We honestly can't do this life saving work without the help from the community," said Executive Director Makena Yarbrough." That includes everything from donations and volunteering, to owners willing to wait to bring us their pets because they know it gives animals a better chance....last year, 33% of the owners who contacted us to surrender their pet either re-homed them or worked through their problems and decided to keep them, that equals 298 pets."

All of these success stories are the same

What is amazing about all of these success stories is that they are amazingly the same....and they all begin with the leadership at the shelter making the decision to quit killing.

Then, the solutions become obvious. They include providing low cost spay/neuter options. Doing aggressive marketing of the animals that need homes. They include building up a volunteer base and foster homes and doing off-site adoption events.  It includes proactive efforts to reunite lost pets with owners and reaching out to the public to ask for their help and support and embracing the community (instead of blaming them for your problems).

This is the model...and it works. Every time. And quickly.   And the first step begins with the decision to stop the killing.