KC DOG BLOG

Details about the new HSUS shelter report (which opposes Mandatory Spay/Neuter and has other good info)

Last week, the Humane Society of the United States launched a very detailed white paper with an overview of progress (and lack thereof) of sheltering under California law, with recommendations on needed legal and shelter activity improvements.

This is a study that HSUS seems to have gotten right in terms of research and perspective and you can read the report here in its entirety. Below is a quick overview, a few of the key "hits" and a a very key miss. While the focus of this paper was on sheltering and California Law, my plan is (with a couple of exceptions) to pull out things that I think are most relevant to the entire population.

Overview

The study is essentially an overview of 15 years worth of shelter data to evaluate the successes, and failures, of Hayden's law -- the governing law for shelters in California. The report analyzed data from reporting public agencies -- for an area that covered 87% of the population of California. It's definitely a large statistical area.

According to the report, the following is the disposition of the 459,000 dogs that come into California Shelters in 2010:

 - 38% euthanized

 - 33% adopted

 - 19% Reclaimed

 - 7% transferred to other shelter or rescue organizations

 - 4% "other"

The total number of dogs that entered into the shelter system, according to their reports, dropped 15% since 1998. Euthanasia of those dogs decreased 47%. A pretty substantial improvement. 

Things weren't quite so rosey for cats:

For cats, the total number that entered shelters actually increased 7% -- and euthanasia remained essentially the same.

Cats were much less likely to to make it out of the shelter alive. For the 393,000 cats that entered California Shelters, the following was their disposition:

- 71% euthanized

- 24% adopted

- 2% reclaimed

- 5% transferred

- 3% other

The report goes on to detail four key points that it felt needed to be addressed: Intake reduction, improving animal welfare for animals in shelter care, decreasing costs, and increasing revenue.

Hits

1) One key area of the report involves the recommendation for animal shelters to move toward taking appointments for owner-relinquished animals (which makes up roughly 1/3 of their shelter population). According to the report:

"Some shelters require an appointment to surrender pets, which has prompted a good number of owners to decide to keep their animals. Owners are responding to information they get about available resources and support, such as spay/neuter services, low cost medical care, training, food bank, etc to issues they are experiencing. Although most California communities have these types of resources available, many pet owners simply do no know that they exist. Owners may also be more inclined to keep a pet, in spite of any issues, when they find out how likely it is that the animal will not be released alive. Owners may also be in a better position than a crowded shelter to rehome their pet, as they know their pet's positive qualities and can exhibit the pet in a comfortable habitat."

Appointments have other benefits for the shelter too:

"Appointments enable agencies to control the flow of animals into their shelters based on their capacity to care for and place the animals.....if people can drop off pets at any time, a shelter may receive 30 animals in one day and only 2 the next. This creates staffing inefficiencies and can raise operational costs. Even within a given day, too many animals could come in at once, creating a hurried proces to manage them that stresses both pets and staff. If the agencies used appointments to spread surrenders over a reasaonable period, they can do more to work with owenrs to avoid the surrender and handle intake more smoothly."

2) A second key hit is that the report mentions the values of TNR. While HSUS used to denouce TNR, it has come around recently and this is another good sign. It also notes that feral cat colony managers should be aware of environmental impacts of the cat colony.

3) Hold times -- Based on their report, increasing the average hold time has had a minimal impact on the number of dogs reclaimed. The report notes that 80% of all dogs returned to their owners happen within four days (for our shelter, it's 3) and thus, there is not much net gain in increasing hold times beyond 4 days in terms of RTOs -- especially if a dog does not have identification. Holding the animals beyond the four days only increases sheltering costs and takes up space in the shelter because the dogs are unlikely to be reclaimed, yet unavailable for transfer or adoption, and increases the likelihood of disease exposure. 

The report goes on to suggest limiting hold times to 4 days unless an animal is wearing identification, and to eliminate hold times for litters of puppies coming into the shelter (people almost never lose an entire litter of puppies). 

It also notes that cats without identification should be made available for adoption immediately (mostly for space reasons and so cats don't stay in the shelter long enough to get sick) unless a cat has identification given that only 2% of cats are ever reclaimed, and almost never without identification present.

My note: We've had a similar situation here in Kansas City and 80% of our RTOs happen within the first 3 days, yet Missouri Law is to hold for 5. For a shelter with very minimal space, it would make the transition faster if we could put animals up for adoption after 3 days instead of waiting for 5. While many fear that this would result in earlier killing for high kill shelters, the solution would be relatively easy. Allow animals to be adopted or transferred after the 3 day hold, but note that they cannot be euthanized (unless for severe medical reasons) until after 5 days. 

4) The report also pushed for shelters to have transparency in their numbers -- which is important.

5) In the final section, the study notes ideas that it considered, but did NOT recommend. In this, it issues a statement AGAINST mandatory spay/neuter. Over the years, I've dedicated a LOT of space on this blog to the adverse impact of mandatory spay/neuter.  And over the past several years, most national animal welfare organizations have denounced mandatory spay/neuter, including Maddies Fund, the ASPCA, No Kill Advocacy Center, and the AVMA. However, HSUS has never really taken a stance against it....until now.

According to the report, it did NOT recommend increasing penalties for failure to spay or neuter, and goes on to describe:

"While finding people to adopt dogs and cats is crucial, reducing the supply of incoming animals is the only way to end the pet overpopulation problem. The stakeholder group discusses the pros and cons of changing state laws to increase fines and penalties for not altering pets. However, compelling evidence exists to show demand for affordable spay/neuter services is high, particularly in underserved areas. Failure to spay or neuter is more correlated with limited access to affordable and proximate services than i is with resisance to sterilizing pets.  Efforts to increase resources and outreach in communities where spay/neuter rates are low should be the focus."

This is outstanding news that finally HSUS is on board with a proven, targeted outreach approach vs trying to mandate sterilization on those who cannot afford it.

 Misses

Overall, I thought the report was really solid and hit on a lot of key points and shelter best practices. However, while there was a huge amount of space spent to keeping animals out of the shelter (which is important), and proper care for animals in the shelter (also important), outside of one section on working with rescue groups, there was little information on how to get them back OUT safely. 

Through the course of their study, intake for dogs dropped 15%. However, euthanasia for dogs dropped 48%.  So some shelters, somewhere are saving more lives of animals that do make it into the shelters. 

How are they doing it?  Increased adoptions?  Increased transfers?  Increased RTOs?  There isn't much in here about programs that are doing that (and nothing, at all on adoptions).  I would have loved for them to have dived into the shelters that were increasing adoptions to see which programs had the biggest impact. Off-site adoptions? Adoption special events?  Open adoption policies?  Satellite adoption centers? 

I feel that while keeping animals out of the shelter is important (and would have been a greater influence on the legal angle, which was their key focus), a small section on SAVING those who came in would have been warranted. It's the biggest miss in what was overall a very solid report, that is worth checking out. 

Shooting the messenger

I've been debating most of the day about writing this. I've been trying, for the most part, to have my blog posts be more positive. Call it a New Year's Resolution. But this, this is really bugging me today.

Last night, during the Academy Awards, the Center for Consumer Freedom, and the group they support, Humanewatch.org, ran a tv spot doing what they do best; criticizing the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The spot really targets one piece of information: that according to their research, 71% of Americans believe that HSUS is a national orgnaization that gives money to local Humane Societies.  But they don't. The ad closes with the line "If you want to help pet shelters, make sure you give to your local animal shelter." You can watch the ad in its entirety here.

Now, let me first note, that I know, and understand who the CCF is. I know they're funded by large corporations essentially to lobby against changes that hurt their business. I know that they're not promoting local shelters because they love animals.

That said, their message is accurate, and does promote a worthy cause. HSUS is primarly a large lobbying and fundraising organization -- pushing for a variety of laws on the state and federal level.  They don't give much to local animal shelters. And while I don't know if their 71% of people believe they fund local animal shelters is technically accurate, it does mirror my experience -- that most people who are not directly involved in animal welfare think this. And that if people want money to go to help animals in local animal shelters, then it is imperative that they give to local shelters (most of whom badly need the money).

So while I wouldn't necessarily call myself a CCF supporter, their message is not wrong and actually promotes  a worthy cause.

So, my problem today, came in reading both the blog and email from HSUS responding to last night's advertisement.

First off, last night's ad, at least based on info on Humane Watch's facebook page, ran only in the Washington DC area. However, HSUS's response ran nationally. This seems odd to actually promote the ad to a larger network of people who never would have had a chance to see it.  But even that isn't the problem for me.

The problem, is that the response is entirely designed to shoot the messenger, the CCF. HSUS, again, uses their blog post to lay out their stance against the CCF, and Humane Watch, and their chief lobbyist Rick Berman (who HSUS refers to throughout the post as "Dr. Evil"). The post goes on to promote a new fund, the HSUS Fund to Stop Rick Berman's Campaign for Cruelty -- that people can donate to show that HSUS is stronger than the CCF. The money will go toward lobbying for laws for 'puppy mills' or 'factory farming.'

Now, I'm not going to comment on their uses of the money. I'm certainly in favor of better care for animals, whether the animals are in commercial breeding operations or on corporate farms. I don't always agree with HSUS's specific tactics on these -- but without seeing what they're promoting this go around, it's hard to say for sure.

But what bugs me is that no where in the 12 paragraph blog post, or 9 paragraph email, does HSUS acknowledge local shelters, and how they could use donations too. That these organizations, most of whom are very cash strapped, often lose money to the fundraising efforts of national organizations, but do great work in helping save the lives of dogs and cats in their own communities. It would have been really easy for HSUS to at least acknowledge, at some point, that the "takeaway" from the CCF's commercial, give to your local shelters, is actually a noble donation -- and one, in theory, that HSUS supports. I know I regularly support fundraisers of other organizations outside of my own that support a similar mission -- helping animals.

So, it seems more than a little odd to me, that in this scenario, "Dr. Evil" is promoting giving to local, needy animal shelters. And the supposed "good guy' here, the "Humane" organization, is promoting giving money to themselves. Ouch.

So HSUS, please quit making your response to shoot the messenger. If you are ashamed by their message that you don't help fund local animal shelters, change some of your policies and give generously from your rich bank accounts to help these local groups. If you don't mind people knowing that you don't give your money to local shelters and that you're lobbying for better laws, then by all means, own up to it. Lobbying for better laws can be a very noble goal and very impactful on its own merits.

And just one more thing, would it hurt to thorw the little guys a bone once in awhile?  Many of the people who work in these shelters every day are among your biggest supporters -- and when 'Dr. Evil" is pushing for people to give them money and support, and you're not, it sure makes it hard to remember who the "good guys" are supposed to be.

Kansas City and Missouri News and Notes

There is a lot of news in Kansas City and the surrounding area right now. As such, there are a couple of stories that I think are important to share.

Pin Ups for Pit Bulls Midwest Carnival

Over the weekend was a great event with the folks from Pin Ups for Pit Bulls, along with Shorty Rossi, were in town over the weekend to raise awareness for 'pit bull' type dogs and to raise some money for local rescues.

This was an extremely fun event -- and before hand, the great folks over at Paw Prints had a great interview with both Shorty and Little Darling to get some insight behind the TV show the Pit Boss and behind the efforts from Pin Ups for Pit Bulls.

It sounds like The Pit Boss is going to be airing a show from Denver soon which will expose many of Denver's problems as it relates to the city's breed ban.

Also, a big appreciation to Stacy for Kansas City Dog Advocates getting a shout-out in her interview -- and nice job overall on the interview. They also captured some great photos of the event.

Animal Haven and No More Homeless Pets form Merger

Two local animal welfare organizations have officially formed a merger as Animal Haven - -the city's largest no kill animal shelter, and No More Homeless Pets KC -- on of the two largest low-cost spay neuter clinics, have officially formed a merger to form the Heartland SPCA.

I really don't have a lot of commentary about what this may or may not mean in Kansas City animal welfare. Both organizations have been working very closely together for many years and this just solidifies their partnership. I think the name is problematic (I still think most causal observers will think this is an off-shoot of the ASPCA) -- however, I do think the two groups (both very good organizations) can merge their power for positive change for the animals in the metro area.

More to come on this, no doubt, but this is pretty big news in the metro this week (even though it may have been the worst kept secret ever).

Missouri Dedicates $$ for crack down on Puppy Mills

Earlier this week, Governor Jay Nixion held a press conference at the Humane Society of Missouri that announced that the state has officially dedicated $1.1 million for more state field inspectors, veterinarians and enforcement agents in order to crack down on poorly run commercial breeders in the state.

This promise was part of the Governor's compromise that eliminated parts of voter-approved proposition B, but also added several key enforcement measures including this money for more enforcement and some increased power for the state Attorney General to close down repeated violators of state laws (which has already led to the closing of two breeding operations). This is particularly notable at a time when the state was facing a $704 million budget deficit, even before the state had to set aside $50 million to help the city of Joplin recover from a massive tornado that hit last month, and as the state is dealing with major flood damage that will also take millions of dollars of state funds to rebuild levies and repair damages.

So the state continuing to increase funding for shutting down poorly-run breeding operations in spite of these budget shortfalls is HUGE.

And yet, Wayne Pacelle of HSUS still found room to criticize. Pacelle criticizes the money because he doesn't think it should have come in conjunction with the changes to Prop B. While Pacelle mentioned at one point recognizing the need to compromise on Prop B, he apparently doesn't realize that compromise involves both parties giving in on certain things. Maybe this is why the compromise was among local animal welfare groups and HSUS wasn't invited to the table.

While everyone should be celebrating the increased enforcement resources (which was everyone's #1 need in solving the state's 'puppy mill crisis') at a time of significant financial strain on the state, leave it to HSUS to be the critic (of course, the news comes at a time when Wayne Pacelle was on his book tour and was in St. Louis last night promoting his book, and Kansas City tonight). It should also be noted that the state's $1.1 million toward enforcement -- which is very good news, is less than 1/3 of the money HSUS spent trying to pass Proposition B.

A few other things going on....more to come. 

Legislators request inquiry into HSUS's 501c3 status -- HSUS responds by pushing for more legislation

Two weeks ago, several members of the Missouri Congressional delegation requested an investigation into the tax-exempt status of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

These lawmakers, including Missouri Republicans Vicky Hartzler, Jo Ann Emerson, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Sam Graves and Billy Long -- and Alaskan Representative Don Young -- said in an official statement that HSUS's "sustantial political activities within Missouri" brought into question its tax-exempt status.

"We believe that HSUS's own public documents show beyond question that lobbying is a "substantial part" of its activities and feel the IRS's failure to act is attributable to the politcally sensitve nature of HSUS's activities."

The request comes after HSUS spent more than $2.1 million of if its own money, plus another $200,000 of money from organizations under its own umbrella (Doris Day Animal League and Fund for Animals) for the passing of Missouri's Proposition B.  Prop B was then dramatically changed by the state legislature.

In response, HSUS has announced that it is starting a new petition to promote even more legislation in Missouri -- this time legislation that isn't even directly tied to animals.

Monday, on Wayne's blog, HSUS announced that it would be working with a "diverse group of coalition partners to place a new measure on the November 2012 statewide ballot. The "Voter Protection Act" is an effort that would require the state legislature to get a three-fourths vote to over-ride a citizen's initiative.  (It should be noted that the compromise bill that replaced Proposition B, SB 161, received more than 70% approval of both houses of the legislature).  The hope for HSUS is that the new initiative would help pave the way for HSUS to pass more legislation in the state.

Now, when HSUS says they are working with a 'coalition" of partners, there should be no mistake who the voice behind the petition is. The website domain, protectvoters.com, was purchaced in March by HSUS -- 2 months before Prop B was changed.

Now let me be clear -- I am all in favor of being involved in politics. I have strongly encouraged it in this space and my own organization, Kansas City Dog Advocates, is mostly a political organization. My biggest problem is that I don't think HSUS is honest about what they do in most of their fundraising initiatives - - including sending emails to constituents to help dogs not in their care (and in the process, diverting funds from the people caring for the dog), and soliciting money to care for dogs they were not only not caring for, but actually lobbying to have killed.

It will be interesting to see how the request for inquiry plays out. 501c3 organizations do have the power/ability to lobby -- but it cannot be a substantial part of their activities. It has always seemed like HSUS has over-stepped those bounds...and I think transparency in terms of motives and goals is really important.

 

Two very different views of the Missouri Compromise

Earlier today, I mentioned that two Misouri Animal Welfare Groups; Humane Society of Missouri and Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (MAAL) sat down with the head of the state Department of Ag, and two organizations representing the breeding community, and the Governor, to create a compromise solution to the debate over Proposition B. It's a solid plan, that addresses several of the key issues facing dogs in commercial breeding operations in this state. 

The plan keeps several provisions that improve the treatment of dogs in commercial breeing operations. It keeps the funding for Operation Bark Alert -- which has shut down nearly 500 commercial breeders in the past 2 years. It provides funding for nearly double the enforcement resources in the state for next year - which was identified by the state auditor, Better Business Bureau and the USDA as being a primary driver for the state's current 'puppy mill' problem. It also gives the state attorney general more power to  close down unlicensed and poorly run commercial breeding operations.

In this post, I'm going to provide two different points of view on this. The first is from Bob Baker, the Executive Director of MAAL.  MAAL is an animal welfare organization that has pushed for a lot of law concerning the welfare of animals in the state - including this list, as well as pushing for the passing of Prop B. This is a group that is very much on the fringe of animal rights and is more in line with HSUS's views than not in many cases. 

Here is Bob Baker's comments regarding the compromise. All emphasis is Mr. Baker's:

Today we have announced our support of proposed legislation that would provide humane standards of care to dogs in commercial breeding facilities and would implement the core provisions of Prop B.

This proposed legislation would not have come about without your tireless efforts over the past few months. Your personal visits, letters, emails and phone calls to your legislators as well as Governor Nixon are making a difference.

As you already know current law and SB 113 would allow breeding dogs to be confined to tiny wire floor cages for their entire lives - many warehoused inside barns never seeing the light of day much less exercise. Current law and SB 113 deny veterinary care and even an annual veterinary exam to the dogs and would allow frozen water to satisfy requirements for water.

The forthcoming legislation would require an annual veterinarian examination of breeding dogs to ensure their health and welfare as well as require that any dogs with a serious illness or injury receive prompt treatment by a veterinarian. This legislation would also require continuous access to clean water and thus dogs would no longer be forced to languish without water for hours and hours in the summer heat or allow frozen water to satisfy water requirements in the winter.

More important, this legislation will provide ample space for the dogs confined in these breeding facilities as it mandates that dogs are provided with three times the current requirement of space.

This legislation also mandates that breeding dogs have constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise run - breeding dogs will now be guaranteed exercise and fresh air.

This legislation will also prohibit wire flooring which is uncomfortable for dogs to walk on and often causes injuries to their legs and feet.

Along with increased standards of care, this legislation will provide for a dramatic increase in enforcement efforts by providing funding for additional inspectors and veterinarians to help ensure the humane treatment of dogs in commercial breeding operations.

Thanks again for all your hard work and perseverance. Your efforts are paying off. We will be asking you to contact your legislators again once this legislation is formally introduced and will continue to keep you informed as this legislation progresses.

 However, HSUS felt VERY differently about the compromise bill.  

Here is Wayne Pacelle's (or his Ghost Writer's) comments regarding the exact same legislation. Emphasis mine (along with a few comments in italics):

With some fanfare, a “compromise” in Missouri was announced between some traditional political adversaries on Prop B yesterday. Since the November election, the coalition of animal protection organizations (including MAAL) that pushed for the passage of this anti-puppy mill measure wanted to see the will of the people respected. But knowing the composition of the state legislature, and the hostility of the Republican leadership in both chambers to Prop B, we knew that we’d have to entertain compromise on some elements of the agreement (at no point, ever, publically, has Pacelle or anyone from HSUS mentioned any thought of compromise -- and likely, this is why they didn't have a seat at the table when it came to this new law), in order to protect the measure for the long term and to obviate the need for a second public vote on the issue.

The opponents of Prop B didn’t want to compromise on its core elements (in fairness, the opponents WERE at the table for the compromise -- even though, realistically, they are in the situation of power at this point), and they charged ahead with a bill to repeal it (SB 113,which passed both chambers).

Yesterday the situation turned fairly dramatically, with an announcement that two respected Missouri animal welfare groups (Including MAAL) had reached an accord with the trade associations for the puppy mill industry and the agriculture industry. The HSUS, the ASPCA, and Best Friends Animal Society don’t believe that the arrangement reached yesterday adequately protects Prop B.

A compromise, in this context, would have entailed some movement from both sides but ensured that Prop B remains largely intact. But this deal does fundamental damage to Prop B:

• Prop B established a limit on the number of breeding dogs at 50, and that provision is gone. There’s not even a requirement that if you have 500 or 1,000 dogs you have to have enough staff on hand to care for the dogs. 
• Prop B called for breeding females to have a rest every third heat cycle. The new measure allows dogs to be bred every heat cycle for their entire lives.
• Prop B required an outdoor exercise area at least twice the size of a dog's indoor enclosure, so that dogs would not spend their whole life crammed in cages. This new measure requires an "outdoor run" but does not mandate any particular size, and allows the state Department of Agriculture to waive this vague mandate in regulations.
• Prop B required veterinary care for illness or injury, but the new measure allows such care to be withheld anytime a breeder decides on his or her own that a condition is not "serious."
• Prop B called for no stacking of cages, but the new measure allows it, as long as there is an impervious barrier between the cages. Cage stacking is a recipe for the type of overcrowding that defines the worst puppy mills. (It should be noted here that a LARGE number of rescue and shelter orgs stack cages in this regard -- with no outrage)
• Prop B stipulated no wire flooring, but the new provision allows for wire flooring as long as it’s encased. Coated wire flooring still harms dogs' paws and is unacceptable.

The new language weakens the space requirements in Prop B, and it’s extremely vague and unclear. What’s more, breeders will have five years to come into compliance with it, and that’s inordinately long in this context (this isn't actually true in most cases)

We strongly support more robust funding for enforcement of commercial dog breeding operations, as the governor proposed last week.  But there’s no reason to calve off large portions of Prop B in order to have adequate enforcement (So Wayne isn't willing to give up anything to get what actually is the single biggest win out of the whole conversation, better enforcement). It’s a false choice, and it smacks of political extortion: agree to these changes, or we’ll defund enforcement.

HSUS believes that compromise is an important part of the political process (apparently, as long as it is the other party doing all of the compromising). All along, we’ve been open to real compromise. But we insist on getting something meaningful in the process for animals, and we also believe in respecting the free and fair election on this subject that occurred less than six months ago. Missouri voters heard from both sides, read the clear ballot language about the provisions of Prop B, and made their judgment. In this case, this compromise falls far short of Prop B in protecting breeding dogs from unnecessary suffering, and it’s not worthy of support.

So why such different views of the same proposal? Who do you think is more "right"?

Is MAAL just caving under a situation where they realize they are not in the position of power in the state legislature and just preserving what they can?  Or do they see the increased enforcement as the key that is worth losing other elements of Prop B?  Is HSUS grandstanding? Or are they right?  

Prop B "changes" moving forward, and the need to replace the current voice against puppy mills

Yesterday, the Agriculture Policy Committee of the Missouri House of Representatives unanimously backed a bill, HB 131, that would remove most of the requirements of Missouri's Proposition B.  HB 131 appears to be a straight companion bill to SB 113, which got the endorsement of the Senate Agriculture Policy Committee a couple of weeks ago.   

I won't talk a lot about HB 131 or SB 113. The bills themselves strip out most of the policies in the voter-approved Prop B.  While some of the stipulations in the bill were quite good, a large number of them were actually really bad. I've been very vocal in my opposition to the 50 dog breeding limit (primarily because there appears to be no satisfactory answer to the question "what happens to the rest of the dogs?" - but also I think limiting the size of someone's business may be legally problematic), but there also appear to be a lot of problems with some of the criminal statutes as well.  From the folks I've talked to, there appear to be a couple of different issues with the criminal codes (and again, I'm not a lawyer, but there are people smarter than I am telling me this stuff -- one of whom is a lawyer, so I'm going to relay this the best I can):

1) They require misdemeanor charges for any violations -- no matter how minor. Anyone who has ever worked in the restaurant industry knows that it is virtually impossible to pass an inspection with a 100% clean record, and imagine if that 1 minor violation resulted in a misdemenaor charge.  Prop B also has a higher scale for second time offenders -- but with no time limit on the second time. So someone could get busted for a fairly minor infraction in 2012, and then, have 20 years of a clean record, and get busted for another minor infraction in 2032, and the scale would increase on them.  This has been apparently pretty problematic in the legislature.

2) The other problem appears to be that the bill creates what are criminal activities, but then excludes shelters and rescue groups from violating the criminal code. For a lot of good reasons, the court systems don't like that, and basically have decided that if an activity is illegal, then it is illegal for anyone to do it, not just one group of people.  Apparently this was part of the impetous for SB95.

These types of legal problems are exactly why the state retains the right to adjust laws passed through citizen's initiatives.  While it isn't uncommon for errors in legislator-passed laws to be "cleaned up" after their passing, it certainly isn't uncommon for the same thing to happen in citizen's initiatives. This is why I think a lot of the cries about "this is a fight for democracy" are unfounded.

So there is little doubt that changes will be made -- and this is in spite of HSUS' continue approach that there should be "no compromises".  But there have to be. Because the law is not workable in its current form.

So instead of taking the approach of actually coming up with compromise solutions, they continue to send emails to Missouri residents claiming we should insist that the law stay in place in spite of its problems. 

It shouldn't be a big surprise that HSUS and Wayne Pacelle would be on the unreasonable side of this.  This is, after all, the same Wayne Pacelle that insisted that the dogs confiscated from Mike Vick's kennels were the "most dangerous they had ever seen" -- in spite of the reports from evaluators that most were "pancake dogs" that would cower at the sight of new humans. This is the same Wayne Pacelle that thought these dogs should all be killed without an evaluation -- even though the majority are doing well now living as members of society. This is the same Wayne Pacelle that welcomed Mike Vick back with open arms, has said he is rehabiliated, and that he would be a good dog owner again some day -- in spite of Vick's handlers saying they don't care about the dogs and that he is frequently heard complaining about having to lecture people on the horrors of dog fighting.

So it shouldn't be a surprise if Pacelle, and HSUS, are found to be unreasonable. 

But the problem is, that the people in the animal welfare community, the people who really care about animals, seem to be ok with letting HSUS be the voice for them when it comes to things like Puppy mill cruelty.  And that needs to change.

Instead of making a positive impact for the animals, HSUS had created further divide between the legislators and those who are really trying to help the animals.  Now, it seems that many of the state legislators -  at the very sound of mentioning a need to fix the cruelty problems in commercial breeding facilities in the state - put up a wall and cast said person in the same category as HSUS.  We're instantly typecast as being unreasonable and uncompromising.

We need to take back the voice of caring about animals away from HSUS, and bring it back to the people who are more concerned about that animals than they are about making policies (regardless of how poorly those policies are written).

We need to stand up for very respected men like Dr. Bud Herzog. Dr. Herzog is an EXTREMELY well-respected veterinarian in a suburban community here in Kansas City -- and has been for decades. I've had the pleasure of talking to Dr. Herzog when several area communities were talking about breed bans in the KC metro several years ago. He is a good man. Two days ago he wrote a letter to the Kansas City Star stating that there are problems with Prop B and that the wording of the law is misguided. Meanwhile the ususal, uncompromising internet trolls and HSUS activists again showed up in the comments section -- even accusing Dr. Herzog of just protecting his financial interests (which, to the best I can tell, he has no financial interest at stake here given the community in which he serves).

But it is the unreasonable among us that have become the most dominant voices. It is HSUS, who has the money to make themselves the dominant voice -- but only if we let them.

Fortunately, wiser heads are starting to prevail at the state legislature. Instead of just moving on with the two bills that strip down Prop B -- they are looking at making improvements.

The House Committee has also approved an amendment that will increase the annual fees for licensed dog breeders by $25 a year -- which would raise about $34,000 that the state then plans to use to investigate and shut down unlicensed breeding operations. Based on all of the reports (from the USDA, Better Business Bureau and the State Auditor's department), this single act alone would do more to solve the primary issues with illegal and unethical dog breeding in the state than Prop B.  It's a good first step.

The problems with animal cruelty in commercial breeding  kennels are a real problem in this state - -and they do need to be addressed. But I think taking a reasonable approach to solving the real problems will go much futher than the unreasonable, uncompromising approach that is being pushed by HSUS and Wayne Pacelle.  The animal welfare community needs to take their voice back on this isssue...or risk having their voices completely ignored.

Fight over Missouri's puppy mills continues -- and learning from the experiences of others

The fight over Missouri's puppy mills continues.

Last month, the residents in the state of Missouri voted in favor of a ballot initiative sponsored by HSUS (and others) that put harsher restrictions on 'puppy mills' in the state.

However, at least some members of the legislature appear to be primed to repeal the initiative. According to Sen. Bill Stouffer (a Republican), said of Prop B, "It does nothing to solve the problem of dog abuse. It only targets licensed dealers, and people that are ignoring the law now are not affected by this."

Another Senator, Democrat Tom Shively thinks the repeal will pass, stating that he thinks there are things the assembly can do to make the situation better for animals. "We need to stiffen the penalties and increase the fines" on breeders who fly under the radar and don't get licensed.

Meanwhile, the Missourians for the Protection of Dogs organization that promoted Prop B has purchased 6 billboards around the state capitol with a picture of a puppy and message "Missouri voters have spoken, will you listen?"

I've written a lot about the problems with Prop B -- that it doesn't focus on the core problem of lack of enforcement (nearly half of the state's estimated commercial breeding opearations are not licensed, and only about 60% of the license operations are inspected annually, even though the state requires an annual inspection).

Prop B never addressed the enforcement issues. The problem could have been addressed by having higher fines for unlicensed operations (which right now are only brought up to compliance vs fined) and by making it easier to heavily fine (and eventually shut down) habitually negligent offenders of laws and funneling all of the money to more enforcement.  Like most states, Missouri is looking at cutting tens of millions of dollars from the budget - -not ADD programs, which causes a problem when the financing problem was never addressed.

So while the fight goes on in Jefferson City about the future of Prop B, the state is looking for revenue streams for enforcement.

Retaliation?

In what seems like was probably a response to the proposal and passage of Prop B, the state legislature passed a new law. The law was simple, but has caused a bit of a stir recently in the animal welfare community. Essentially, the bill removed the exemption for paying licensing fees to the state for rescue organizations. So while all rescues used to not have to pay to be licensed, without the exemption, the rescue groups now have to pay $100 per year for a license -- with an additional $1 per saved dog fee. The purpose of the extra $1 fee is to be able to charge larger rescues more than small ones -- which makes sense (and is how the licensing works for breeders).  However, while I don't have a major problem with the $100 license fee (because it's minimal and wil go toward enforcement), I don't like disincenting people from adopting out animals.  It doesn't make sense for it to be free to KILL a dog, but a fee to save one.

Many in the rescue community (rightfully?) see this as a "gotcha" by the state legislature in a sort of retaliation for their support of Prop B.  But the response is actually sadly predictable.

Learning from Others

A couple of years ago, Washington state passed a similar law to Prop B that targeted commercial breeders with, among other things, minimum kennel size requirements (this proposed bill was nearly identical to Missouri's Prop B, but had some changes made to it along the way).  Then, two years later, the legislature looked at a law that would put the same kennel size requirements on the all dogs in the state - so in essence, making all rescues, shelters and even individual owners, have minimum kennel sizes if their dogs were kenneled "for the majority of the day". 

While the law would have been very difficult for most shelters and rescues to comply with, it could also have impacted even individual owners who kenneled their dogs while at work -- depending on how "majority of the day" was defined. 

So while losing the exemption was seen by some in Missouri as a "gotcha", losing exemptions is almost exactly what you'd expect if you followed the passage of the same law in Washington only a year earlier.

Pennsylvania

A couple of years ago, the state of Pennsylvania also passed a law targeting 'puppy mills'.  Their law also did not include a funding source.  However, realizing that enforcement was an issue, the state allowed for non-profit groups to be "initiate criminal proceedings" in the state -- including being able to get search warrants.

The results, sadly, have been not very good.

As the state has cut funding toward enforcement, the entire burden of enforcing these cruelty laws is falling almost entirely on the non-profits.  Not only that, but the state has also quit funding the educational component for the non-profits.  So now, numerous criminal cases are being botched by inexperienced non-profit workers, leading to few prosecutions and the organizations and leading to them not being reimbursed for the substantial costs of holding these animals during the criminal proceedings.

So the end result, according to animal welfare people in Pennsylvania, is tha they are getting fewer prosecutions.

Learning from others (2) and next steps

If we're going to make progress in Missouri, it seems like we're going to have to find some middle ground and find a way to increase enforcement.  This may mean scrapping many of the components of Prop B and starting from scratch -- with higher licensing fees for breeders and higher fines (and punishiment) for people operating outside of the current laws.  All of this money should then be funneled (mandated by law) to law enforcement for these laws (all of these, BTW, are recommendations from the State Auditor's report or the Better Business Bureau recommendations).

Without the funding piece, any law wil fail, because given our government financial woes right now, there is no way animal welfare will get prioritized over other social programs that are being significantly cut.

This may also involve small licensing fees for shelters and rescues (who also benefit from better enforcement).

We have to come up with a workable solution that both the breeding community and the rescue community can somewhat agree on. The continual political "gotcha" game between the two sides will no doubt leave animals dead in the crossfire.

When has "rescue" become accomplished?

Shirley over at YesBiscuit! is working her butt off trying to find the whereabout of 44 dogs that were "rescued" by the Humane Society of the United States from an apparent hoarding operation in Alabama.

Of the 44 dogs, 10 went to Lincoln County (NC) Animal Services -- a gassing shelter with a high kill rate. Three were killed almost instantly.

Four went to the Humane Society of Charlotte.

Three went to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg shelter -- whose problems are well documented.

Ten went PAWS in Atlanta.

Seventeen are still unaccounted for -- although some likely went to a humane society in Nashville.

As she goes through looking for the dogs, I think it poses an interesting question -- such as, when does 'rescue happen'?

1) Does it happen the second the animals are removed from a horrible situation?  Even if they are then shuffled on to high-kill shelter facilities?

2) Or does it only happen once the animals find homes?

I think one could make an case for either (or both) being "rescue" -- although I would think that the general public would answer #2 -- given that most "animal rescue" organizations focus almost solely on #2.

This isn't of course the first time that HSUS has claimed that they 'rescued' animals from bad situations only to then either promote or place the animals in equally bad situations.

When HSUS raised money after the rescue of the Mike Vick Dogs, they simultaneously lobbied to have them killed.

Earlier this year, HSUS helped "save" nearly  200 dogs from a 'puppy mill' in South Dakota -- but then left town, leaving the overwhelmed local rescue to handle all of the dogs on their own, which ended up leading to at least 28 of the dogs getting sick and dying.

And following Hurricane Katrina, literally hundreds of dogs that were "saved" in a makeshift rescue facility in Gonzales, LA were shipped to organizations around the country and ended up dead in those shelters - -while HSUS raised money for their rescue efforts.

So while technically they did "rescue" the animals from horrible situations, were the animals really 'rescued"?  And how much responsibility does HSUS as an organization have in positive outcomes for the animals -- or does that responsibility rest solely on the organization that takes in the animals?

I think it's an important conversation to have in light of how much money the general public gives to HSUS for the 'rescue' of these animals....

So go over to YesBiscuit! and join the conversation...I think she's working on a really noble cause in helping find out the truth about the final outcomes of these dogs.

 

 

Ethical dilemma at the ASPCA that no one seems to be talking about

I've been holding off on writing about this -- because, honestly, I have a collection of thoughts and not a lot of conclusions.

Yet, while there has been a LOT of discussion on the internet about HSUS's embarrassing support of Michael Vick, the ASPCA has quietly gone about it's own (what I think is) ethical dilemma...and no one is talking about it.

Last week, the ASPCA announced that it was appointing Terry Mills as their Animal Fighting Specialist -- to provide training to law inforcement officers on how to investigate "blood sports" such as dog fighting and cock fighting.

For those who are unfamiliar with Terry Mills, you may not recognize his name, but you will be familiar with his story.

A couple of months ago, a story was launched in several alternative newspapers around the country about Mills. In 2008, Mills worked for the FBI on their domestic-terrorism task force.  As a part of the job, Mills spent 18 months under-cover in order to break up what became the largest dog-fighting bust in the history of the United States -- getting a couple of dozen people arrested, and saving more than 500 dogs from their dog fightin operations.

As a part of the undercover operation, Mills and his team became a part of the dog fighting culture...and as a part of that, began training, and fighting, their own dogs.

At the time, and even now, I wrestle with the ethics of their decision. While breaking up the dog fighting operation is certainly commendable, it's extremely hard for me to stomach the idea of the "good guys" training dogs to fight and forcing them to endure such torture.  It just seems as if there had to be a better way without purposefully putting more dogs in the ring.

At the time when the article came out, Donna over at Bad Rap, who had some insider knowledge on the topic, posted her thoughts on situation:

"This topic has been especially hard for us. Yes, the investigators need a way in to the fights so they can gather the evidence needed to bring the f*ckers down, but when do you turn into one of the f*ckers in the meantime? It's been hard to reconcile."

And in the comments, I thought she had a great insight:

"Catching the bad gys can't be the motive in these campaigns....preventing the suffering of the victims HAS to be the motive if we're ever going to be able to turn the tide for these dogs."

Apparently the ASPCA has reconciled this for themselves - -and have not only embraced Mills, but have gone so far as to hire him.

"Terry's background will be a vital resource in training law enforcement to combat this cruel form of animal abuse," said senior director of ASPCA Field Investigations and Response Tim Rickey.

What the ASPCA didn't note in their press release was that Mills' background involved actually FIGHTING the dogs.

I'm sure Mills' knowledge of dog fighting will be valuable for the ASPCA as a training tool....but I'm also a bit concerned about what type of 'training' will be taking place here....and I find it a bit hard to believe that the ASPCA would hire someone who was involved in such a cruel, and ethically questionable activity (even if the intentions were good), without making any attempt to address the topic.

The whole thing is even more concerning when this occurred at the same time as HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle is out promoting Mike Vick's ability to own a dog again.  It just makes me question at what point did the animal rights organizations be so quick to embrace those that have been involved in cruelty to animals that they're out hiring them and promoting them?

 

 

It's a good thing HSUS believes in rehabilitation

Yesterday, the animal welfare community shuddered.  Twice.

The shudder was when the headlines came out that Mike Vick, who had been involved in a dog fighting operation and served 19 months in prison in connection with his dog fighting operations, announced that he would really like to have a dog again.

Apparently his daughters miss having a dog and it's hard telling his daughters that he cannot have one any more because of his actions.  This certainly isn't the first time Vick has said these sentiments....but it was probably the first time his words appeared in mainstream media.

For Vick, it's hard to have empathy. Clearly he was involved in cruelty to dogs, and the act of torturing and killing dogs.  At some point you have to accept that your actions were so terrible that you lose the privilage of participating in that activity again.  Vick has regained the opportunity to play in the NFL. He has regained the opportunity to be cheared by thousands of fans (even though many sports fans disagree with his 'right' to do that). He has regained the opportunity to make large amounts of money. But giving him the opportunity to own a dog again sort of fits under the same idea of allowing a child molester the opportunity to work at a daycare or a drug addict to have a job as a pharmacist.

You just have to draw the line somewhere.  Or at least you'd think.

But the CEO of the world's welthiest 'humane' organization disagreed.  "I have been around him a lot and feel confident that he would do a good job as a pet owner," said Humane Society of the United State CEO Wayne Pacelle. Shudder #2.  Pacelle also went so far as sort of excuse Vick for his behavior because as a society we give a lot of "mixed signals" about our concern for animals -- even going so far as to compare those who hunt and raise animals for food (you know, to help people survive), and to experiment on (you know, to cure diseases to kill people) to dog fighting (you know because torturing dogs for the fun of it is sort of similar to those others). 

Today, Pacelle "clarified" (or backtracked a bit) his position on his blog:

"There may be some who would forever deny Michael Vick the opportunity to have a pet. I understand that sentiment. But there is a larger principle at stake here. We at The HSUS are about the business of change—personal and societal change. Our work with Michael Vick is helping to change the view of pit bulls in urban communities from fighters to friends. We must be open to the possibility that rehabilitation is possible, and faithful to our hope that people can change. When that rehabilitation succeeds, it’s to the good for all involved—people and animals alike."

Now, let's put this comment in perspective.

Three years ago, Pacelle called for the dogs from Vick's fighting operation to all be killed....with no chance for rehabilitation. "Officials from our organization have examined some of these dogs and, generally speaking, they are some of the most aggressively trained pit bulls in the country," said Pacelle. "The fate of these dogs will be up to the government, but we have recommended to them, and believe, they will be put down."

So, let's put aside that by all accounts, the dogs were mostly fearful, and not aggressive, when actual evaluators came in and judged them. But how is it that the leader of the world's largest 'animal protection' organization believed that there could be no rehabilitation for the dogs (the victims), but they now completely believe in rehabilitation for the person responsible for victimizing the dogs.

Who the hell's side is HSUS on?

While Vick has been getting a lot of positive press and accolades, even HSUS is siding with the person that just 4 years ago was fighting and killing dogs.  

The continued support for Vick by HSUS has pretty much everyone with much sense questioning them.

K9 Cuisine: Why I can no Longer support HSUS

Bad Rap: File this one in your "Have you been smoking crack?!" category

YesBiscuit!: No, you haven't accidentally clicked on The Onion's site?

In fairness, HSUS has changed their policy on 'pit bulls' rescued from dog fighting operations -- and are now giving them the opportunity for rehabilitation. This is a great first step. I'm not sure the second step in believing in rehabilitation should be the person who victimized (and often) killed them.

I hope that Mike Vick is indeed rehabilitated.  And I want to hope that his work in talking to kids in schools is making an impact and ending abuse in inner cities. But I think he can still do his work without owning a dog -- and without the unwavering support of HSUS. 

But it could be a good  sign if HSUS is embracing rehabilitation...but hopefully they will focus the need for it not on others, but focus it inward. HSUS needs to get back to putting animals first, instead of giving priority to fundraising, political positioning, and propping up their PR mouthpiece of Mike Vick. They could use the embrace of new thinking that would allow for all animals to be saved instead of supporting the very organizations that are senselessly killing shelter animals.  They could use siding with the animals first, instead of siding with the abuser first.

In many ways the Vick fiasco has helped a lot of animals. It shed the light on the realities of dog fighting and also that first and foremost, dogs are a product of their environment and they are rehabilitatable. It's shown people that the dogs are the victims, and worthy of being saved, and has led to literally hundreds of dogs being saved over the past 3 years.  It also has shed light on HSUS, and led many to realize that the organization's first priority isn't the animals.

Rehabilitation is possible in most cases....and hopefull for HSUS, the rehabilitation they now say they believe so much in can come from within.