Dogged Blog

AB 1634 supporters co-opting the language of No Kill

Robert P. Miller, director of Animal Services for Riverside County here in California, got off some spinnage today that did more than make my head spin, it made it explode. And I knew you've missed that, haven't you?



In a piece entitled "When Will The Killing Stop?" on the blog of Los Angeles Animal Services, he wrote:

When will the time come when the residents of California say enough is enough and make a stance on ending the unnecessary euthanasia of cats and dogs? I say that time can be now.

Hmmm, so do I. But as I read on, I saw that Mr. Miller and I have very different ideas about how to accomplish that. He continued:

With the introduction of Assembly Bill 1634, the California Healthy Pets Bill, comes the opportunity and moral obligation for California and its residents to become the model to states and countries around the world for ending the euthanasia of dogs and cats in municipal and private animal shelters.

Miller makes it sound like California is going to be breaking new ground by ending the use of killing for population control, but it's already happened in a number of communities -- and none of them accomplished that goal by passing a law mandating the sterilization of pet dogs and cats. They did it by systematially implementing community-based programs and policies such as low-cost and free spay/neuter, TTNR programs for feral cats, foster programs in the shelters, and cooperation with rescue groups.



Those are the programs and policies that genuinely lead to the end of animal population control killing. And the philosophy that underlies those programs and policies couldn't be more different than Miller's -- which makes the fact that he's blatantly borrowing their words and concepts all the more disturbing.



"Why now?" Miller asks.



I'd say it's because the real No-Kill movement is the one place that diverse stakeholders find common ground, where hobby breeders stand with shelter workers, rescue groups with dog trainers, veterinarians with nearly every dog or cat owner in the country. Instead of fighting over laws and rules and regulations, we're uniting to reform how animal control is practiced in the United States. As Richard Avanzino said, "The public's on board, and that's the salvation. That's what's going to be there as the true safety net for the animals."







But that attitude is anathema to Miller, who sees the public not as the salvation of animals, but as the enemy:

Animal organizations in the State of California have spent millions of dollars year after year caring for animals and reducing euthanasia rates with great success, but the ultimate goal continues to elude them for one reason: irresponsible pet owners.

"Shelters call people 'irresponsible pet owners,' but (shelters) are the ones refusing to take responsibility for the fate of the animals in their care," said Nathan Winograd when I saw him speak in San Francisco last November. "While it's people who surrender animals to shelters, it's shelters who kill (those animals)."



I'm also guessing that it's animal lovers and pet owners who are the source of those millions of dollars the "animal organizations" spent, too. But heaven forbid you should make alliance and common cause with people for the good of animals, when you can play the blame game instead:

These pet owners continue the animal breeding cycle leaving a renewable population of pets, thus forcing animal shelters with finite resources to continue to euthanize surplus pets. AB 1634 puts the onus of responsibility to spay or neuter pets on the owners.

Yes, it does. And that's the whole problem with it, because the vast majority of pets in California are already spayed and neutered (that was the "great success" Miller mentioned above). This is certainly a good thing and I'm all for it. Free or low-cost, mobile or easily accessible spaying and neutering are the bedrock of ending animal population control killing.



But making spay/neuter mandatory will not stop the "renewable population of pets," because that comes from sources that this legislation will not and cannot touch, out of Internet puppy mills and from across the Mexican border, from the unplanned litters of those who don't give a damn what animal control laws are, and the planned litters of those who don't care about any law at all, like dog fighters. As I wrote in my column on AB 1634 for SFGate.com:

People won't own fewer pets because of this law; they'll just get them somewhere else. Unethical breeders who don't care about licensing or complying with the law will create a black market of puppies and kittens. Pets from out of state -- from Mexico and the bountiful puppy mills of the Midwest -- will come flooding into California. Anyone with a credit card and an Internet connection can order up a pet, just like you'd order a new iPod.



While the very hallmark of a responsible breeder is providing a permanent backup home for every dog or cat they breed, pet stores, Web sites and other retailers will sell a dog to anyone with the money to pay the bill. Dogs obtained from these sources have no safety net, and if their family can't or won't keep them, there are few options other than the shelter. Pets from these sources will rush into the vacuum, and the problem of overcrowded shelters will not only not get better, it could end up getting worse.

And even if none of that were true, it's still a fact that none of the communities that have fully or nearly ended animal population control killing did it by mandatory spay/neuter. Nor did they suddenly and miraculously get their budgets increased by local government (although there is money available from Maddie's Fund for communities that want to stop killing).



Mr. Miller whined about the resources he had being finite, but perhaps if he would stop pointing fingers and blaming "bad pet owners" for the failure of the current shelter system, he'd discover those resources right in his own backyard.

Because those resources aren't finite. Not at all. They are far more plentiful than the "renewable population of pets." They are the people who live in your communities, the animal lovers all over the country and the world who work together to transport animals to new homes, feed feral cats, try to adopt pets from shelters who often turn them away as bad risks for arbitrary reasons, put out bird seed, and do rescue and volunteer work. The ones who drove the pet food industry and the FDA crazy with demands for information and action during the pet food recall.



Those are the people who want No-Kill, who demand it. Who want shelter reform and the end of the status quo. They want it with a fierceness that's apparently frightening enough that those who are trying to preserve the old, failed way of doing things are co-opting the language of that movement, and twisting facts to make those people believe they're on the same side.



What do I mean, "twisting facts"? How about this:

(M)any exemptions exist within the bill to ensure the continuity of quality pure bred pets, rather than below-standard or unhealthy pets inhumanely over-bred purely for profit. Exemptions in this bill do allow responsible breeders to continue the genetic lines of purebred dogs and cats and encourage ethical breeding practices.

The legislation Miller is writing in support of, AB 1634, EXEMPTED puppy mills and high volume commercial breeders. The businesses that by their own admission, by design, are breeding "purely for profit" were EXEMPT from its provisions.



Miller's final words are these:

Until the tragedy of pet overpopulation and homelessness in our society is corrected, I cannot support the sad and needless euthanasia of animals simply because we refuse to prevent them from being born.

Setting aside discussion of the Orwellian phrase "needless euthanasia," it's certainly true that animals who are never born can't be killed. Neither can they chase a ball, sit in your lap, run on the beach, or climb a cat tree. Widespread, low-cost, easily available spay/neuter is a good thing, and an important part of the No-Kill philosophy. But at some point that approach is going to hit saturation -- a point I'd say we're pretty close to in California (see "great success," above).



No, the problem now is something else. It's the systemic failure of the existing animal control/shelter model to utilize the animal lover community, to build bridges instead of drive wedges, to reach out instead of hunker down. To blame instead of change.



Animal shelters exist to shelter animals who need a safe haven and a new home. There will always be animals in need of sheltering. Animal control policies need to ensure programs are in place so that no more animals need shelter and assistance than the community can handle, to keep the community active and engaged, to keep the animals moving out, not just in -- and out alive, not in a body bag.



Do you want No Kill in your communities? Stop trying to legislate what pet owners do with their pets' reproductive organs. Do what communities that have reached that goal have done: Implement the No Kill Equation. Stop blaming pet owners and reform the failed systems. Stop pushing for intrusive, divisive legislation with no track record of accomplishing what you want to accomplish.



And stop borrowing the sound bites but not the programs, policies, and philosophy of the real No-Kill movement.

I totally heart my mommy

My 72-year-old mother just asked me how to access Daily Kos.

Talk about feel-good stories

I'm reviewing a book for the Pet Connection syndicated feature. I don't get much room for those reviews, just enough to give readers an idea of what the book is about. And I'm not going to "spoil" the review for you here.



I just wanted to share a small excerpt from the book itself, because it took me by surprise and gave me hope, and I thought it might brighten your hearts, too.



The book is Bonnie Silva's "Fifteen Legs," and it's the account of the nationwide network of animal rescue transporters who move dogs, cats, and other animals from areas where they're unlikely to be adopted to foster and forever homes.



But this post isn't about rescue transport, nor even Silva's book. It's about a network of cat lovers caring for a feral colony in Newburyport, Mass. The cats live in a waterfront area full of expensive shops and restuarants, and were becoming a nuisance, stealing food off the diners' plates in the summer, and mewling pitifully outside the restaurants in the winter.



Several residents went to the head of the local Chamber of Commerce, herself a cat lover, and suggested something be done to help the cats, and in 1992, the Merrimack River Feline Rescue Society was formed.



And all that's very wonderful and heartwarming, but it's not the part that made me cry. This is:

We have twelve feral cats living on the waterfront right now that are fed out of four feeding stations by thirty-five devoted volunteers who are there twice a day feeding and caring for the kitties. The volunteers are all between twelve to fifteen years of age.

Twelve to fifteen years of age. Go give those kids some love.

Project Runway is fierce

I admit I am watching Project Runway because they pay me to, but this week's episode? Brilliant. From my recap at AfterElton.com:

I don't think it's a coincidence that Christian/Chris and Victorya/Jillian ended up with the highest scores in this challenge. The quality of their working relationships were apparent, and fostered creativity, even though the two teams were very different.

The two women respected each other and crafted a strategy for cooperation even though there were issues, while Chris and Christian built on their easy chemistry to express their design talent as well as their craft skills.

It was also interesting to me that the pairings with two women and two gay men pulled this off, not just as designers but as teams. Stereotypes might have suggested that one team would have been catty and the other, bitchy, but not so much with the negative stereotypes on this season's Project Runway, I guess. Yay.

It's here. And yes, I say bitchy things too. That is what they pay me for, yo.

An online evening with Nathan Winograd

I'm an editor over at PetHobbyist.com, and one its family of websites, RescueNetwork.org, is presenting an evening with Nathan Winograd as the opening event of our 10th Annual Chat Week -- which is, in honor of the anniversary, going to be Chat MONTH this time around. Please help spread the word, thanks!

An Evening with Nathan Winograd
Friday, February 1, at 9 PM Eastern Time

The event is free. For more information or to sign up for a free email
reminder of the chat:

http://www.rescuenetwork.org/articles/NathanWinograd.html

Nathan Winograd's 2007 book "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" set off a firestorm of controversy -- and inspired an army of animal lovers across the country, calling for serious reform of the American shelter system and an end to the use of killing as a tool of animal population control.

RescueNetwork.org is proud to present an evening with Nathan Winograd as the opening event of PetHobbyist.com's Tenth Annual Chat Month. Please join us on Friday, February 1, at 9 PM Eastern Time in the Auditorium. In addition to authoring "Redemption," Winograd is the director of the national No Kill Advocacy Center. He is a graduate of Stanford Law School, a former criminal prosecutor and attorney, was director of operations for the San Francisco SPCA and executive director of the Tompkins County SPCA, two of the most successful shelters in the nation. He has spoken nationally and internationally on animal sheltering issues, has written animal protection legislation at the state and national level, has created successful No Kill programs in both urban and rural communities, and has consulted with a wide range of animal protection groups including some of the largest and best known in the nation.

Other guests during Chat Month will include Joan Miller, legislative analyst for the Cat Fanciers Association, and Karen Delise, author of "The Pit Bull Placebo." More information and updates as they are announced, at this link:

http://www.pethobbyist.com/ChatMonth10.html

HSVMA: What ' s in a name?

Gina blogged yesterday that HSUS and American Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) have joined forces to create the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA). And I thought, wow. Smart name. And then, like Gina, I found myself wondering what the AVMA -- the American Veterinary Medical Association -- was gonna think about this.



I don't know the answer to that question, but I can make a good guess. That's because back in 2004, the AVAR was expelled from the AVMA's annual conference after running an ad in the New York Times accusing the AVMA of supporting "some of the cruelest conditions for raising farm animals to be found anywhere in the world."



The headline on the ad? "Has anyone betrayed more animals than the American Veterinary Medical Association?"



And although HSUS and the AVMA have from time to time stood on the same side of some issues, they parted ways rather abruptly in 2006.



So, what's up with the copycat name, then? Could it be that HSUS wanted to cloak itself in the mantle of the AVMA's and the veterinary profession's credibility? To make an alliance with what is essentially a fringe veterinary group, and then use that oh-so-similar name to create an impression of a much broader veterinary medical authority?



It's not just the name that makes me wonder, either. In announcing the formation of the new organization HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle said, “Veterinarians bring a special credibility and authority on animal issues." And he's right. They do.



But "special credibility" is not medical language. It's not even animal welfare language. It's PR language.



Imagine that.

Pit or not: When it ' s a life or death decision

From Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly at Dolitter, a reflection on a truly stupid, unenforceable Miami-Dade County law making life a living hell for loving pit bull owners while those who scoff the law in the first place laugh

Pits used in violent street life (by those who would treat them as weapons long before making sure they had clean water and reasonable shelter) somehow still thrive under the ban.... (I)t’s the well-behaved pit bull crosses marched through tony Lincoln Road in their $100 collars that are most likely to receive citations ($500 the first time, $5,000 and risk confiscation or euthanasia the next). And it’s the coddled, family-pet pit bulls who moved here with their parents and settled into well-kept neighborhoods that are more at risk of actual “neighborly” repercussions.



I have several clients caught in this maelstrom of stress on the issue. Some will do anything possible to ensure no one sees their dog. Others hide their dog’s true appearance with cute T-shirts and sweaters. But mostly, keeping a pit under wraps means no puppy parks, no Lincoln Road, no trips to Starbucks. Nothing. Total confinement.



I even have a couple of clients who deny their dogs look like pit bulls at all and hope this thin thread of vain hope will keep them safe. While this latter group might have a leg to stand on elsewhere, Miami-Dade’s one breed ban enforcement officer is the sole arbiter. Even if you don’t think your dog looks pit-ish, this guy decides—all by himself with little room for appeal. (I’d like to look at his tax returns and compare them to his living conditions since I’m convinced there’s no better recipe for corruption).

Some of her clients have wondered if the new breed-identifying DNA tests might protect their "pit-looking" non-pits from this entirely arbitrary law:

In one notable case, a dog purchased in a pet store as a purebred (not a pit, though I won't name the breed) turned out suspiciously large and big-headed. A neighbor turned her in. In spite of her “papers,” the county’s pit man says she’s enough of a pit to warrant a citation. Talk about adding insult to injury (or is it “dumb and dumber”?): She paid good money for a dog that’s not a purebred and now she’s being fined for keeping a pit.



Will genetic testing help sort this one out? Doubtful. Not as long as the County Dog Czar holds sway over the nonexistent jury. Maybe next time he comes around she should just offer to make his Mercedes payment for him. Beats paying for moving costs…but there’s got to be a better way.

Good stuff here.

True believer

Like everyone, I have a routine. I check my email, my email lists, and a handful of blogs, throughout the day. And a few days ago, I slapped Daily Kos back onto the top navigation bar of Firefox, for the first time since... well, the last election.

I started this blog during Howard Dean's presidential campaign. At the time I felt like the new kid on the block as a blogger. Today, I earn part of my income blogging. I spend a great deal of my leisure time blogging, too. I'm certainly not an A-list political blogger, except in the small area where pet blogging and politics overlap -- legislation, pet food recall, no kill.

Okay, maybe that's not as small an area as I thought.

But when it comes to national electoral politics, I'm just another voter with a blog. And one who is suddenly incredibly excited and energized about this election.

For a long, long time I've looked wistfully at independent and third party candidates and wished they had a chance. Back in the day, I sort of liked Perot. I'll never forget the vice-presidential debate, when the moderator asked each candidate for his position on abortion rights. Both the Repub and the Dem blah blah blahed about being against abortion, with the Dem adding additional blah blah blah about reducing abortions but not making them legal, and, well... blah blah blah.

Perot's running mate, the late Admiral James Stockdale? The grizzled ex-POW just snapped out, "I believe a woman owns her body and what she does with it is her own business. Period." I'm not trying to rewrite history here, or posthumously canonize the guy or the Perot presidential campaign, but you can see where I come from: I want to believe.

I want to believe that things can really change, for the better. That the age of inspirational leaders of great character and vision isn't over for all eternity. That a black person can be president, and that might heal the great aching bleeding wound of racism that's destroying this country.

And I want my beliefs not to be proven misplaced. I want them to turn out to be true.

Still more Project Runway

Back to shallow explorations of popular culture. In some ways it's a relief.

I liked this dress best from last night's Project Runway. It didn't win. That was wrong.

I won't lie or try to hide my feelings: This dress was completely, totally, and utterly made of every bit of win and awesomeness that has ever been infused into a prom dress in the history of design.

It was a long, silvery sweep of charmeuse that Rita Hayworth could have worn walking down the red carpet at some iconic Academy Awards celebration in the Golden Age of Hollywood. I'm not even a big Sweet P fan, and she barely hung on by her fingernails last week, but this dress? This dress was the dress. And Nicole knew it, her dark hair cascading down her bare back in loose curls, her candelabra earrings brushing her shoulders, kicking her train behind her like she was born on the runway. Win all around.

See my full recap and many other opinions over on AfterElton.com, as usual. Also, I blogged over there about a fag joke Bravo chose to air on the show... that entry is here.

Surprised by Obama

I finally finished a 457897 page analysis of a Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association article on the health effects of spaying and neutering, and it's over on Pet Connection.

And on Wednesday, I'll be recapping Project Runway over on AfterElton.com again.

But tonight, indulge me, because I had no idea how much I wanted Barak Obama to be the Democratic nominee until I heard he came in second in New Hampshire tonight.

I don't have any personal animosity towards Hillary Clinton, and she'd certainly be a decent president. As a woman, I suppose I should want her to win, but all I can think of is the ugly, bitter campaign that would follow her nomination. I don't want it. I don't want to live through it.

But until Iowa, I really wasn't a big Obama supporter. Like all the Dem frontrunners, he's bad on my issues -- by which I mean, my full equality as a lesbian citizen of this country -- and I particularly don't like the fact that he sometimes mentions his religion as the reason for that, because the private religion of an elected official should be just that, private, and not have any impact on my civil rights.

But I don't care anymore. I realized last week that I want a black president, and if I can't have that, I want a black presidential candidate. I want it like I want air and water. I want to see people who have never voted get involved in the electoral process. I want to see people who feel disenfranchised -- black Americans, young Americans, mixed race Americans, the children of immigrants -- see one of their own holding center stage every night on CNN. I want it so bad it hurts.

I'm not completely sure why I want that more than I want a woman. Maybe if Hillary wasn't so horribly divisive for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender -- if this was Bill running again, the same thing would be happening, even though I know her gender informs and colors the nature of the attacks against her -- I wouldn't feel this way.

I know that a come-from-behind candidate like Obama should be overjoyed at his strong second place finish in New Hampshire, and the electric impact he's had on crowds there and in Iowa. He should certainly be thrilled at his strong win in Iowa, too, of course.

But it wasn't until I heard he'd been edged out by Clinton tonight, and my heart hit my shoes, that I really knew how much I want him to win.

It took me by surprise.