Hardly a week goes by that I don't get a frantic email from someone wanting me to publicize the case of an individual whose animals were seized due to alleged abuse or neglect.
Sometimes the person is being presented to me as a rescuer or breeder being wrongly targeted by a hostile animal control or shelter organization in their area for opposing the policies or practices of that organization. I've gotten a lot more of those since I began writing about the shelter reform movement.
Sometimes they're being offered as an example of an evil puppy miller whose crimes are likely to be overlooked or under-punished due to ineffective local authorities or corrupt law enforcement or just general apathy.
When I reply, it's usually with something like this:
I've investigated a few situations such as this one, and I've seen as many that were hoarders by any definition as I've seen examples of people being persecuted. There's no way for me to know which one this is, and without knowing that, I can't get involved with this case.
But as you champion this individual's cause, keep one thing in mind. Animals, and people's love for them, have become weapons in a propaganda war over how best to keep animals in our lives and homes.
On one hand, the nationwide movement for shelter reform has caused some disgruntled animal control and shelter workers to make examples or even targets of rescue groups and home-based breeders who have a different view than their own.
On the other hand, among those fighting to defend the traditional relationship between people and companion animals there is an unfortunate tendency to champion every whacko hoarder as a victimized rescuer, and every abusive breeder as a target of an animal control system gone rogue.
Who should we believe? Which side should we be on?
We should be on the side of the truth. When confronted with a report like this one, consider the agenda of whoever is telling the story. Try not to get sucked into these things unless you can get a grasp on the facts. When a case isn't what you thought it was, stop trying to force it to fit your ideology.
And when you talk about these situations, realize that a stealth campaign to restrict and regulate pet ownership in the name of "helping animals" created this conflict. But while one side may have started it, those on the other side haven't been slow to adopt the same techniques, making it increasingly hard to know what's really going on in a given situation.
In fact, the willingness of people on both sides of this issue to use every incident as grist for their propaganda mill has made it almost impossible for people to show compassion for humans or animals without the risk of getting sucked into an agenda they may neither understand nor support.
Don't fall for it. Don't play into it. And if you can't win your argument without propaganda, then your argument should fail.
Amen to that, Christie! Excellent, excellent points across the board! I'm sure most people don't realize the subtext of what is going on with the sea-change in animal sheltering and what the agendas of the various players are. I think I'm going to print this out and keep in hand for reference, if you don't mind.
It sometimes seems that the dead giveaway that it's a hoarding situation is when friends or family say something along the lines of "she really loves animals" or "she meant well, but she just got overwhelmed". We got both of those in the recent coverage of a seizure of 40 (that's right 40) neglected horses up here. Up to their knees in manure and filth, so you can imagine the condition their hooves are in. Criminal charges are being filed, probably because this is the second time the situation has occurred and because the woman was stupid enough to try to hide one of the horses from law enforcement.
Sorry we didn't get to see you up here behind The Redwood Curtain, but Gina says that it's tough to pry you out of the City by the Bay and since it's one of my most favorite cities, too, I can certainly understand why.
Posted by: Susan Fox | 14 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
Well said. There's a lot of knee-jerking happening on both sides and I'm quite tired of it.
I'm against lot of the overregulation of pets and their owners. However, I'm also a lifelong proponent of animal welfare.
Some days I feel as though I'm walking a tightrope.
Posted by: Caveat | 14 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
It shouldn't have to be a tightrope. It should be common sense.
Unfortunately in the "war" over companion animals, common sense has been mainly kicked to the curb.
When exposes on puppy-mills or hoarders or bad rescues or whatever are done, and then those with an AR agenda yell it needs more laws, I want to pull out my hair because the abuses shown are just that, abuse. And abusive, inhumane treatment of animals is already illegal and existing laws are in place which should shut these folks down NOW.
And when the "we have to stand behind any and all animal keepers, breeders etc..." groups get going and cry foul, well same problem. Abuse and cruelty are still abuse and cruelty and are immoral and illegal. Period.
I don't care if some one keeps one pet or one hundred. HOW they are kept and treated and their quality of life is more important
Posted by: JenniferJ | 14 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
"And abusive, inhumane treatment of animals is already illegal and existing laws are in place which should shut these folks down NOW."
Sorry but I disagree. Sure there are laws in place but how effective are they? Here in the South animal neglect/abuse laws have no teeth. That is compounded by the fact that so many "officials" - such as the fool in South Carolina - are able to flaunt these weak existing laws. Ineffective abuse/neglect laws need to be eliminated and replaced by effective ones that are enforced for EVERYONE.
Posted by: Carol | 14 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
The effectiveness of a law and the enforcement of a law don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.
In areas where the laws are weak, they can be brought up to a higher standard.
But in areas where there is no will to enforce them, making more or stricter laws will just piss of a lot of people and reduce will for enforcement, not increase it.
Unless the laws in an area really are substandard when comapred to other similar communities, we need to get out of the headset that everything we think is right or best needs to be a law. It doesn't work.
Posted by: Christie Keith | 14 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
Then how exactly do you prosecute offenders for abuse/neglect if there isn't a law for it? So we shouldn't have stricter laws for this because we might offend someone? That's what I'm getting from your post.
Posted by: Carol | 14 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
We need to determine if the problem is our laws suck, or the will to enforce the laws doesn't exist in the community, local law enforcement, etc.
If the laws are the problem, reform them.
If the enforcement is the problem, then more and stricter laws won't work.
Posted by: Christie Keith | 14 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
Frankly, I'd like to have stronger laws already on the books and work on the enforcement of them. That can happen if concerned citizens work together.
Posted by: Carol | 14 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
So, you'd like stronger laws on the books everywhere, across the board? There are no places that already have laws that are good enough?
Posted by: Christie Keith | 14 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
Senator Williams from SC did violate a number of existing laws (both county and state) but simply wasn't held accountable. Hopefully that will change when the parties involved receive enough letters from concerned citizens questioning why the Senator was not charged. I've sent mine.
Posted by: slt | 14 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
uh Carol: if the existing WEAK laws aren't enforced, what makes you think STRONGER laws would be?
Posted by: EmilyS | 15 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
Incentive to enforce.
Lobbyists have the incentive to make sure that laws include no parameters to provide legal repercussions. Pablum.
Laws when made should include the incentive (repercussions).
Otherwise, the laws, enforcement and incentive are left chasing their tails.
Isn't that where we are now? Problems with no incentive, no laws that are sufficent to enforce and no solutions and a disenfranchised society?
Posted by: Ann H | 16 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
I personally feel the laws are more than adequate. What's missing is the enforcement.
I find it odd that municipalities consider enforcement of simple leashing, licensing, maintenance and care bylaws to be a very low priority. They do not allocate proper resources, either financial or in terms of personnel, believing it is a waste of money.
Yet, many of these places have no problem with legislating dog owners into second-class status because of the shape of their pets, or mandating invasive surgery with health implications for animals, then actively enforcing those completely useless approaches.
There are systems out there that are universal, fair, enforceable and taxpayer neutral. They don't cost taxpayers a cent, in other words as they are fully funded by pet owners.
Until animal abuse and cruelty along with negligent pet ownership are considered a priority, there will be no improvement.
More laws are definitely not the answer, at least not across the board. Enforcement of existing regs is the key, as shown in places where they have been successful.
Posted by: Caveat | 16 April 2008 at 08:00 PM
I join the others here who are asking…if existing laws are not being enforced, how does one propose that a stronger law will be better enforced?
Posted by: Joy | 10 May 2008 at 08:00 PM