Is this the year everything changed? Nathan Winograd ' s year in pets

Nathan Winograd took a look back at 2008 and decided it was overall a pretty good year for animals. People have gotten better at not calling population control killing "euthanasia," and even long-time naysayers of the no-kill movment seem to have had a change of heart recently:

In 2008, HSUS stated that the public does care about companion animals and is not to blame for their killing in shelters, that killing animals in shelters is “needless,” that we can be a No Kill nation today, and that “pet overpopulation” is more myth than fact.



[....]



This language is like nothing that has ever come out of HSUS on the companion animal issue, and it is my most fervent hope that it will signal a permanent shift away from HSUS’ historical role of legitimizing and providing political cover for shelters mired in killing. And while it is still much too early to uncork the champagne (see Loser: HSUS, below); there is some reason for hope.



After announcing that shelters should not adopt animals until after New Year’s Eve-effectively condemning these animals to death-HSUS apologized and removed the recommendation from their website. They also turned around and lent their support to the Home for the Holidays campaign, which is a national adoption campaign in which thousands of shelters nationwide participate, whose goal was to adopt out 1 million shelter animals between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day.

He also thinks it's been a damn good year overall for pit bulls, thanks to the blitz of publicity given to the dogs saved from Michael Vick's fighting ring; for Maddie's Fund, because of an innovative program they're developing to increase shelter adoptions nationwide (disclaimer: I'm doing some consulting with Maddie's Fund these days); for Washoe County, Nevada, where Bonney Brown is doing a kick-ass job saving lives even in the face of considerable challenges from a tumbling economy; and for books and films that celebrate dogs and cats:

Authors, movie studios, magazines have discovered the secret of success. “Sex sells” has been unseated by neutered animals. Marley & Me, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, Dewey, if it was a story about animals, it reached the best seller list or broke box office projections. Even cartoon animals, like Bolt, carried the day. And if Naysayers tried to attack it, their voices were drowned out by an even louder chorus of animal loving people.



In 2008, PETA, shelters, and even rescue groups attacked Disney for celebrating our love of dogs with the release of Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Ironically, the actual Beverly Hills Chihuahua was a dog saved from death row at a shelter and the movie included a disclaimer asking people to adopt from shelters. These groups ended up being attacked themselves by No Kill advocates for threatening to kill Chihuahuas.

Of course, being Nathan, he had to present the bad news about last year, too -- and HSUS was responsible for some of that, as well:

Despite new language at the end of 2008, the Humane Society of the United States defended the wholly unnecessary extermination of every shelter animal at Tangipahoa Parish in Louisiana....



[....]



In August of 2008, the Tangipahoa Parish President ordered the killing of every animal in the Hammond, Louisiana animal shelter when a few dogs came down with diarrhea. When it was over, more than 170 dogs and cats lay dead. A former shelter employee says she’ll never forget the image: “I did walk back there at one point and they were all piled on top of each other, just lying there dead.”



Ignoring the question of why virtually all animals (including cats) were killed when only some of them were sick (and with minor, treatable illnesses than only afflicts dogs), HSUS blamed the mass killing of 170 animals on the public. The most criticism it can muster-which stretches reality to the breaking point in order to label it as “criticism,” is its use of the impotent word “unusual” to describe the unnecessary slaughter of almost every single animal in the facility; but HSUS then immediately follows it up by blaming under-funding and under-staffing as if these were the culprits in the decision to kill all the animals, or as if the Parish president has no role in funding and staffing. In fact, former staff members decried a pattern by local leadership of deliberately cutting corners on staffing when it came to animal care and cleaning and using mass killing as an ongoing strategy. The mass slaughter was not “unusual,” Mr. Pacelle. It was abhorrent, abysmal, intolerable and outrageous.

He also takesa  swing at someone who came in for a fair bit of criticism on this blog, too: King County Executive Ron Sims:

If Robert Harper is the ideal County Executive, Ron Sims is the evil twin from King County, WA. Under his watch, staff members of King County Animal Control who were involved in animal neglect are still employed; and, supervisors who allowed it to continue and/or then subsequently covered it up have received promotions. Meanwhile, those who sought to report it have been threatened with termination; and citizens who have answered the call to help the Council fix the broken shelter system have been smeared.



In the end, however, this malfeasance pales in comparison to what the animals have had to endure under his (lack of) leadership. Report after report, audit after audit, complaint after complaint shows rampant neglect, uncaring, and cruelty. Given that animals have not only suffered terribly, they have literally lost their lives because of it, can anyone say impeachment?

But best of all was Nathan's final word on 2008:

The animal movement has been living with ... the notion that despite all the evidence to the contrary-the people we see at the dog park, the people we talk to in the lobby of our veterinarian’s office, the best selling books and top box office movies about animals, how much we spend on our pets, how many of us share our homes with animal companions, the demographics that show the immense compassion of a pet loving nation-that Americans are irresponsible and somehow don’t care enough about animals. And, the corollary which flows from this uncaring is that shelters in this country have no choice but to put to death roughly four million dogs and cats every year.



But that was proved wrong when Californians overwhelmingly pass Proposition 2. The vote to outlaw battery cages for chickens, where hens are crammed into confined spaces the size of a desk drawer, may have had as its focus protecting animals on farms from what many see as the worst abuses of the factory farming system, but its resounding success at the polls has a far greater significance for all animals. The victory of Proposition 2-specifically its margin of victory-should not only shatter every notion we hold about people’s view of animals, but it also illustrates the ease with which we could end the pound killing of dogs, cats, and all the other companion animals currently being slaughtered by the millions.



What makes the Proposition 2 vote especially significant is that Americans not only care about dogs and cats; they also care about animals with which they do not have a personal relationship. And if they none-the-less care so much about them, despite all the forces telling them voting for Proposition 2 was a bad idea, we need to put to bed, once and for all, the idea that dogs and cats need to die in U.S. shelters because people are irresponsible and don’t care enough about them.



In fact, a recent study showed that 81 percent of people said they would buy holiday gifts for their dogs, and 69 percent would sooner tighten their belts on friends and extended family than tighten the collars on their dogs. And 65 percent would rather eat ramen noodles than make their dogs eat on the cheap.



We are truly a national of animal lovers. And we deserve animal shelters which reflect our values, rather than the kill-oriented system in place in far too many communities. This is a breach of the public trust, a gross deviation from their responsibility to protect animals, and a point of view that we, as caring people and a humane community, can no longer accept or tolerate.

He has plenty more to say about 2008, and some predictions for the coming year, here.

Comments

[Dogs]

As far as pit bulls are concerned, they are banned here in Ontario.

Thing is, there are many dogs that may look like pit bulls but are not, a fact that can make for some pretty confusing situations.

In the news here over the last year there have been numerous cases in which owners of mix breeds that look like pits have been cited for owning actual pit bulls.

What majestic dogs they are, its a shame people do not know how to handle them properly.

[Alex in Welderland]

Thanks for the great article. I also just ordered his book.



The only thing I have an issue with is:



"The animal movement has been living with … the notion that despite all the evidence to the contrary...that Americans are irresponsible and somehow don’t care enough about animals."



All his evidence sounds like it is from a certain, more educated, demographic than what really exists in America. And not the one that lives in my neighborhood. In my valley, not a day goes by that I do not see 5-6 dogs in the middle of the street. Every day different dogs. Most dogs are outside only dogs. They are living alarm systems. I would be hard pressed to find a dog that has been spayed or neutered, or with a collar and tag. Most people I have spoken to think a dog should have at least one litter of puppies. Many have more. Dogs tied and chained are a common occurrence. All this is so rampant that it is the one thing that has made me think of moving because it is just too hard to deal with every day. (I am not, and am working for change, but the desire to run away from it is there)



Sadly, in many, many places, I am still waiting to see the evidence.

[Gina Spadafori]

There will always be people who don't take the best care of their pets. But that may be a failure of knowledge or lack of finances.



Consider this: Would you say that most people love and do their best to care for their children? I bet you would. And yet, every day you see evidence to the contrary. It doesn't change the fact that most people love and want to do well by their children (and their pets). But sometimes, they need information, and sometimes, they need help.



When BADRAP went into what many would consider a troubled area with offers of vaccines, food and more, they had lines of people who came to learn and get the assistance. They heard from people who loved their dogs and wanted to do better for them -- and with some help, they could!



The bottom line: People are mostly not evil or bad. Sometimes they need help, sometimes they need information (not lectures). Provide these and they'll usually do what's right.



Sometimes I find that the attitude towards "those people" says more about our own socio-economic status that it does about theirs.

[Alex in Welderland]

I am in total and absolute agreement with you! You,pretty much repeated what I had said with better elaboration:). I was sharing what the results of a lack of opportunity and access can, and often does, result in.



I do think we still have a way to go in terms of education. I did not imply anything to the contrary at all. He just had used 'anecdotal' evidence, at least that is the way I read it (I could be completely wrong), and so I did as well, and we really need to be careful of that...



(and now I am off to google BADRAP, thank you!)



p.s. I think people not having information they need is somehow the saddest thing. As they would offer their pets better options if they knew that was needed. ("they" referring to the demographic that doesn't take the best care of their pets, no other "they" intended.)

[Alex in Welderland]

Derail: I just read my post and it sounds a bit intense. I am just getting used to commenting and trying to stay succinct in getting my thoughts out. So if it sounds argumentative, my apologies, no such intention at all. :)

[Gina Spadafori]

No apology necessary. If we didn't care, we wouldn't share our thoughts in such a forceful way.



The other day there was a snippet from a blow-hard radio talk-show host in which he stated that poor people were that way because of a failure of hard work and morals. In other words, it was their own darn fault.



I think there's a certain amount of this attitude in the in the animal-rescue community as well. Especially the vigor with which the shelter industry makes an example of "bad" pet owners -- not by helping them, but by blaming them and killing their pets.



I am old enough to remember when battered women were told their domestic situation was their fault -- they weren't being "good wives" or "you made your bed, now lie in it."



Now, of course, we offer shelter to these women and their children.



I am very much looking forward to seeing a similar change in attitude take hold in the animal shelter industry. A "shelter" shouldn't be a place where you are told you're shit for not keeping your pet and that by taking the animal to a "shelter" you're likely signing a death sentence.

[straybaby]

looks like shelter dogs will get another boost in a week:



http://www.hotelfordogsmovie.com/



And I didn't realize that some of the "Marley labs" are shelter dogs:



"The main dog that plays "Marley" in the film is, himself, a dog from a rescue - proving that great dogs can be found at our nation's shelters. In the movie, "Marley" chews, shreds and wreaks havoc, but his unconditional love inspires."



http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/12-23-2008/0004946589&EDATE=



http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article944649.ece



I hadn't been paying too much attention to specifics about the Marley movie. I found out about the labs after seeing a commercial for Hotel for Dogs and couldn't remember the movie name. I googled "shelter dog movie" and came up with all the Marley stories.



And it looks like both movies are giving a bit of press to shelter adoptions:



http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2008/12/21/2008-12-21_films_marley__me_and_hotel_for_dogs_make.html



I had the pleasure of knowing Picasso that the fund in the article is named after. Great dog with great "pet parents".



http://www.animalalliancenyc.org/picasso/picasso.php