HSUS: Laws are good for pet owners, but not for shelters?

Last night I went to an Animal Welfare Commission hearing at San Francisco City Hall. Nathan Winograd was giving a presentation on the history of the No-Kill movement, which was born in San Francisco, and Dr. Emily Weiss of the ASPCA was going to be speaking, I thought about her "Feline-ality" program, which I'm researching for a future column on SFGate.com.



Apparently there was a lot going on that I wasn't aware of, because I walked into a battlefield. I really can't give my thoughts on what happened and what it all means, because at this point I'm close to head explosion time and I want to do some more research and see what happens next before I write about it.



By way of background, it appears that this hearing and others planned for the future have to do with a proposed law that would change the way shelters are run in San Francisco. In general I'm not in favor of legislative solutions, and I hate micro-management even more. I do support the goals of the law, particularly transparency and accountability and, of course, the end of the use of the killing for animal population control. But mandates are just not my way; while I don't want to weigh in too strongly on this until I learn more, I suspect my feelings aren't going to change.



But there is one small piece of this story on which I'm crystal clear, and it's a letter HSUS wrote to the Commission, signed by Wayne Pacelle.



HSUS doesn't share my aversion to legislative mandates or micro-management. They advocate, write, and support all kinds of laws about the way people keep animals, from California's AB-1634, which I opposed, to California's Proposition 2, which I supported. I think it's fair to say HSUS has never encountered a situation that they didn't think could be improved with a law... with one glaring exception.



After recapping HSUS' views on the state of animal sheltering today, Pacelle writes:

The HSUS generally does not recommend approaches that force agencies to adopt practices that cannot be funded or sustained. Simply enacting a mandate or a policy not to euthanize does not address the root cause of pet overpopulation, and it is not a pathway for meaningful change. At the extreme, such mandates or policies can lead -- and have led -- to serious animal welfare problems affecting large numbers of animals.

I have a few problems with this, like the fact that we don't have pet overpopulation in San Francisco, and that the proposed law goes quite a bit beyond "simply enacting a mandate or a policy not to euthanize," and oh yeah -- this isn't about euthanasia; it's about population control killing, which is not euthanasia by any true definition of the word.



But this is the big one: why doesn't that exact same argument work when we make it in response to intrusive, unfunded, over-arching laws such as universal forced sterilization of owned pets that are advocated and supported by HSUS itself? Those laws have never once worked anywhere they've been tried -- which the policies and programs that are part of this proposed law at least have, even if I still oppose mandating them -- and they, too, have resulted in decreased animal welfare by reducing compliance with animal licensing and rabies vaccination. And they've arguably increased pet abandonment as well.



So it's not just okay but part of HSUS' mission to legislate how pet owners own and keep pets, but not how shelters -- which depend on the tax dollars and donations of the public -- treat animals? Even if you argue that private shelters should be excluded from mandates, how could it be appropriate to tell me at what age I should spay or neuter my pet dog or cat, but inappropriate to tell a public animal control agency how to operate?



If the shelter industry wants to dish out laws, they shouldn't squawk when they're expected to take them.



Disclaimer: I've recently been doing some editorial consulting for Maddie's Fund, but my attendance at this hearing was not related to them in any way.

Comments

[Phyllis DeGioia]

I want HSUS and PETA to keep their paws off my pets, my local shelter, and all the other shelters.



I keep wondering how much more visible their hypocricy would be if they were giving similar inconsistent nonsense about children.

[Susan Fox]

Nah, YesBiscuit!, it'll never work. Your idea makes waaaay too much sense. (Ignoring "Cro-fu", since you otherwise seem to be a rational person)

[YesBiscuit!]

Here's my idea: For one year, every community in the country implements the No Kill Equation. HSUS, PETA and the All Kill Review have to shut the &$#@ up for one year. At the end of the year, we'll compare numbers to ANY YEAR OF THEIR CHOOSING from the past and see who saved more adoptable pets. Loser buys lunch (crow or possibly Cro-Fu, depending on who the loser is).

[EmilyS]

now Christie, surely you're not suggesting that Wayne is, oh I don't know.. a hypocrite?

[2CatMom]

Poor Wayne - I'm suprised his head hasn't exploded. I keep imagining the two sides of Wayne's brain vying for dominance.



$ Brain - we love animals, we want to protect them, send us money. We support no kill. Really we do...send us money.



AR brain - we love animals and don't want you to have any, set the fluffies free, or kill them, we don't care. We support all kill. Especially for pitbulls and feral cats.



One of these days, his head is going to spin completely around and he'll be speaking in tongues.

[Diane C.]

Holy Heck. I have just read Winograd's presentation and am eagerly awaiting your take on it.

[bestuvall]

oh.. and what is "good for the goose is good for gander'. shelters should be the FIRST to step up..not the last.. or not at all

[bestuvall]

Wayne's head cannot explode..too much gel..I agree.. let's offer a postive program.. here is one.. long but interesting



Middle ground was found Thursday between advocates for a spay/neuter

law for the county and opponents of such a law, when a plan for a

free, voluntary spay/neuter event was proposed.



The plan, presented by Claren Ricker at the invitation of County

Commissioner Bill Brown, got a warm reception, both from animal

rescue workers and from hunters who filled the conference room at the

county office annex for a meeting of the Animal Control Committee.



No real opposition to Ricker's plan was expressed, though many

persons made comments and asked questions.



Ricker said she began working on a solution when it became obvious to

her that the county commission would not pass a mandatory spay/neuter

law, though she also said she was "not on either side" of the

controversy.



"I'd rather see the county fix dogs for people at the poverty level,"

Ricker said.



Instead of discussing a spay/neuter law, she proposed that the animal

control committee, or the county animal control facility, or the

Animal Adoption Center of the Greeneville-Greene County Humane

Society, consider sponsoring a free voluntary spay/neuter clinic.



From that point on, there was almost no discussion of the law.



"I really like your idea," Commissioner Clark Justis, a member of the

committee, told Ricker soon after she spoke. Justis said he does not

believe a spay/neuther law would have the effect its backers hope,

but would instead result in "a lot more dogs dropped off at the

county line."



Robin Quillen, president of Ferral Friends, an animal rescue group,

said she would be "all for" Ricker's proposal. She and others said,

however, that to be effective, such an event would need to be held on

an ongoing basis.



Later, Quillen said that a free spay/neuter event twice a year would

probably work.



Commissioner Jan Kiker, the committee's chairman, agreed to work with

Eddie Key, director of the county's animal control facility, and

County Attorney Roger Woolsey to find out all they can about

sponsoring such an event and to report back to the committee next month.



Several people wanted to start raising money immediately, but

Commissioner Brown said fund-raising should wait until more is known.



Ricker said a clinic of the type she was proposing recently spayed or

neutered 186 dogs and cats in two days, at a community center in

Newport.



Kiker said she would ask a veterinarian who was involved in that

effort to come to the April meeting.



Ricker also said she had talked to the veterinary wing of Rural Area

Medicine (RAM), based in Knoxville. She said RAM agreed to bring a

mobile veterinary clinic to Greeneville "if we provide the necessary

environment for them to work in," and raise the necessary money,

estimated at between $2,000 to $5,000.



Cathy Cannon, a Greene Countian who identified herself as a RAM

volunteer, said she would be willing to serve as liaison.



Cheryl Horton, of Voice For Pets, said a group brought veterinary

students to Greene County for a free spay/neuter clinic a few years

ago, and did not charge local supporters, who put workers up in their

homes and fed them.



However, because a low-cost spay/neuter clinic is now in operation

here, Horton said it had been her understanding that Greene County no

longer qualifies for help from that group.



Veterinarian Barbara Hodges, who works for the low-cost spay/neuter

clinic at the Humane Society's animal shelter, said that, at one

time, a sum of money was set aside to make some spay/neuter services

available free to people who cannot afford them. She said, however,

that money has been used up.



Hodges also said the clinic also has received state funding for free

pet surgery from money generated by "Animal Friendly" vehicle tags,

but that funding, which began in July, also has been used up for this

year.



She said the clinic will apply again for the state funding, but that

money will not be available again until July.



C.H. Honeycutt, a hunter, also said Ricker's proposal for free,

voluntary spay/neuter services sounded like "a good idea."



Another man who identified himself as a hunter said he believes the

free, voluntary clinic would work better than a spay/neuter law.

"More people would be willing to do it," he said. "They would feel

like it was their choice."



That same speaker predicted that by summer, which would be the

earliest that Ricker indicated such a clinic can be set up, the need

will most likely be greater, as the effects of "more (job) layoffs"

make themselves evident.



Related to that, Quillen, of Ferral Friends, noted that there is

already a need for pet food for low-income people. She said her group

is strapped for cash, but is trying to provide pet food to the

Community Ministries Food Bank, because the need is likely to increase.



Commissioner Fred Malone Jr. asked about the possibility of providing

the authority to make to animal control officers, and also asked

whether the county government can assess a fine for people who dump

animals along a road.



Key said animal control officers can already write citations for

animal-related offenses, but said he does not think animal control

officers should be making arrests.



County Attorney Woolsey said that counties do not have the authority

to assess a new criminal penalty.



Several persons asked if the county can more strictly enforce

existing leash laws. Key said that enforcing leash laws "the way

people want" those laws enforced would require about 20 animal

control officers, and the county has only two.



Key began the meeting by proposing that the county temporarily

suspend the "relinquish fee" that is charged when pet owners bring a

dog or cat to the animal control facility because they can no longer

keep the animal, or no longer wish to keep it.



Key said that, probably because of the distressed state of the local

economy, fewer people are paying the relinquish fee, and more people

are dumping unwanted pets.



Without the fee, which is $15 for dogs and $10 for cats, Key said he

is hopeful that more people will bring their pets in if they can no

longer care for them.



Approval of that proposal was unanimous with minimal discussion, on a

motion by Commissioner Brown.

esting:

[Shalea Rhodes]

Christie, in reference to your upcoming Feline-ality column, I work with a no-kill cat shelter which has recently implemented the program and would be happy to talk to you about it if you're interested.

[Sue Cosby]

HSUS is unflinching in it's defense of the status quo of sheltering. The world is changing around them. They will change or get out of the way.



Unfortunately the savable animals who are dying can't wait and need more champions NOW.

[Tangi Adopt A Rescue - Joni]

Thanks for this blog posting. More info needs to be placed online about HSUS. When our local animal shelter killed nearly every animal in the shelter HSUS seemed to back them up and put the blame on the people in the parish.



TPAC Animal Shelter Killings News - http://tangiadoptarescue.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/tpac-animal-shelter-killings-news/

[Gina Spadafori]

Matt, a word of advice: You're not gonna get very far in getting others to embrace and work for no-kill communities by comparing dogs and cats to the victims of the Holocaust and people you disagree with to Hitler.



Your first post here and you've immediately jumped to Godwin's Law. That's not a good sign. And it's not going to gain you any more support from the people you need to convince -- the folks who currently think the current shelter system is "doing the best it can."



And by the way: Engage in the discussion. Cut-and-paste broadsides you've posted a thousand other places don't cut it here.

[Matt]

No-Kill Programs: Programs that use non-lethal methods (hence the "no-kill") when dealing with cats and dogs in shelters. These non-lethal methods include: Foster Programs, Spay-Neuter Programs, changing shelter hours so that working people can adopt a cat or dog other than on Mon-Fri from 9-5, Adoption Programs, reducing owner relinquishment (deadbeat pet parents dumping their cats or dogs off, because they dont care enough about them to keep them in the family).





When you cut through the B.S. and leave out the "spin", a person is either:



A. FOR no-kill programs (Save cats and dogs from being murdered in "shelters". No excuses. STOP THE KILLING IMMEDIATELY! Do unto others.........)



B. AGAINST no-kill programs (Let cats and dogs continue to die, while we scratch our behinds and lay our heads down to sleep peacefully at night, while stabbing millions of precious souls in the backs, and sentencing them to death, due to our fear of changing the status quo. Of course, were WE or our kids in the same position as the Cats and Dogs on death row, we'd support no-kill programs real fast, and we would stop stalling, hence the human-animal's ignorant, arrogant hypocrisy.)



If you love cats and dogs and want to stop seeing them murdered, you are FOR no-kill programs.



If you are a politician, businessman/woman or somehow unable to put yourself in other's pawprints, or couldnt care less, you will continue to waste precious time, and precious LIVES.



So, where does the "Humane" Society stand?



They are AGAINST no-kill and thus AGAINST saving lives. So much for being "humane" (Murder is not "humane")



The ASPCA? "Well maybe someday"..but right now, lets continue to do what we usually do to stop the killing: Nothing. So much for protecting animals from cruelty. Killing someone is one of the most cruel things that one can do to another fellow living being. If the lives of the ASPCA policy makers were about to be extinguished, they'd find it to be very cruel.



They say that you can tell who your friends are, because they are there for you when you need them most.



The HSUS, ASPCA (and of course PETA) are not friends of animals.....not cats and dogs anyway.

They advertise themselves as such. But when the time to talk ends and it's time to walk, they sit on their behinds and send millions of precious souls to their deaths. all the while putting on their best act, in order to get donations..



With friends like these, how are we to tell them apart from the animals' enemies?



Answer......actions. If the actions of "cat and dog lovers" who lobby for the continued holocaust of companion animals, are similar to the actions of the enemies of cats and dogs, then such "cat and dog lovers" are enemies of animals, as proven by their actions....their words notwithstanding.



Let me say something that may sound controversial to some, but never the less, needs to be said:



If Adolf Hitler showed his dumb mug on TV talking about how much he loved Jews, and how he wanted to do the "humane" or "ethical" thing, by "euthanizing them for their own good", would that make his mass murder of jews any less despicable and detestable?



Would it make you support Adolf Hitler?



Would you be able to excuse such mass slaughter of precious, beautiful living souls?



Would you contribute to the cause of murdering Jews in order to "spare innocent jews cruelty and suffering"?



After all, there WAS such a huge Jewish population. (Sarcasm).



Only someone who was clinically insane would tolerate such mass murder, and such racism (or, in this case, "Speciesism"). The sane minded among us would say that such actions were utterly wrong, utterly detestable, and they would demand that it stop immediately.



Now, apply such thinking to EQUALLY AS PRECIOUS AND EQUALLY AS WORTHY OF LIFE, CATS AND DOGS.



Do you support their mass extermination?



Do you support this holocaust?



If you support HSUS, ASPCA, or PETA, sadly, the answer is "yes".



Just something to think about. I know that most folks here are genuinely good people. But sometimes, genuinely good people do the wrong thing. I should know: I used to support HSUS, ASPCA, and PETA. In my ignorance, I actually thought that they cared about cats and dogs.



Which is why the truth (that they actually murder cats and dogs), is something really personal to me.



I have been enlightened, and it is so liberating.



My only purpose of this "speech", was to share such enlightenment with others. People need to know, that even though they think they are helping animals, they can actually be causing them more harm than good.....especially when they support groups who murder animals. Only by giving these groups an ultimatum, will things change.



THE ULTIMATUM: UNTIL YOU COMPLETELY, 100%, SUPPORT NO-KILL PROGRAMS, AND COMPLETELY STOP YOUR POLITICS OF KILLING, YOU WILL NOT BE GETTING MY SUPPORT ANYMORE.





Until then, they wont be getting my support. I'll give it instead, to the true animal lovers, such as Best Friends Animal Society, No-Kill Advocacy Center, North Shore Animal League America, and other no-kill groups. Because only those who care enough to defend EVERY INDIVIDUAL cat or dog's right to live, can call themselves true "cat and dog lovers". You cant say that you "love kids", if you are lobbying for kids to be killed. Same goes with our EQUALLY AS PRECIOUS four-legged family members. If you love them, put up or shut up. You either defend them, or you dont. This half-a$$ed nonsense doesnt cut it. The HSUS, ASPCA, PETA have all shut up, when they had a chance to speak in favor of saving lives, and their silence speaks louder than words.





And if you are against no-kill programs, you are by definition, and by your actions, against saving the cats and dogs who will die because of your selfish cowardice.



Such cowards are part of the problem (MURDER), not part of the solution (LIFE).



And it makes me sick, because if they or their family members were about to be injected with a deadly poison, such pro-murderers wouldnt consider it "humane" or "ethical". They would scream what it is: "Murder!"





Moral of the story:

Dont listen to the talk. Watch how someone walks. Then you'll know where they stand.





Ahhh, felt good to get that off of my chest.



For more on no-kill, this is the website to see:



www.nathanwinograd.com