No Kill Conference 2009: Liveblogging the Legislating No-Kill Seminar

Good morning from the 2009 No Kill Conference in Washington DC. After joint keynotes from Nathan Winograd and Maddie's Fund presient Richard Avanzino, I'm in the first workshop in the legal track, "Legislating No-Kill."  I chatted with Nathan a bit before it began, and he said he knew I was a "legislation skeptic, but you'll come around." We'll see.



Liveblog note: I'm doing this live. There will be typos. Only things in quotations marks are direct quotes; everything else is a paraphrase or description.  I will update this post every few minutes, so just hit "refresh" now and then to see the new stuff.



Opening: "I'm Nathan Winograd, and I'm a recovering lawyer.... but most of all, I'm an animal lover."



He then went into the history of the ASPCA, founded by Henry Bergh in New York City in the 1800s -- the beginning of the modern humane movement. This is all stuff that was covered in Redemption.







He finished by talking about how after the death of Bergh, humane societies began doing animal control. In the 19th century, most homeless pets were just wholesale killed. Here in the 21st century, we're still living with a 19th century model of animal sheltering.



We have worked on making killing more humane, making it less stressful on shelter workers, but not on saving lives. Not on working with the public, increasing adoptions, working with rescue groups.



Chicago 1974, first great meeting of animal welfare leaders in the US: AHA, HSUS, AVMA, HSUS, shelter leaders, health departments. Looking for causes and solutions to the surplus dog and cat problem.



Meeting devolved into a search for a scapegoat. Shelters were killing the bulk of animals because of the animals themselves -- lack of adoptability. Determined only around 40 percent of animals were "adoptable" and shelters had moral obligation to kill the rest.



Second group was the public. Their job was not to reform the shelters or change the calculus for shelter animals, but to blame the public not the agencies. Erroneously thought they had an answer to deal with it: for the public to be responsible, need animal control laws: Legislation, education, sterilization.



Leash and license and limit laws. Prohibiting feeding stray animals. Mandatory spay-neuter. Animal control officers with authority to seize and destroy animals they deem a "nuisance." Often, no right of appeal.



These laws miss their mark.



Accept the assumption many people feed stray cats out of compassion. They are scofflaws. Adversaries. Based on this paradigm, we punish, not embrace the public. Adversaries with most compassionate members of the public. And we punish the animals too.



Diverting monety from truly livesaving programs to enforcement. And when agencies are already killing the majority of animals entering their shelters, and saying they have no choice -- we as activists are enabling that behavior by seeking new laws that allow them to impound even more animals. That's why places that pass these kinds of laws, we get increased kill rates.



Mandatory spay/neuter "could not be more wrong... has never worked." It contributes to killing. Lack of spay-neuter is not why animals are being killed, because many communities that don't have good spay/neuter programs still have high lifesaving rates, like Reno.



He does stress he supports low cost spay neuter programs -- just says that lifesaving is not linked to spay/neuter.



The model of things like mandatory spay/neuter, differential dog licensing, and cat licensing has NEVER resulted in a no-kill goal being met. Those that meet it have done it differently.



Case studies:



Los Angeles:



Last decade, impounds and killing declined every year through 2007.



Then in 2007, introduced mandatory spay/neuter law to "end pet overpopulation." Even supported by rescue community, said need this law to become a no-kill community.



When LA County did it, supporters said that "legislation, education, sterilization" was the cornerstone of ending "overpopulation."



Law passes.



They take $400,000 and hires more animal control officers -- not start lifesaving programs. Not even speuter.



Only 0.01 percent of animals in city are assisted with s/n. But officers are going door to door, only in poor neighborhoods. They don't say, we'll give you free or low cost speuter -- they give voucher for $30 off full price at private vets. "But if you don't want a citation, or miss work to go to court, give us the animal and the whole thing goes away."



LAAS does not have the programs in place ot handle increased volume of animals. So despite historic trend of lower impounds and killing, it goes the other way: 24 increase in dog killing, 35 percent of cat killing.



LA blames the economy. But Washoe County, NV, has an 11 percent unemployment rate and a huge foreclosure crisis. Despite economic decline, they reduce killing by 50 percent in 2007, another 10 percent the next year, and it's still going down.



Next case, San Mateo County.



Differential cat license program... cat killing inc reased by 54 percent following passage of that law, and 60 percent the next year -- first ever increase in number of cats impounded and killed EVER in San Mateo County.



But the City of San Mateo did NOT pass the law -- just the county. And their rates kept going down -- 14 percent less, as had been the case for several years.



Next case: King County, Washington



(Missed a little bit here -- sorry.)



Last case, Ft. Wayne, Indiana:



Steady decline seven years prior to ordinance, seven years of INCREASES after ordinance.



Exception:



Santa Cruz, CA claims to have 50-60 percent decline in impounds since mandatory speuter.



Nathan says it's an outlier -- statistical analysis tells you to dump that one, or search for causal variables. For instance, are those the same rates of decline as before ordinance? Change animal control providers? That has not been analyzed by the supporters.



If you look at 1995, a year after nearby San Francisco ended killing of healthy dogs and cats, other Bay Area comms did too, and so did Santa Cruz SPCA.



Trends in Santa Cruz match with introduction of those programs and services but don't go far enough. Declines in impounds and killings but LESS SO than neighboring communities that don't have MSN.



[UPDATE: As LauraS pointed out in the comments, Santa Cruz isn't really an exception -- and it's possible Nathan said, or meant to say, that even if Santa Cruz were an outlier, rather than that it was. I'll check with him and clarify that here as soon as possible.]



Says these are national models for "punitive legislation."



But other communities have reached much higher lifesaving goals WITHOUT these laws. When SF was in its heyday, was safest comm for homeless animals in the US, only 4 percent of the total dog population was licensed and it wasn't being enforced.



Reno, NV, sounds irresponsible. Five times rate of animals in SF, three times in LA, double national average. Pretty irresponsible people in Reno, right? But dog and cat reclaim rates 60 percent stray dogs, 7 percent for cats -- nat'l average is 25 percent for dogs and 1 percent for cats.



"When was the last time a MSN law had death rate declines of 50 rates in one year, or 70 percent? When did it results in save rates of greater than 90 percent?.... It has never happened."



Kansas City saw 80 percent increase in killing pits after MSN for pit bulls.



Education:



Not opposed to humane education, but to way it's done now. Cash strapped organizations telling us, we don't have the money for TNR, foster care program, etc, taking scarce resources and sending staff into classrooms in the hopes these kids will grow up with more humane attitudes. If we're going to do that, ask: does it work?



Note: The wireless connection died just as I was updating, and I lost quite a bit of this. Here is the remainer of what I have, but there is a gap here... sorry!



The alternative is to believe in the community. Two ways to do that:



Change how shelters operate.

Change who operates the shelters.



He looks at the second one first. You need people on staff who will support the new direction. It’s hard work. Better to fire a bad staff member than kill a good animal. A lot of the problem people are on YOUR side of the counter, not the other side.



Sadly, too many shelters are not voluntarily implementing successful models of lifesaving, so we need to mandate those programs – mandate the only model that has been proven to work. By legislating this, shelter directors are forced to embrace a lifesaving goal.



Remove discretion.



Note of caution: Even if shelter follows this model, need to pursue shelter reform legislation anyway. To sustain no kill nation we need to move past system where lives and animals are subject to discretion and whims of shelter directors and local governments.



Traditional sheltering is institutionalized. Directors come and go, killing continues, local government ignores their failure, public is told there’s no other way. A shelter can be crown jewel of movement one day and fade back into killing the next.



We need to have lifesaving programs regardless of who is in the captain’s chair. We need to institutionalize lifesaving.



Every successful social movement results in legal protections that legally codify protection against future violations of that law. We have environmental protection laws, we have voting rights laws, child welfare laws. Same holds true for shelter animals. This must be a right irrespective of who the shelter director is, what community we’re in. We need to regulate shelters the same way we regulate hospitals. We need to give shelter animals the right to live.



1998 Animal Shelter Law in CA introduced by Tom Hayden and Tom McClintock – liberal and conservative. (Hayden Act.) Not legislation, education, sterilization. Not about changing public’s behavior.



They wanted to force shelters to be more progressive. Law’s primary author noted that shelters were failing to provide convenient hours, good lost and found services, good record keeping, microchip, adequate vet care, failed to work with rescue groups, used money to kill animals instead of save them. Shelters have bad track record on adoption.



It is illegal in CA to kill a dog or cat if rescue group will take them. Incentives to stay open on evenings and weekends. Mandated holding period for surrendered owned animals as well as strays. Increased stray hold period. Set a statewide preference for adoption rather than killing.



Shelters mired in killing “predictably oppose the measure.” Felt they were being opened up to public scrutiny. Hayden’s assessment found that shelter groups were being kept silent because the animals were being held hostage for their silence – they couldn’t whistleblow because they’d be prohibited access to the animals. This legally mandated their right to take them. (He says Hayden Act fell short – will say more later.)



In 1998, Vincent Law. Also CA. Requires shelters to s/n before adoption. Focus on reforming shelter, not public.



CAPA – Companion Animal ProtectionAct. Model legislation, being introduced in Reno next month. No Kill Advocacy Center took all laws out there, looked at trends in sheltering.



Closed loopholes in Hayden and Vincent. Removed most discretion in most programs.



Hayden says it’s the policy of CA that no treatable animals can be killed, which defines as animals that could be cured by “reasonable effort,” but it doesn’t define “reasonable effort.”



Also mandated proper exercise, but what is proper exercise?



In NY, mandatory s/n law for shelters led shelters to killing all intact animals rather than trying to adopt them out.



These are the reasons they are taking out almost all discretion, why so many rules, mandates.



Requires fully functioning adoption programs with off-site, requires them to be open 7 days a week, use adoptions, killing can’t be done if alternatives exist, mandates volunteers, requires truthful record keeping, transparency and accountability are mandated.



Under Hayden Law, rescue groups have to come in EVERY DAY and claim animals you’ll take… LA County has 13 shelters not including private shelters. Burden on rescue groups. CAPA requires they send rescue groups notices of animals who will be killed in 48 hours. Makes it illegal for shelters to kill animal unless certain criteria are met.



Can’t be killed just because holding period has expired.



ALL cages, kennels, and living environments must be FULL before killing.

Animal cannot share cage with another animal.

Foster home not available – but you have a program and have put out the call.

No rescue group will take

Animal is not feral – TNR

All mandates, programs, and services of the Act have been met

Director certifies no other alternative



Law defines “savable” very specifically. Loses the smoke and mirrors and semantics.



Calls this course of action reasonable and fair.



It’s been 15 years since SF showed us how to end the killing – it’s time to force those who won’t do it to do so legally. Calls this a reform movement.



If you believe it’s impossible, the animals haven’t got a chance.

Comments

[Rob]

Discovery has a channel they call "Green". The "Green" channel keeps commenting on how many birds feral cats kill. In my tiny brain I think that encourages the killing of feral cats. I'd like to know how many birds human housing projects kill.

[YesBiscuit!]

"Accept the assumption many people feed stray cats out of compassion. They are scofflaws. Adversaries. Based on this paradigm, we punish, not embrace the public. Adversaries with most compassionate members of the public. And we punish the animals too."



This is so *it*. I wish we could broadcast this to every legislator, shelter, pet owner, pet hater, etc.

[YesBiscuit!]

"Only 0.01 percent of animals in city are assisted with s/n. But officers are going door to door, only in poor neighborhoods. They don’t say, we’ll give you free or low cost speuter — they give voucher for $30 off full price at private vets. “But if you don’t want a citation, or miss work to go to court, give us the animal and the whole thing goes away.”"



Evil.

Imagine if they offered low/no cost neuter, how many people would jump at the chance? The general pet owning public is so often dismissed as wholly irresponsible because of a minority of people who need education and/or a few "bad apples". If we could treat pet owners as individuals, imagine the advances that could be made by helping where needed.

[Terry Albert]

Well said, even in shorthand! I have always been frustrated with shelters who claim they don't kill adoptable animals, but when a dog gets kennel cough, he is no longer "adoptable" so he doesn't go into the kill stats. The dog came in healthy.



I agree: no more smoke and mirrors, let's make criteria for euthanasia specific.



It's hard to imagine that shelter employees get into a "kill" mode, but I've seen it happen. They feel they are protecting the animals from a bad or uncertain future. The whole mindset is tragic.



Shelter employees see so many neglected animals and bad owners, it begins to affect how they deal with the public. It's a tough job.

[mikken]

Can it be done Christie, do you think? Legally mandated?

[LauraS]

Christie, could you please pass the word to Nathan: Santa Cruz County is NOT an outlier and they have NOT had a 50-60 percent decline in shelter intakes since MSN went into effect there.



The charts below show what really happened in Santa Cruz Couty according to the data that they submitted to the state, compared to the BIG LIE that MSN supporters have been peddling for two years.



Dogs

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/SC%20Big%20Lie%20dogs.pdf



Cats

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/SC%20Big%20Lie%20cats.pdf



Santa Cruz County has worse per capita shelter statistics than nearby counties such as Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara that do not have MSN.



Why are MSN supporters' claims based on totally fabricated Santa Cruz "data" still being repeated? We pointed this out on the blogs, email lists, state senate, and state assembly nearly 2 years ago.



MSN is a failure in Santa Cruz County.

[Christie Keith]

Hi there, Laura! I will send that to Nathan and insert a note into the liveblog. I agree with you; bad info gets out, and then keeps spreading. I don't think too much while I liveblog, because of the obvious situational issues, but this is one I with I'd noted as I typed, because I was aware of it. He talks very fast -- very challenging to liveblog!



My suspicion is that Nathan DOES know that, and probably meant to say "EVEN IF" Santa Cruz were an outlier -- but again, I'll be sure he sees this! Thanks...

[LauraS]

Thanks Christie :-)