No Kill is one of those terms that is very misused and misunderstood, even among us animal lovers. Just like any strong term that brings a vision in one's mind, No Kill has been misused so often that its definition has become murky. This is further confused by many powerful national animal groups attacking the misunderstood or horribly applied version of the term in practice. More confusion comes in when you see shelters such as ours and others that are sad places akin to hoarding using the term No Kill to define their operations. It's no wonder the term causes ill will and confusion.
In light of the recent misleading comments about No Kill made by Anonymous on this blog, we need to get back to some dictionary definitions of terms we use and to compare and contrast what this blog is talking about when it uses the term No Kill. The way successful shelters operate is the antithesis of what we have at our shelter now and in these examples that groups like PETA use to mislead their supporters about No Kill. That's the anti-No Kill propaganda this Anonymous commenter is spreading here.
Here are some definitions of terms we need to keep in mind:
Open-admission: animal shelters that take in all homeless animals in their community.
Limited-admission: animal shelters or rescues/sanctuaries that take in a limited number of animals; all have different guidelines for animals they will and will not accept and how many they can take in.
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
Euthanize: the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
The way limited-admission shelters and rescues/santuaries operate varies from one to the other. Those who attack No Kill use examples of limited-admission shelters that call themselves No Kill as the only example of No Kill. They are No Kill in the sense that they do not put down healthy or treatable animals, but these facilities and operations are not what I refer to in this blog and in my advocacy. It is a given, to me, that any limited-admission shelter or faciliy should not be killing its animals.
My No Kill advocacy refers to animal shelters and communities whose open-admission shelters and other animal-welfare stakeholders work together to reduce thier overall kill rates to 20 percent and less. It does not mean these communities do not euthanize those animals that are deemed vicious or irremediably suffering after equitable health and behavioral evaluations. That would be cruel and neglectful if a shelter did not offer euthanasia in the dictionary-definition sense of the term.
I am referring to open-admission shelters that are legitimate safety nets for the homeless animals in their care and appropriately and fully implement the No Kill Equation listed at right. They do exist ... these good examples ... just as bad examples such as our shelters and others exist, too. Many are next door to us, such as in El Paso. Bad examples are the majority at this time, but many are working hard to add more good examples into the mix.
What our community's leaders need to do is some serious research to get beyond the high-level terminology and into the nuts and bolts of what makes a good animal shelter tick. What do they do, how to do they do it, how do they operate, and what policies and protocols/procedures do they have in place? This is the business model we need to follow. It's not that hard to figure out, and they could also go visit places to see success first-hand.
It is clear to anyone who is not clueless about progressive sheltering who has walked into our shelter the stark difference in these terms, how far we still have to go, and how some ways in which our shelter operates are in direct opposition to a shelter headed in the No Kill direction. That our community has a long way to go is an understatement.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Sorry for the gaps between blogs these days
I am sorry my blog postings have been few and far between these days. We are starting a new non-profit here that launched a pet food bank, and we are busy working on that. I have also become a Dogs Deserve Better (DDB) representative for this area. I spent last Sunday chained to a dog house for 8 hours at Apodaca Park as part of DDB's annual Chain Off demonstration.
Nevertheless, my thoughts are never far from the urgent needs of our animals and the long way our community has to go to reach progressive, modern sheltering services that can better meet these the challenges we face. My next blog posting will be a continuation of the No Kill Conference's Seminar called Overcoming Internal Obstacles to Success. I will summarize the wise words of Bonney Brown, the executive director at the Nevada Humane Society.
I have no doubt the biggest obstacles to our success are internal ... inside ourselves in the mantras we repeat each day and inside our institutionalized ways of doing things the same old ways. For an example of that, look to the anonymous comment this blog just received from someone repeating the lies PETA tells to its supporters regarding No Kill sheltering. I am not sure how PETA knows anything about this subject; they use the worst shelters in the country as examples of No Kill in their propaganda, and they themselves run a shelter in Norfolk, VA, with an extremely high kill rate.
Tune later this week for my summary of how we can start to break down our own internal barriers. That's the first place we all need to start.
Nevertheless, my thoughts are never far from the urgent needs of our animals and the long way our community has to go to reach progressive, modern sheltering services that can better meet these the challenges we face. My next blog posting will be a continuation of the No Kill Conference's Seminar called Overcoming Internal Obstacles to Success. I will summarize the wise words of Bonney Brown, the executive director at the Nevada Humane Society.
I have no doubt the biggest obstacles to our success are internal ... inside ourselves in the mantras we repeat each day and inside our institutionalized ways of doing things the same old ways. For an example of that, look to the anonymous comment this blog just received from someone repeating the lies PETA tells to its supporters regarding No Kill sheltering. I am not sure how PETA knows anything about this subject; they use the worst shelters in the country as examples of No Kill in their propaganda, and they themselves run a shelter in Norfolk, VA, with an extremely high kill rate.
Tune later this week for my summary of how we can start to break down our own internal barriers. That's the first place we all need to start.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Shelter oversight board -- what's the point?
I had some time off last week to attend the ASCMV oversight board meeting. I usually cannot attend the meeting because it is held each first Thursday of the month at 9 a.m. in the county commission chambers. This automatically excludes most of us that work full-time, but if you fall in this category, I can assure you that you are not missing much. The only useful information I get out of these meetings is the shelter statistics, which are not provided to the public any other time.
I attended the first meeting this board had some months ago. At that time, as with anything new, I was hopeful along with the other animal advocates. We felt the shelter would finally be getting the kind of oversight it needed instead of letting one person be completely in charge and not holding that person accountable.
What I learned this past Thursday is that these meetings are almost a complete waste of time for animal advocates to attend, much less provide any input. There are 3-minute intervals given for public input at the beginning and end of the meeting, but the comments are completely ignored. It's like talking to a wall made up of several people just glaring at you.
Unfortunately, there is no opportunity to acknowledge or address known issues, much less the detailed solutions per issue. Let's say you got up and made a comment about the lack of enrichment and socialization for both cats and dogs held long-term at the shelter. This is a serious issue because it directly affects many other areas of operations and chances of survival for animals--such as the high rate of upper respiratory infections in stressed cats and how poorly hyper dogs "show" to potential adopters. If you got up and made that comment and suggested some solutions, the board would not respond at all, much less ask the director of the animal shelter when and how the issue is going to be addressed.
What the meetings turn out being is a back-patting fest. The board members pat the shelter director on the back for a supposed "job well done" for facing the hardships of such a job. The board members pat each other on the back. Advocates are "allowed" to make public input, so they can check that box off their list as supposedly giving people an opportunity to speak up. However, if it leads to the nowhere it has always led, what is the point? You would do no better standing alone in your living room making comments to walls.
The following comment is from someone who works closely with the new ASCMV oversight board:
"The Board has a professional Shelter Manager, responsible for the Shelter. The Board is required to trust and support her in all the details of the operation. The responsibility of the Board is general oversight, keeping things on track, getting funding, and things like that. They have no independent Shelter expertise, and cannot, should not, and are even prohibited from trying to do her job for her, or manage her closely."
These are comments via e-mail from someone who holds a leading position on the oversight board to an animal advocate raising concerns:
"[The shelter director] will be giving a presentation on the report at our next meeting. I have no reason not to trust what she reports. I know that others do not feel this way, but I must admit that as time goes on I find myself trusting her more than others ...
Then he goes on to say this contradictory statement at the end of the e-mail message:
"My door, my phone, and my email are always open. Even my personal access is open to you. Who else allows you and most others this kind of access and willingness to listen, understand and RESPOND? I hope that matters to everyone out there. I fell like it doesn't."
If this person trusts what the director says and not a word out of anyone else's mouth, then how can he say that access to him is a true willingness to listen to anyone? The report referred to in this comment is the last review of our shelter done by a forensic veterinarian in April 2008. That report is the fouth in a long list of assessments our shelter has received in the last few years, all pointing to very troubling issues in its operations. Many of us have yet to see anyone address each issue in any detail.
For this oversight board to simply take the director's "word for it" is not acceptable. They should be at the shelter seeing if issues are being addressed with their own eyes. If they are not in place to provide close management and hold the director accountable, then who does play that role? Someone should. That person or group of persons owes it to our homeless animals to come up to speed on sheltering practices, legal issues, and modern approaches to animal sheltering. If advocates can take advantage of the wealth of information available on this topic, why can't this oversight board or whomever is going to hold the shelter's leadership accountable?
The fact is, whether hearsay or not, any issue that is brought up to our leaders should be investigated. Some of what is reported is completely unprofessional, and if the director has no one that holds them accountable, then our shelter is being managed by nothing short of a dictator that is empowered to operate as she/he sees fit and who gets the political cover to continue bad practices.
Again, as animal advocates, we are left with the same Twilight Zone that is our shelter. Frankly, I am tired of it and don't see how things will change under the current leadership.
Personally, I have decided to step more and more away from the shelter and the losing battle and waste of energy and time; my only advocacy or comments about it are addressd here in this blog. I usually write about progressive and modern approaches to issues our shelter is facing. The way I see it, it is up to the shelter's leadership to change the way they do business.
Moving ahead for our community, what is obvious to me is that one group of people needs to change gears and focus the bulk of our time and energy on building up alternatives, keeping animals from the shelter in the first place, and someday having a capital campaign to build a new shelter that can be run by a private non-profit that can model good sheltering standards of care and customer service, etc. It's clear that no matter how many shelter tours our leaders take, they are not getting it because they don't even understand what they are looking at. All they see is a facility overwhelmed with animals, the only words they listen to are the director they hired, and so they assume nothing else can be done. Maybe seeing modern sheltering will finally help them see the light because shelter operations can and should be done differently.
That's where I hope to put my focus in the future.
I attended the first meeting this board had some months ago. At that time, as with anything new, I was hopeful along with the other animal advocates. We felt the shelter would finally be getting the kind of oversight it needed instead of letting one person be completely in charge and not holding that person accountable.
What I learned this past Thursday is that these meetings are almost a complete waste of time for animal advocates to attend, much less provide any input. There are 3-minute intervals given for public input at the beginning and end of the meeting, but the comments are completely ignored. It's like talking to a wall made up of several people just glaring at you.
Unfortunately, there is no opportunity to acknowledge or address known issues, much less the detailed solutions per issue. Let's say you got up and made a comment about the lack of enrichment and socialization for both cats and dogs held long-term at the shelter. This is a serious issue because it directly affects many other areas of operations and chances of survival for animals--such as the high rate of upper respiratory infections in stressed cats and how poorly hyper dogs "show" to potential adopters. If you got up and made that comment and suggested some solutions, the board would not respond at all, much less ask the director of the animal shelter when and how the issue is going to be addressed.
What the meetings turn out being is a back-patting fest. The board members pat the shelter director on the back for a supposed "job well done" for facing the hardships of such a job. The board members pat each other on the back. Advocates are "allowed" to make public input, so they can check that box off their list as supposedly giving people an opportunity to speak up. However, if it leads to the nowhere it has always led, what is the point? You would do no better standing alone in your living room making comments to walls.
The following comment is from someone who works closely with the new ASCMV oversight board:
"The Board has a professional Shelter Manager, responsible for the Shelter. The Board is required to trust and support her in all the details of the operation. The responsibility of the Board is general oversight, keeping things on track, getting funding, and things like that. They have no independent Shelter expertise, and cannot, should not, and are even prohibited from trying to do her job for her, or manage her closely."
These are comments via e-mail from someone who holds a leading position on the oversight board to an animal advocate raising concerns:
"[The shelter director] will be giving a presentation on the report at our next meeting. I have no reason not to trust what she reports. I know that others do not feel this way, but I must admit that as time goes on I find myself trusting her more than others ...
Then he goes on to say this contradictory statement at the end of the e-mail message:
"My door, my phone, and my email are always open. Even my personal access is open to you. Who else allows you and most others this kind of access and willingness to listen, understand and RESPOND? I hope that matters to everyone out there. I fell like it doesn't."
If this person trusts what the director says and not a word out of anyone else's mouth, then how can he say that access to him is a true willingness to listen to anyone? The report referred to in this comment is the last review of our shelter done by a forensic veterinarian in April 2008. That report is the fouth in a long list of assessments our shelter has received in the last few years, all pointing to very troubling issues in its operations. Many of us have yet to see anyone address each issue in any detail.
For this oversight board to simply take the director's "word for it" is not acceptable. They should be at the shelter seeing if issues are being addressed with their own eyes. If they are not in place to provide close management and hold the director accountable, then who does play that role? Someone should. That person or group of persons owes it to our homeless animals to come up to speed on sheltering practices, legal issues, and modern approaches to animal sheltering. If advocates can take advantage of the wealth of information available on this topic, why can't this oversight board or whomever is going to hold the shelter's leadership accountable?
The fact is, whether hearsay or not, any issue that is brought up to our leaders should be investigated. Some of what is reported is completely unprofessional, and if the director has no one that holds them accountable, then our shelter is being managed by nothing short of a dictator that is empowered to operate as she/he sees fit and who gets the political cover to continue bad practices.
Again, as animal advocates, we are left with the same Twilight Zone that is our shelter. Frankly, I am tired of it and don't see how things will change under the current leadership.
Personally, I have decided to step more and more away from the shelter and the losing battle and waste of energy and time; my only advocacy or comments about it are addressd here in this blog. I usually write about progressive and modern approaches to issues our shelter is facing. The way I see it, it is up to the shelter's leadership to change the way they do business.
Moving ahead for our community, what is obvious to me is that one group of people needs to change gears and focus the bulk of our time and energy on building up alternatives, keeping animals from the shelter in the first place, and someday having a capital campaign to build a new shelter that can be run by a private non-profit that can model good sheltering standards of care and customer service, etc. It's clear that no matter how many shelter tours our leaders take, they are not getting it because they don't even understand what they are looking at. All they see is a facility overwhelmed with animals, the only words they listen to are the director they hired, and so they assume nothing else can be done. Maybe seeing modern sheltering will finally help them see the light because shelter operations can and should be done differently.
That's where I hope to put my focus in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
