Animal Sheltering ... then and NOW

Speak up about proposed new animal ordinances for the city/county

2011-02-17T16:57:00.030-07:00

I know it has been some time since I posted something new to this blog, but I am going to start posting more to it in the next year, especially as important animal-welfare issues come to light in our community. Right now, we are at a crossroads concerning some new animal ordinances which were proposed this week (on Feb. 14, 2011) by a committee formed nine months ago to review the city/county ordinances and make improvements/suggestions. They were also tasked to make one set of ordinances instead of having two different ones, which makes sense. This was also a perfect opportunity to model our ordinances more closely to communities in the U.S. which are saving the most animal lives.
Because no animal-welfare nonprofit leaders were chosen for this committee except then-DACHS president Jake Sims, many of us were concerned about what would be proposed. Overall, the committee did a good job at a first set of suggestions, but there are alarming ommissions, such as a lack of support for TNR.
As a general rule, there are many model ordinances out there. We do not have to rewrite or start from the beginning; we need to do the research in order to borrow from the best of the best -- from those communities saving more than 95% of their shelter animals.
Though these laws are just the beginning, they set the tone for our citizens and our animal-welfare systems. We need to be careful with some laws that the majority of animal people here want, such as mandatory spay/neuter, because some of these laws can actually have either no effect at all or backfire when punitively enforced instead of used as incentive for people to do the right thing. With our lack to access to high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter and no-cost spay/neuter, a law like this would add more pressure to an already overburdened system.

Whatever your opinion, please speak up to the ASCMV (shelter) oversight board on the proposed ordinances. A copy of the proposed ordinances is available from the Home page of http://www.actionprogramsforanimals.org/. Also on this site are APA's suggestions for ordinance improvement and a complete list of the city/county leaders on the shelter oversight board.

Sign the petition to our leaders asking them to adopt TNR provisions via this link:
Support Community Cat Programs in LC/DAC

Grassroots Press story on LC animal shelter

2010-10-07T10:59:00.005-06:00

Here's a new story that came out about the animal shelter written for Grassroots Press by Jeff Berg. I was interviewed for the story, too.

Berg tries to show all sides to the story, but I'm afraid the press will always have issues understanding animal sheltering and our animal-welfare systems enough to fully explore solutions to problems. They also easily get sidetracked by the deflection our shelter uses of the animals coming in each month and being full as the excuse for not doing better and of the issues only being in the public and with the people.

The press does not understand, too, what some of us mean by saying that for most animal shelters and animal control departments, it is much easier to keep the status quo and to do things as they have always been done, which always leads to more killing than necessary. Killing is much easier than the hard work of fully administering the No Kill Equation and thinking outside the box to solve problems differently; it is also easier when you have the evil public entirely to blame to wash your hands of the killing.

Also important is for animal control departments to change the way they do business and be more proactive than reactive. Operating in old ways leads to more animals hauled in than may be necessary as well (such as for cats), so the issues are complex and never as simple as "too many homeless animals and not enough homes".

Nevertheless, thanks to Jeff Berg for his article:

Animal Shelter: Divergent perspectives on progress

Should the daily newspaper be taking sides?

2010-08-14T22:15:00.002-06:00

I wrote the following letter to the editor of the Las Cruces Sun-News in response to an "Our View" in the paper this past week where the paper's editorial staff came out against the ASPCA's offer to help our shelter get on the right track. The paper has been in the shelter's pocket, so to speak, for some time now, but I question the validity of their views and what they are based on. I don't see how they can weigh in on an issue they know so little about, and wouldn't they be doing the public more service by covering this story fairly and presenting the facts as they get them and all sides to the issue?

Here's the letter I sent. I hope it makes it to print in the paper, but in case it does not, I wanted to share it with everyone.

The real elephant in the room
(submitted as a letter to the editor to the Las Cruces Sun-News on August 11, 2010)

With all due respect, perhaps the editorial staff at this paper should not be writing an “Our View” about a subject you know little about—animal sheltering. Perhaps you’d do better to cover the facts and give equal opportunity to all sides without taking a side of your own.

We who raise the voice of shelter reform do so from a place of wanting the best for our homeless animals. Telling us our efforts do more harm than good won’t guilt us into silence because we know that from silence, nothing changes.

The real elephant in the room is the one you don't see—the lack of accountability for proper shelter operations. You scoffed at shelter reviews by different industry experts since 2006. All point to the same repairs needed for the kennels/ventilation system and the lack of adhering to well-documented best practices regarding shelter medicine and humane animal care. To this date, none of these issues have been addressed.

In any industry, we’d expect best practices to be applied; why not with our animal shelter? The standards should be applied no matter how many animals enter the facility each day/month/year. At the same time, our shelter should ensure each animal in their care is living according to the Five Freedoms and being equitably routed through the system. It’s a challenging job—but not impossible.

Instead, our shelter is housing more animals than they can properly care for, and they are releasing unvaccinated/unaltered animals into the public they chastise for such practices. Yet, the only progress that has been made under new management working with a vastly higher budget is a small drop in the kill rate for dogs.

For those who want an animal-sheltering education, start here: www.nokilladvocacycenter.org, www.maddiesfund.org, www.aspcapro.org, www.animalsheltering.org, and www.sheltermedicine.org.

Urge our leaders to partner with the ASPCA on shelter repair and reform

2010-08-08T11:28:00.005-06:00

I am going to be very blunt: we have the worst case of animal hoarding right inside the Las Cruces, NM, municipal animal shelter at this time. Because of this, the ASPCA is offering to send a team of experts to help us clean up and repair the physical building and train management and stafff on sheltering best practices and animal intake, routing, herd health, shelter medicine, etc. It is a challenge to our leaders and community to work hard for two months to make drastic change, and we'd be fools not to accept this help and make it happen. Where there is a will, there is a way, and conditions are so dire that drastic and immediate action is necessary (it has been for some time). See yesterday's blog post for the ASPCA report and details.

If you want the ASPCA to help our shelter progress and right its wrongs, please contact the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley's oversight board. Right now, it sounds as if many of them have completely closed the door to the ASPCA because of them calling for the shelter to close for 60 days, but there are possibilties and options for what we can do with our homeless animals during that time frame. Our leaders have not even sat down with the ASPCA to work out those details. It is incumbent upon them to do so, as far as I'm concerned.

The board's names, e-mails, and phone numbers are listed next; contact them with your opinions!

Miguel Silva, ASCMV Board Chair, City Councilor, 541-2066, miguel.silva@las-cruces.org

Dolores Connor, Board Member, City Councilor, 541-2066, dconnor@las-cruces.org

Nathan Small, Board Member, City Councilor, 541-2066, nsmall@las-cruces.org

Terrence Moore, Non-Voting Board Member, City Manager, 541-2076, tmoore@las-cruces.org

Scott Krahling, Board Member, County Commissioner, 525-5810, skrahling@donaanacounty.org

Oscar Vasquez-Butler, Board Member, ,County Commissioner, 647-7201, obutler@donaanacounty.org

Jess Williams, Board Member, Dona Ana County Director, 525-5801, jessw@donaanacounty.org

Brian Haines, Non-Voting Board Member, County Manager, 647-7201, brianh@donaanacounty.org

ASPCA report on municipal shelter

2010-08-07T23:48:00.005-06:00

Recently, a team from the ASPCA's Community Initiatives was invited to Las Cruces to help our shelter and community with proactive and modern approaches to our animal-welfare issues. They were invited here by the shelter's director, whose focus is usually outside the shelter's walls and on the ongoing overpopulation issues we have here with cats and dogs. What the shelter manager did not foresee and what the ASCMV Board did not expect was that this group of seasoned professionals would be so shocked by the state of overcrowding and improper housing in our animal shelter that the group was impelled to write a report and offer to come to our community to help us turn things around.

What is even more shocking for myself, as I have been calling for shelter reform for some time now and even became a broken record on this blog, is that our shelter's oversight board would react so defensively to the ASPCA. I felt for sure that this time they would have that light-bulb moment I have been wishing upon them for years; instead, they are entrenching themselves even more deeply in the rhetoric that the shelter is doing the best it can because it is so overwhelmed with animals.

Let me remind everyone that our shelter is no more inundated now than it has been in the last 15 years. Our rate of intake is the same. What has changed now is that the pendulum has shifted all the way from empty cages to cages and crates overfilled with animals and with basic animal sheltering practices of intake, routing, animal husbandry, and shelter medicine not being implemented at all. What has resulted is a situation that is going to explode if something is not done about this soon.

The shelter has also been using a double-wide trailer to house dogs in for many, many months. What is wrong with this picture is many-fold. They house dogs in small crates 24/7 with little time away from the intense confinement; they have issues with cleanliness; they have serious rat infestation issues, etc. This trailer is not designed to nor should have ever been used for this purpose.

Guess what? The ASPCA team agreed. They called for the immediate cessation of using this trailer to house animals and for our shelter to never use it again for this purpose.

Please see their report, which is copied next. Please urge our leaders to work with the ASPCA and take them up on their offer to come out and help our shelter start from scratch. It is really our only hope.

ASPCA Report:

August 2, 2010

Request: Beth Vesco-Mock, DVM, Executive Director, ASCMV approached Karen Medicus, Senior Director, ASPCA Community Outreach, asking if there was any way the ASPCA could provide assistance with the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley. Karen suggested she visit the shelter with an ASPCA team to explore areas for assistance and collaboration.

The ASPCA team toured the shelter on July 27, 2010.

Situation Found at a Critical Level:
Building capacity has been surpassed beyond minimal standards for space requirements per animal.
Care and husbandry of animals not consistent with basic/adequate infection or disease management.
Facility is in a state of disrepair. HVAC system needs repair and kennel surfaces in need of repair and sealing to allow proper disinfection. Trailer house not appropriate for animal housing. There is no way to properly sanitize or ventilate this building.

Recommendation:
Immediate: Need official request for ASPCA assistance from the joint animal services board agreeing to:
Stop receiving animals at this location until building repairs can be completed.
Remove all animals from the building and transfer animals that can be placed with placement organizations within and without of the City of Las Cruces.
The ASPCA will provide assistance from our Field Investigation and Response team to transport animals out of the area.
Decontaminate and repair the shelter building.
Discontinue use of trailer house building for animal housing permanently.
Work with assistance from the ASPCA shelter veterinarian, Dr. Mc Reynolds and team to develop the plan for management of shelter flow, and herd health.
Coordinate all media outreach and interview opportunities with ASPCA media and communications team to ensure consistent and proper messaging.

Intermediate- If requested the ASPCA will facilitate a community planning process to engage the community in joint life saving programs for the community animals.

Proposed time-line:
Week of August 2 – 6
Karen Medicus return to Las Cruces, on evening of the 4th, meet with Dr. Beth and her staff at 7:30 am on the 5th and attend the Board meeting at 9 am. Karen will be available until 2:30 pm on the 5th to work out details and answer questions if the Board asks for ASPCA assistance.

Identify location for delivery of shipping crates and supplies for transfer of animals to placement partners.

Week of August 8 – 14
Dr. Mc Reynolds return to Las Cruces with two team members to assist ASCMV staff with identification of animals appropriate for transfer to placement partners, complete medical, paperwork, etc.

Cease animal intake on 11th.

Continue spay/neuter surgeries.

Week of August 15 – 21
ASPCA team arrives in Las Cruces with transport vehicles to begin transfer of animals.

ASCMV staff begins cleaning and decontamination of vacated animal holding areas.

Continue spay/neuter surgeries.

Week of August 22 – 28
ASPCA staff begin work with ASCMV staff on reorganization of operations and development of SOPs

ASCMV staff continues decontamination.

Contractors begin HVAC repairs and kennel wall and floor sealant process.

Continue spay/neuter services.

Week of August 29 – September 4
Finish SOPs and begin personnel management plan and staff training.

Continue repairs on building.

Continue spay/neuter surgeries.

Weeks from September 5 through September 26
Continue building repairs until complete.

Continue spay/neuter services.

Week of September 26 – October 2
Begin intake of animals and re-open shelter.

Pets and No Kill initiatives in mainstream national news

2010-05-28T00:11:00.004-06:00

This week, I came across two MSNBC articles worth sharing that relate to progressive animal welfare efforts. On one hand, some cities are banning retail puppy sales, which is vastly increasing shelter dog adoptions, especially for shelters that offer friendly customer service and adoption counseling, matchmaking. On the other hand, there are some serious dangers to approaching NO KILL the wrong way, and for some shelters, the horrors animals suffer before anyone does anything to stop the insanity is a sad example of how local and state leaders are woefully out of touch with modern sheltering and best practices.

The following story talks about the progress being made in Albuquerque and other cities since they banned retail puppy sales:

No pups for sale? Cities ban pet shops: Movement aims to curb puppy mills, spur shelter adoptions, MSNBC article, May 27, 2010

The next article talks about shelters that have become literal places of horror for animals because of misguided management that did not understand or did not care that reaching NO KILL should not come at the sake of basic, humane animal care for pets housed in their shelters. I may be in the minority, but I fear our local shelter shares many characteristics with these shelters, such as housing multiple dogs in kennels with very little escape from this small confinement, very little supervision and care, etc. Some smaller dogs housed with bigger dogs getting trampled on and injured; some dogs do not eat enough because they are the submissive ones in the confined pack, etc. There's also a double-wide trailer on the property used to house sick dogs in drop-down crates not meant for holding dogs more than 8 hours in a row.

This article is very important for our local leaders to read so they can understand that simply lowering the kill rate is not what we are asking for as animal advocates. We expect a high level of care for the animals housed in our facility as well.

Animal shelter turned into a ‘house of horrors’: Quest for low-euthanasia rates led to charges of criminal neglect, cruelty, MSNBC article, March 16, 2010

Thinking outside our boxes is animal welfare's biggest challenge

2010-03-24T22:55:00.003-06:00

Home or Heaven: Are those the only two choices we have?

I have yet to watch the recent documentary film made about our municipal animal shelter, the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley (ASCMV), by the local City of Las Cruces Channel (http://www.clctv.com/). It is called Home or Heaven, and what that refers to is whether a sheltered animal finds a new home or is instead sent to heaven by way of lethal injection. I know the shelter director's answer to someone who inquires about a specific animal that has been put down is often, "He (or she) is in heaven now."

Sadly, those who work in shelters see the world in this black and white way and don't often think of what other choices there may be. By also imagining a nice, heavenly place where these animals must surely go, it may also lessen the sting of the reality of killing so many animals per day. That shelter workers do this to cope is understandable, but this complacency also leads them to believe there are few alternatives to death. They often say that the animals HAD to be euthanized for a lack of homes. It paints a very simplistic picture.

If a shelter had 50 interested adopters one day and turned away 25 of those for either arbitrary reasons or perhaps via bad customer service, can we really say that the picture is that black and white? And, why are the only choices home or heaven? They'll say it is because of a lack of space, and there's no doubt our shelter often does take in more animals that can comfortably fit under one roof at one time.

But, is there another choice to housing the animals when emergencies happen, such as the influx of puppies that supposedly came from an animal control raid through a neighborhood? Perhaps if the shelter reached out to the community and asked for help with finding other choices besides death and heaven, less animals would "have" to be put down. Maybe temporary holding pens could have been erected, maybe boarding facilities could each have taken in one litter of puppies, maybe people would open their homes to one litter of puppies ... at least for a week or two until a lifesaving plan could be implemented. In other words, an immediate permanent home is not the only option that exists.

So, when I do have a chance to watch the film, I will write more comments about the information presented and the challenges presented and how an animal-welfare system run from a progressive perspective may approach those challenges. More to come on this film later.

TNR setback points to great need for bird/wildlife and cat advocates to unite in shared goal

I heard that the County Commission tabled the updates submitted to them for changes to the animal ordinance that would have allowed for responsible TNR efforts. I am not sure why this decision was made, but I know that in doing this, our commission swept away hours of work of cat advocates, and it dashed many hopes we all had that our community could finally start approaching the cat population control issue in a more progressive and humane way.

TNR stands for trap-neuter-return (or relocation) of free-roaming cats, and it started in England about 55 years ago as an alternative to traditional catch-and-kill models of cat population control, which have failed miserably after being tried for the past few decades here and abroad. We realize we are losing this battle when we look at the number of cats estimated to be living in the U.S. today and when we look at our own animal shelter’s statistics over the past few decades.

An estimated 70−80 million cats live as family pets in homes in the U.S. today; an additional 70−80 million cats roam free. In our own community, our animal shelter has consistently killed hundreds of cats a month for the past few decades with no end to the killing in sight and, sadly, little reduction of our free-roaming cat population over time. The reality is that cats breed, reproduce, and thrive as outdoor animals at a far faster rate than we catch and kill them.

In 1980, TNR was introduced in the U.S. by the nation’s leading cat advocacy group, Alley Cat Allies. As more TNR success stories are experienced across the nation today, and as more municipalities are implementing TNR-friendly ordinances, we also have a success story in our own back yard: the NMSU Feral Cat Management Program (fCaMP). Still, some controversy and arguments against TNR persist, mainly from bird /wildlife advocates and people in the general public who do not understand how and why TNR offers a solution.

In a nutshell, properly-implemented TNR programs result in the following: decreased population and eventual elimination of homeless cats by preventing new litters, which is a benefit to affected wildlife as well; decreased complaints about homeless cats by eliminating behavior that some people find bothersome, such as territorial spraying, fighting, and mating; improved health of the existing homeless cat population via vaccination, which reduces public health risks; and decreased shelter intake (and killing), thereby freeing shelter/rescue space and funds. Traditional catch-and-kill models do not come close to producing these kinds of results.

Locally, we kill 80+% of the cats that end up in our animal shelter, many of which come from being trapped by our AC departments or individuals. Like it or not, we are losing the battle, and the impact is a great cost on our animal-welfare system in terms of dollars and the emotional toll this killing takes on our shelter’s staff. The director of the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley even says that what we are currently doing is not working, and we should consider all options available.

Isn’t it time for local bird/wildlife and cat advocates to sit down together to work on the complicated issue of cat overpopulation in our community instead of engaging in the simplistic battle of animal vs. animal that has gotten us nowhere? It’s time to find solutions that benefit all those affected—humans, cats, and birds/wildlife. Some communities have cat/wildlife cooperative undertakings that we can emulate, such as the Burlington County Feral Cat Initiative in NJ and the feral working group in Pinellas County, FL.

In the end, all of us want the same thing – a reduction in our free-roaming cat population. If we work together instead of against each other, we will reach this goal. Right now, we are still spinning our wheels, and the losers of our uncooperative spirit and verbal battles are all the animals we claim to protect.

Local groups in favor of TNR are as follows: The NMSU Feral Cat Management Program (fCaMP), ACTion Programs for Animals (APA), the Humane Society of Southern New Mexico (HSSNM), the Dona Ana County Humane Society (DACHS), the Spay and Neuter Action Program (SNAP), and Safe Haven Animal Sanctuary (SHAS). Local groups and others opposed to TNR are the Mesilla Valley Audubon Society and some wildlife rehabilitators. Notable national groups that support TNR are the National Animal Control Association (NACA), Alley Cat Allies, Best Friends Animal Society, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), and SpayUSA.

To learn more, start at these websites: www.nmsu.edu/~fcamp, http://www.alleycatallies.org/, http://www.bestfriends.org/ (Focus on Felines outreach campaign); http://www.barncats.org/; and http://www.njferals.org/.

Blog posts will be few and far between

2010-03-21T20:33:00.005-06:00

I wanted to let my blog readers know that the posts on this blog will be few and far between from this point on; in fact, they have been that way for some time now. Though I am not trying to make excuses, I choose to spend more time these days working on change than talking about it or writing about it. I've pretty much covered all areas and topics in detail that would help our community reach its no kill goals. Some of the blog posts took alot of hours of writing and research, so I hope they have been of use to someone.

I work full-time and am running a nonprofit in my spare time, so little time is left after that for blog postings. However, I will leave the blog up and will sometimes write new entries when a topic comes up locally that needs to be addressed. This will happen as time permits, so check back periodically.

Overall, what I have seen in the last couple of years from our community is more groups and individuals working together to better the lives of animals and also many individuals working hard to help other individuals. I believe that this work will pay off over time.

Few of us have any real impact or power over how our official animal-welfare powers that be operate -- whether this is our AC departments or our animal shelter. I don't think we'll ever have an impact until we ourselves make an impact in the wider community. Many of the programs and services that lead to no kill can be administered and operated outside of the sheltering system. That is where I am focusing my efforts personally with my work with ACTion Programs for Animals.

That said, keep voicing your opinions to our local leaders. Keep demanding the best there is to offer for our homeless and abandoned animals. If we keep up these demands, they will someday listen or someone who has power will understand what is needed and will make the widespread changes that many of us are still waiting for.

No Kill does not take generations to achieve

2010-02-21T20:33:00.012-07:00

This week's cover story in The Bulletin about the animal shelter is incorrect in its estimation of how long our community should take to reach No Kill. If this were truly the goal of our shelter and AC leadership (meaning our city and county leaders), we'd see many more strives by now than the small changes that have been made in the past couple of years since the Dona Ana County Humane Society lost its contract to run the shelter. The truth is, it should not take generations to accomplish major changes in a community's animal-welfare systems.

The assumption of our shelter's current leadership is that No Kill comes when the community is somehow transformed into 100% of its pet owners becoming responsible. Not only is this impossible, but communities that have achieved No Kill realize this is not necessary and that shelters, by definition, exist to help care for animals abandoned and abused by some people. The shelter and its leadership also do not take any responsibility for what has to be changed within the walls of the shelter to reach the goal. Other communities are making great strides by administering sheltering in a positive way instead of the negative way that simply wags its finger at the irresponsible public. As long as our leadership continues to solely look outward instead of inward, things will not change dramatically.

How did Reno, NV, go from a high kill rate community to one that now saves more than 90% of its homeless animals? It's not because there aren't irresponsible people in that community any longer. It's because a new shelter director came into the community with an explicit goal to make widespread changes and did so, and that community's sheltering system and animal control systems turned themselves around in a matter of a couple of years. They did so by teaming up to provide excellent services to the community and by working together toward the shared goal of lifesaving. (Read How We Did It by director Bonney Brown by clicking here.)

Looking to all of the programs and services that need to be in place (the No Kill Equation list at right), we can see how and why we are lagging so far behind. It's not about dabbling in any of there areas. It's about running them well and simultaneously.

Let's take this list of what is needed to achieve our goals and rate how we are doing at this point in time:

1. Feral cat TNR program--to this day, we are killing 80+% of the cats that enter our shelter, and both our AC departments are very regressive in the way they deal with free-roaming cats despite their own national association calling for a shift in the approach to one of trap-neuter-return. So, we still catch and kill the majority of loose cats. On top of that, those that enter our shelter receive no enrichment or care other than a staff person cleaning the cage. We are terribly failing our homeless cats, and our kill rate alone proves this. This is not just the public's fault when our leaders do not address the problem in more humane and effective ways.

2. High-volume, low-cost, and targeted spay/neuter--we are doing a bit better at this than in years past, but our volume is still not at the level it needs to be at to make a difference, and we are not targeting the efforts to areas that need it the most. To our credit, the county's spay/neuter van ran a few times in the past year, thanks to the SNAP program picking up the bill. And, the shelter is now offering low-cost spay/neuter services again. But, in order to make a difference, we need to UP these efforts considerably, and our city and county leaders need to see the need for vastly increased funding and targeted work in this area. We need not only one voucher program and a van running from time-to-time; we need to sterilize hundreds of animals each month to start with and offer the support to do so.

3. Rescue groups--we are doing a bit better in this area, from what I understand. The shelter does reach out to some rescue groups to come get animals out of the shelter, and they do ship some animals out to other locations. But, again, the level of this effort needs to be much higher, and there needs to be a good working relationship established with each and every animal group in the area and outside of the area, and this is not the case due to our shelter leadership's distaste for some individual people. That should never get in the way of lifesaving, but it is still a hindrance.

4. Foster care--again, we are doing a bit better in this area but not advancing to the level needed; those communities that are saving more lives are doing so by having hundreds of foster homes available to help in times of need, such as the recent puppy crisis at the shelter. We are not there yet; these efforts take more organization, more advertising, and more trust in the public that can do more good than harm. The shelter's new foster-to-adopt program needs to be administered well or not at all; it is incumbent on the shelter to ensure the animals leaving the facility are altered and vaccinated on a timely basis, or they need to go out there and recover the animals from people.

5. Comprehensive adoption programs--to my knowledge, the only stride we have made in this area is holding more frequent offsite adoptions at the usual places on one day each weekend, such as the Farmer's Market and PetCo. We need to get to the point when each day there's at least one offsite, and we also need better adoption policies and systems in place in the shelter itself. We need adoption counseling and counselors that can make sound adoption decisions based on common sense, not just a check-box list off an application. We also need to have special adoption promotions and invite the public to help out in times of need instead of blaming the public for what sometimes amounts to situations arising from Animal Control raids or the poor working relationship between AC and shelter leadership.

6. Pet retention--the shelter does not have a program in place at this time to help people work through issues with their pets instead of relinquishing them; to my knowledge, there is no pet help line in place at the shelter nor an interview of those wishing to give up an animal to find out the causes and possible solutions. We are sorely lacking in this area.

7. Medical and behavioral programs--our shelter still lacks equitable assessments of incoming animals as well as efforts to rehabilitate medical and behavioral issues. There is no behaviorist on staff, and animals are slated to be put down arbitrarily (i.e., shy dogs, decisions based on breed alone, scared cats, etc.). Cats are allowed no attention or enrichment from volunteers for supposed disease control despite this not being the standard in care suggested by industry experts because stressed cats get sick far more than enriched ones, and volunteers can easily be trained to mitigate disease spread as well as staff can. So, the horrible kill rate for cats reflects how badly our system is failing cats. Sadly, dogs do not fare too much better with a lack of daily enrichment for them as well.

8. Public relations/community involvement--though the shelter has been in the news more this past year than before, much of the message that comes out of the shelter is a negative one and a vague one as well. Communities that reach No Kill understand that this is not the way to approach the challenges of animal sheltering and that reaching out to the public with positive messages and approaches gets you much more ahead of the curve; it also pays to reach audiences with issue resolutions by using several means of PR--radio, TV, billboards, etc. You also need to involve all people who can and want to help the opportunity to do so. Simply blaming the evil public for all the killing is not going to work, but we are stuck on that broken record in our community and in our media outlets.

9. Volunteers--shelters that are making great strides toward No Kill are doing so with the support of hundreds of volunteers; our shelter is still operating with very few volunteers and very few opportunities for people to volunteer in ways that truly make a difference in lifesaving. There don't seem to be comprehensive volunteer programs and efforts at this time, as there weren't any in the past. This directly relates to the small strides made up to this point.

10. Proactive redemption--short of allowing people to post lost/found reports at the shelter, there are very little efforts on our shelter or AC leadership's behalf to help return animals to their owners or educate people about lost cat/dog behavior and what they need to do to help find their pets. Our city is also very negative in not allowing those looking for lost animals to post flyers or other information on public property such as light posts in neighborhoods, etc. We have a long way to go in this area as well.

11. Compassionate shelter director and AC leadership--compassion has to be toward animals and humans to make a difference. Plus, the leaders in all our animal-welfare systems need to establish good working relationships with each other as well. Instead, we have notorious infighting between some of these leaders, which only leads to more loss of animal life. Leadership also still runs in old-fashioned ways that lead to more killing. We also have very little compassion and understanding about the issues in our community and ways to start tackling these issues and helping more people become better pet guardians.

The bottom line is this: never has a community achieved No Kill by simply chastising the minority of those that are irresponsible in the public. Instead, transformation happens when you realize that the majority of people love and care for animals and should be invited to help make a difference by administering animal sheltering and control in a vastly different way. This is something our city and county leaders still do not grasp. Unfortunately, it is also something many animal loves still do not grasp as well.

Speak up for TNR

2010-02-05T16:10:00.007-07:00

Those of us who support community cat programs and Trap-Neuter-Return/Release (TNR) for free-roaming cats need to speak up and do so with every resource and national-group backing we can. In light of the recent article about TNR in our local paper, it is still very clear we have a long way to go in our community before our Animal Control leaders and wildlife protectors get up to speed on this method and why it is beneficial to all animals and people involved, including birds and other wildlife. When it comes to this topic, more people than not are very misinformed. Luckily, our animal shelter, who has to deal with the trapped cats coming in and is killing 80% of its cats, is finally speaking up about our community's need for TNR.

Where wildlife advocates go wrong is in the assumption that what we have been doing for DECADES is working. It is not working, and millions of free-roaming cats prove it. There are as many free-roaming cats as there are cats in homes as pets -- about 80-90 million nationwide. If we were going to eradicate feral cat populations by trapping and hauling them off to be systematically killed at shelters, we would have done so already. Nationally, we have killed millions to date with no end in sight. That's becasue free-roaming cats are some of the most resilient animals around--going from domestic to wild and surviving and thriving despite many obstacles and adversities.

That said, no one more than I wishes that all domestic cats had a nice indoor home and a warm lap to lay on. I also do not wish upon any wildlife that they be injured or killed by a feral cat. If you look at this issue logically, that's why TNR is the only alternative we have come up with to date. It may take time for TNR to work, but over time, the populations finally decrease and die out when you fix cats, vaccinate them, and release them back into their environments. Where this is not feasible for whatever reason, you relocate those cats via barn cat and other similar programs. By doing this, it keeps other cats from moving into this "bubble" of territory, and that territory then stabilizes and then starts dying off naturally by atrition.

When we reduce feral cat populations over time, as has been done on the NMSU campus because of fCamp's tireless work, what we do is reduce the supposed health risks to humans; reduce the nuisance of loose cats to humans; and, most importantly, we also reduce the number of wildlife hurt or killed by feral cats. It truly is the only Win-Win for all, and it has nothing to do with hoarding cats (as suggested by one AC supervisor in the story in the paper). It does take alot of hard work, but doing this work in small bubbles of managed colonies throughout the community will finally start paying off. Eventually, all those bubbles, or pockets of cat territories, will start to reduce the overall feral population in our entire community.

Those of us who want to do this work or support this work cannot get anything done in a regressive community. Those who are detractors of TNR or animal people not up to speed need to take some time to learn about how it works and why it works and need to stop to think about why all the following groups now support these efforts (including the National Animal Control Association). Read through these vast resources listed below, which is not an exhaustive list, and help us start advocating more strongly for TNR to first be made legal in all of Dona Ana County and the City of Las Cruces; that's the first step we need to take. And then we can finally start getting to work and reducing cat populations and also reducing the stress and waste of money it is to haul cats in to be killed at our shelter with no results to show for it over time except very similar numbers from month-to-month and year-to-year.

http://network.bestfriends.org/campaigns/felines/default.aspx

http://www.spayusa.org/main_directory/08-feral_cats/index.asp

http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/feral-cat-management.html

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/feral_cats/facts/TNR_statement.html

http://www.spayusa.org/main_directory/08-feral_cats/feralcat_policy.asp

http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/sep_oct_2008/broader_view_of_cats.pdf

http://www.alleycat.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=30

http://www.alleycat.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=431

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/feralcatissue_000.pdf

Those who still oppose TNR might consider volunteering at the local shelter with the poor workers forced to kill cats by the hundreds each month and thousands each year when there are many alternatives proving effective in hundreds of other communities in the U.S. Those concerned for wildlife should understand that these cats are wildlife as well, and just like all wildlife, the greatest threat to those populations is us--human beings. What studies have shown is that our urban sprawl and pesticide use, among other human evils, have killed far more birds and other wildlife than all feral cats combined.

In other words, it's time for us to get with the times. TNR today is not as controversial as it was 10 to 20 years ago ... that we think it is in Las Curces shows how collectively behind the times we are. Even El Paso has legalized TNR for free-roaming cats. What haven't we?

It's raining puppies

2010-01-16T20:36:00.009-07:00

The recent influx of puppies at our municipal animal shelter and the press this has been getting is a good backdrop for a discussion on no-kill approaches to this age-old shelter problem. There are some good parts and bad parts to how this story has been handled in the press, but most importantly, there has been an influx of public support at our shelter, which is the cornerstone to no-kill success. The fact that hundreds of people showed up at our shelter asking how they could help, adopting dogs and puppies, and offering to foster puppies not ready for adoption shows that our community is ready for no-kill success. It just has to be lead in that direction by the animal-welfare powers that be.

It's very important how these powers that be communicate with the public. No matter how many puppies or other animals a shelter has to deal with, I am not in favor of some of the statements made by shelter leadership in the press recently. For example, they made it sound, when the story first came out in the Las Cruces Sun-News, like there was only one choice for the surplus puppies -- deciding which 50 would be put to death a few days after publication of this story. They talked about the horrible burden of this decision, yet they did not talk about all the vast alternatives to this decision as well. When we consider these vast alternatives, one has to wonder about the message the shelter is sending--about how horrible it is to HAVE to put animals to death.

With that many puppies under one roof at one time, with how overburdened the shelter was at that time, it was the perfect opportunity to discuss not only the obvious problem we have with "overpopulation" but the solutions to situations such as these and to avoiding them in the future. The press only gives you a few sound bites in which to get your message across. Each word you choose is of utmost importance because of this.

There are ways to approach this issue that do not involve talking about injecting puppies with a deadly syringe. Much less is it appropriate to suggest that people should expose their children not only to the miracle of life but the miracle of death by bringing them to the shelter to hold puppies while they die. What an ugly thing to say and totally unnecessary.

Perhaps our shelter's leadership thinks this approach is working due to the influx of people there to help and adopt, but that kind of response and support could be had without these hysterical, untrue, and horrible tactics. If the leadership would have come out with the same story and positive approaches to solving the issue and asking what they specifically need, they would have gotten the same kind of response or perhaps an even better one.

Clarity of the message is important as well. They needed to explain where the puppies came from and the various options for them, of which euthanasia is only one. They needed to ask for help and support in the community to save these precious lives, and they needed to say the LAST thing they ever want to do is to end lives that have just begun. They needed to challenge the community for help and support to save these lives in a way that was inspiring and educational.

The influx of puppies opens up the opportunity to talk about the importance of spay/neuter and the existing programs and support in our community for people to take advantage of as well as the needs to grow the support and services in this area to reach a higher volume of spay/neuter. The opportunity to talk about what each individual can do to help saves lives was also lost. The opportunity to educate people that the shelter should be the place of last resort and offering alternatives to the puppies being dumped is another one lost in the stories that have been coming out. Also lost is the opportunity to discuss what the shelter is doing about outreach and education in the areas in which the puppies are coming from.

Alternatives to the deadly blue solution for puppies are vast. It is far more challenging to place older animals in any shelter. Here are some of the choices shelters inundated with puppies could consider and try before putting puppies to death:

Have a special puppy adoption promotion with a catchy name and send out public service announcements so the message can inundate the public. Use this also as an opportunity to educate adopters and the public on the long-term commitment of puppy adoption. Consider reducing the adoption amount, offering two for one adoptions, etc.
Ask area obedience trainers or groups to offer free monthly puppy classes for six months for each puppy adopted during this crisis so that adopters and their puppies can make it through the challenges of puppy hood and especially through those adolescent years (age 1 to 3 yrs.) when dogs are usually relinquished to shelters.
Contact all local rescue groups, sanctuaries, shelters, and animal-welfare nonprofits to work with the shelter on this issue; have a special emergency action meeting with all of them to come up with a plan of action for saving lives.
Contact shelters and rescues around the country to see who is short on puppies and devise a plan for getting puppies to them. Start with areas nearest your area and then move outward. Put out a call for transport help in your community to help with this Great Puppy Exodus, and urge the press to cover this ongoing rescue project.
Have a special event featuring the puppies and inviting the public to a meet and greet; or have a puppy parade tied to a super adoption at a local park or other bigger venue; and/or ask the local newspapers to feature a puppy litter a day in their publications.
Going forward, tell the community how they can help; ask for what you need specifically, such as foster homes for puppy litters and mom dogs, people to help make calls and network, people to get out to areas in need of more outreach for an all-out education campaign aimed at diverting the same puppy issues in the future from these areas, etc.
Offer a week of free spay and neuter to any family that relinquished puppies at the shelter; be sure you are sitting people down and counseling them before they are allowed to drop puppies off at the shelter; educate them on alternatives and how they can help find homes for the puppies themselves, etc.
Be sure that in all your messages to the public, you let people know the cornerstones to saving lives: urge everyone to spay/neuter all their pets and keep them up-to-date on vaccinations; urge everyone to adopt from a rescue or shelter vs. buying from backyard breeders or puppy stores; urge people to address behavior and other issues with their existing pets and offer them the resources to do this with; and, last but not least, urge people to think of the shelter as the place of last resort for homeless animals and offer alternatives and information on what they can do with pets they find, etc.

These are just a few options of the many; if you got more than one person sitting at a desk brainstorming, as I am doing now, they would come up with even more ideas. It's clear that the option to kill puppies should be considered last. A shelter leadership working toward no kill would not name that as the first and ONLY option available.

What we have shown this week is that Dona Ana County and the City of Las Cruces are ready for no-kill success. People showed how much they care when the news came out that the shelter was overflowing with puppies, and the people that care far outnumber the people that are disposing of these puppies. So, what is missing is helping caring people connect the dots to figure out how they can put their great love of animals to good use. That's why our shelter will continue to have these issues in the future; their messages are convoluted and mostly self-centered around their terrible burden instead of ways to solve the problem and utilizing the vast public resource of caring people in order to uncover every other alternative besides the usual one that regressive shelters choose: DEATH.

In today's Las Cruces Sun-News story, the shelter's leadership is quoted as saying that the 100+ adoptions of the last week have "not made a dent". How can that be possible? Each day that I have driven past the shelter this past week on my way home from work, I saw the parking lot more full than ever before. And, there is power in this kind of a response. Our shelter will lose that power if they don't genuinely appreciate it and positively nurture and lead it.

What is lacking, in other words, is harnessing that power in a way that leads to our community simultaneously implementing all of the programs and services we need to save more lives. The kind of response our shelter got last week should show the public can do far more than make a dent in the issues; they could help bring about radical change.

The public is showing they are ready to be led in that direction and to accept this challenge. Who will lead us there?

Scott dogs in AC custody will be evaluated

2009-12-31T00:28:00.005-07:00

Pit bull advocates such as myself have been lobbying the Dona Ana County Animal Control's leadership for a fair assessment of the Scott dogs the brothers did not claim before a final determination is made about their disposition. It looks like our voices were heard because the supervisor assured us that a search is on right now for a qualified behaviorist to come evaluate the dogs. Any deemed adoptable will be placed in homes; any deemed worthy and capable of rehabilitation may go to rescues capable of handling that challenge; and any deemed vicious or severely aggressive to either humans or other dogs may still be euthanized. Already, some rescues have stepped up to the plate and agreed to take the dogs in; some individuals have also stepped up to offer donations of resources toward the rescue and rehabilitation of these remaining dogs.

Overall, this is a step in the progressive direction for the AC department, and let's be honest, it's the least they can do for these 5 to 7 dogs that remain in their custody and care. If some of these can be saved, it may not make up for the 50 other dogs that either did not make it through the system or those that were recently returned to their former abusers, but it will be a better ending to this horrible story than if they are all systematically put down without a fair, independent assessment.

First, there is one hurdle that needs to be crossed. The AC department has to go before the judge in this case to ask for the assessment to be allowed for the dogs. In many dogfighting cases, it is the judges that call for the complete extermination of all the surviving animals.

Let's hope for the best in this case. Let's hope the dogs get the fair chance they and all victims of abuse deserve at a second chance at life -- a good life free of neglect and abuse. Unfortunately, we all fear the fates of the dogs returned to the Scott brothers, and there isn't anything any of us can do to legally help those dogs.

I was reading the statement of arrest for this case from its beginning in 2007; it is available via this link: http://www.pet-abuse.com/media/case_pics/case12085_1192763170_1.pdf. For a listing of all the counts of animal cruelty charged in this case, see this link: http://www.apnm.org/email/dog_fighting_act.html.

Though I agree that in our country we are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of our peers, many an innocent man has been convicted and then later found innocent; many a man has been put to death by capital punishment for crimes they didn't commit; and alternately, many a guilty man has gotten off on a technicality or because they can afford a Dream Team of lawyers for a top-notch defense. The color of justice is--for the most part--green.

When you read the details of this case and the amount of eyewitness testimony as well as physical evidence pointing to the severe neglect, starvation, and abuse the dogs suffered while the brothers had them on their properties in El Paso and Chaparral, there is no doubt how much they suffered and how much more they will suffer now. You can also see the brothers have been covering up their deeds with this story of being show dog breeders and kennel operators for a long time as well.

In my mind and heart, there is also little doubt the dogs were abused and used for dogfighting out rightly and bred to be sold to dog fighters in other areas. Then, after being rescued from this horrible life, the dogs went on to suffer more in the animal-welfare system itself in the intense confinement they lived in as "evidentiary items". Nearly three years later, and most of these dogs were returned to the very beginning of their hell, while just a few await their fates at the hands of our justice system. It seems only those that did not survive in the system--those that died from disease or who were put down accidentally, etc.--may have escaped with the least harm done overall.

That the brothers were not found guilty in the eyes of our justice system does not negate nor erase the suffering of the victims in this case. Nevertheless, I always hope that people can change and know they sometimes do. Sometimes, they learn their lessons. All I can personally hope for is that these men have changed for the better and are doing right by the dogs they took back and are finding them proper, safe placement instead of more suffering or harm. I can't say my faith in this is strong, but I can hope for the dogs' sake and for my sake, too -- so that I can get some sleep at night thinking that maybe their suffering will end and be replaced with some peace and doggy happiness.

On that note, I wish all of you a safe, peaceful, and happy new year!

Pit Bulls Deserve a Fair, Independent Assessment

2009-12-20T18:40:00.006-07:00

Pit-bull type dogs that end up in a shelter environment deserve an independent behavior assessment by a qualified, trained behaviorist before automatically being put down because of their breed. Actually, progressive animal welfare calls for a fair, equitable assessment for each individual animal in the system no matter the breed, size, age, etc., of the animal. This is also true for pits seized in dogfighting cases, such as the Scott brothers dogs. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, a qualified behaviorist is not on staff at our animal shelter nor at the Dona Ana County Animal Control department.

Yesterday's LCSN cover story, "Uncertain Future", talked about the disposition of the dogs in the Scott case. Because the evidence collected by the Dona Ana County Sheriff/AC department was inadmissible in court due to an illegally-obtained search warrant, these dogs are being returned to the Scotts after the dismissal of the case by the courts.

In yesterday's story, it says the brothers are sending the dogs they are picking up to Virginia, Houston, El Paso, and Mexico. It does not say where, exactly, they are being sent. Reading between the lines, one hopes they are not being sent back into the dogfighting arena. Twelve were picked up by the brothers on Dec. 15th, and the remaining dogs will be picked up this Tuesday, Dec. 22nd, at 1 p.m.

All this time, the brothers have claimed they were breeders of show dogs, but anyone that saw these dogs witnessed the battle scars of fighting and saw how dog-aggressive some of the dogs were as well. That is not a trait bred into show dogs at all.

There is no doubt in my mind that the dogs were used for fighting, but that is my limited, personal opinion and one I have a right to as anyone else does. I just hope to God I am wrong about their past and what I fear is a sad, abusive future at the hands of whomever they are being given to now. As it stands now, there is no justice for animals in most regressive animal-welfare and control systems. Even if the perpetrators of neglect and cruelty are charged and convicted and pay for their crimes, most animals in these cases suffer at the hands of everyone and usually end up dead at the end of the long, judiciary road.

Back to this particular case, those dogs not claimed by the Scott brothers will stay at the shelter and probably face being put down because of the supposed irreparable damage of being bred by dog fighters and their fearful natures after being in intense confinement for almost three years with little-to-no enrichment. Some of these dogs, those pictured in the LCSN story, were raised in this environment since they were 7 weeks old. It is no wonder they fear humans and everything around them. I don't have to be an expert behaviorist to figure that out.

That said, fearfulness and other problem behaviors can be rehabilitated in the right hands. Look at how many dogs have turned around once outside their stressful environments. Extreme cases, such as the Vic dogs taken on by Best Friends, Bad Rap, and other pit groups nationwide, show that many of these dogs are savable, even some that were aggressive in the past. That's why they deserve a fair shot and an INDEPENDENT assessment.

Anyone reading this blog post that cares about these remaining Scott dogs, please contact the shelter and the AC department to advocate for a behaviorist to be brought in to assess the remaining dogs. Please ask them to not automatically put the dogs down for fearfulness or to make room at the shelter. After the years of suffering these dogs have lived through, they deserve at least a shot at a new life and a placement in a safe environment where they can be assessed and rehabilitated, such as with a rescue or appropriate foster home.

You can reach the animal shelter, the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley, from 12 noon to 6 p.m. at 575-682-0018. You can reach the AC department in charge of these dogs, the Dona Ana County Animal Control, at 575-525-8846.

Small steps forward for our community

2009-12-11T11:07:00.003-07:00

Looking back on the last year of animal-welfare efforts in our community, there have been some small steps in the right direction and more groups and individuals working together to help animals as well as the people who care for them. Last weekend at the Farmer's Market, I was talking to the animal shelter's volunteer coordinator, who reported that on the weekend of Black Friday, more than 50 animals were adopted from the shelter. The successful weekend started at the parking lot of Wal-Mart off Valley, and the shelter was using the Pet's Barn adoption mobile unit at that location that day. Eighteen good adoptions took place that day alone.

It's clear our shelter is making a more concerted effort in the area of comprehensive adoption programs, or at least they are getting out into the community more for off-site adoptions. I'm sure this has helped increase their adoption numbers, and it must have something to do with the kill rate dropping a few percentage points this year. However, that kill rate will not drop dramatically until all of the No Kill Equation's list of programs and services is implemented in our community, and the animal shelter must be at the forefront of those efforts.

Outside of the shelter, independent animal rescuers and advocates are networking and working together more so than has been the cast in the past (from what I understand). I have been in Las Cruces myself for about five years and involved in animal welfare here the last few years.

This year, the SNAP program partnered with the Dona Ana County Animal Control department to run their mobile spay/neuter unit in outlying areas of the county. Because of these efforts, hundreds of animals were altered in Chaparral, Del Cero, Radium Springs, Hatch, and other locations. The van also ran a couple of times at the Community of Hope in Las Cruces to help homeless pet guardians fix their companions.

This year as well, HSSNM has fostered and adopted out more dogs and cats than ever before. They now hold cat adoptions at PetSmart on a regular basis as well as monthly super adoptions where their fostered cats and dogs are featured. They now have a full pet help line and are engaging with the public one call at a time. They help advise those that have lost and found pets or need to re-home their pets for whatever reason.

SHAS continues its work as the sole no-kill sanctuary for dogs and cats. Those dogs and cats that get accepted into SHAS are the lucky ones, and the animals are well-cared for and adopted out to good homes. Those that cannot be adopted out live out the rest of their lives at the sanctuary.

There are many breed rescues that also play big roles in saving lives -- one cat and dog at a time. The feral cat management program at NMSU is showing local detractors that TNR works, and they have the database and numbers to prove it. They also have a legion of volunteers that work tirelessly to feed and care for the cats on the college's campus. The director of that program also helps advise people in the community on what they can do to help the cats in their areas, and she has stood before the city council, county commission, and any other local leaders who would listen to advocate for changing ordinances so that we can stop killing 80+% of the cats that get taken to our animal shelter while never making dent in the homeless numbers.

As the new kid on the block, APA has started a pet food bank that has distributed about 31,000 pounds of food to date to qualified low-income, unemployed, disabled, elderly, and homeless recipients. The group holds information tabling events and food drives regularly outside of Sam's Club and at local festivals and other events. They list animals in need on their website (lost/found/those needing new homes), and they hope their outreach efforts start having an impact as well.

Overall, more people are working harder to save dog and cat lives in Dona Ana County. Those are the small steps we can be proud of, but we have only started movement in a forward direction. We have years and years and hours and hours to go before we turn things around.

Here's to next year hopefully showing even more efforts at lifesaving, including a huge hope that our animal shelter will comprehensively and simultaneously get to the point where they are implementing all the programs and services needed (see list at right) to save most of the lives of the nearly 15,000 animals that still end up at their facility. More than any other entity or group, the shelter has the longest way to go.

Numbers tell only part of the story

2009-11-24T15:30:00.014-07:00

Misleading headline & comparisons

Today's headline in the daily paper says that the animal shelter is "filling up rapidly." I was confused by this because there hasn't been a time in recent or past history that the facility that is now our municipally-run animal shelter has not been packed with animals. In fact, the overall 2009 anticipated intake is no more than it as been in the past decade, and our community outgrew the current facility not long after it was built in the late 1980s.

In other words, it is not new news that the animal-shelter facility has not kept up with the human population growth of the county that it services. This issue has been long overlooked by our local leaders who are ultimately responsible for the long-standing inferior state of our animal-sheltering infrastructure and services. Our shelter has had a handful of scathing reviews and reports in the past few years from various groups and agencies, including the Humane Society of the United States. Each is almost a repeat of the last.

Our animal shelter is not suddenly filling up and not suddenly sub-par in terms of its ventilation system and other structural issues. In fact, NM capital campaign funds have been allocated for use in years past to fix the most glaring issues, but these were never leveraged before they expired.

The responsibility of both the facility's management/daily operations and the facility's repair and upgrades rests solely on our local City and County leaders. The funds needed to upgrade our sheltering facility and services to the community are also their responsibility to find and allocate. Other communities do it all the time -- build new animal-sheltering facilities and clinics, etc. Why can't we? The answer is simple: animals are not important enough to our local leaders. So, why are we surprised that there are some in our community who are neglectful/abusive to animals or don't put animals too high on their priority lists either? We need, as a community, to lead by example--from the top down. This has to start with the leadership shown by our municipal shelter and its management as well as both our animal control departments.

In today's article as well, comparisons are made between Dona Ana County and El Paso County and the City of Albuquerque. These communities and counties are far larger in human population as well as boast greater resources for animal welfare (human population is well over 750,000 for El Paso County and more than 500,000 for Albuquerque). Both have multiple shelters run by their municipalities and several nonprofits. In El Paso, two new multi-million dollar facilities for both the Animal Services of El Paso County and the Humane Society of El Paso were built right next to each other in a secluded part of the Northeast part of the city just a few years ago. Ironically, these new, state-of-the art facilities and the more room that they created have done little to curb the number of animals coming in nor the number of animals being killed/euthanized in our sister border community. Their statistics for most of this decade have been an intake of 23,000 to 27,000 and kill rates in the high 70 to 80% range--with 17,000 to 22,000 animals put down each year. In the City of Albuquerque, they fair a little better statistically than Las Cruces and El Paso; they report their statistics to Maddie's Fund, and their average intake is 26,000 with kill rates at 45 to 50%--about 11,000 to 12,000 animals put down each year.

However, there are other cities and counties more like Las Cruces in terms of growth and yearly animal intakes that--with strong no-kill and progressive approaches and leadership to animal welfare--have turned the killing tide around, such as the recent success since 2007 in Washoe County, NV. That community's approaches are what we should be studying and adopting here, especially since that community and county mirrors our own more in terms of human population and animal homelesses.

What this shows is that money alone and new facilities alone will not change the outcome for homeless animals in any community, much like punitive laws alone or stronlgy enforced by AC rarely lead to change. What changes the state of animal welfare in a community is approaching animal control and animal sheltering in a more modern, progressive way and with multiple, targeted support and services for the human population at the root of the animal-welfare issues. See the No Kill Equation again; doing all of these steps and doing them well makes the most sense of all.

Dona Ana County Human Population Growth & Animal Sheltering Statistics

Back in 1900, the human population of Dona Ana County (DAC) was 10,187. Fast-forward to 1990, and that human population was 135,510. By 2000, the human population was 174,682. Our last U.S. Census data put the population above 200,000, and according to Dona Ana County records, the growth estimate is 4-6% in the next 20 years. By 2015, our population will be approximately 300,000.

Any municipality that is seeing such growth has to grow its infrastructure to meet the resulting challenges. This growth plan should include animal-welfare facilities and services, but these topics are pretty absent from the vision and growth plans and statements put out by DAC and the City of Las Cruces. This goes to show that animal-welfare rates very low on the priority list for our leaders, which is why we are stuck using an animal shelter facility built to meet the needs of our community more than two decades ago.

Our animal shelter statistics are as follows for the past two decades; these are from statistics reported by the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley since its operations were taken over by the City/County in 2008 and from the statistics provided by the Dona Ana County Humane Society, which operated the shelter under contract for many years. Bear in mind that statistics such as these are only as good as the agency keeping them and the method/system they are using to record the statistics and the honesty with which they are kept. As a nation, there is no standardization for recording or reporting animal shelter statistics, though powerhouses such as Maddie's Fund are trying to influence all shelters to follow their model and to report their annual statistics to them for a truer national picture.

DAC Animal Shelter Statistics
2009 projected statistics: ~15,000 intake, ~9500 killed/euthanized (63%)
2008: 15,523 intake, 10,387 killed/euthanized (67%)
2007: 15,743 intake, ~11,000 killed/euthanized (70%)
2006: 17,112, 12,311 (72%)
2005: 15,355 , 11,451 (75%)
2004: 15,639, 11,547 (74%)
2003: 15,436, 10,994 (71%)
2002: 14,673, 10,692 (73%)
2001: 14,891, 10,578 (71%)
2000: 14,690, 9828 (67%)
1999: 14,386, 11,147 (77%)
1998: 13,105, 10,026 (77%)
1997: 13,157, 10,208 (78%)
1996: 12,075, 9399 (78%)
1995: 12,074, 9606 (80%)
1994: 11,476, 8795 (77%)
1993: 11,290, 8442 (75%)
1992: 10,779, 8090 (75%)
1991: 11,262, 8894 (79%)
1990: 11,130, 8933 (80%)
1989: 10,721, 8762 (82%)

Numbers alone show that numbers are not the whole story. Why, when our shelter's intake was 5,000 less each year than it is today, was the kill rate 20% more? The complex answers to these questions are sometimes unknowns or just areas we have not explored. Even those who work in animal welfare sweep issues under the carpet with generalizations. Our community has yet to start the hard work of data collection, data analysis, and figuring out how to proactively tackle the issues this data reveals. We also have yet to research and compare ourselves to areas experiencing success and finding ways to mimic that success here. We erroneously believe all the answers are in dollars and cents. But, what we do when we get those dollars and facilities is equally as important. How it is run is just as important as the building in which it is run. This is as true for animals sheltering as other industries.

Impound fees are not the answer

Oftentimes, both our local leaders and some animal-welfare advocates will talk about how raising fees for impounded animals can help raise the funds needed to improve our facility. What we don't see is these fees are sometimes a big part of the issue and why we kill too many animals, and what they raise is also never enough.

That's not to say that fees should not be farily imposed, but if a person can pay a speeding or other type of ticket or fee in payments when deemed necessary because of their income, allowing people to do the same at the animal shelter to reclaim their pets would be one way we could start reducing our kill rate today. Those fees, such as speeding tickets, should not be seen ONLY in terms of the income they draw. The other side to that coin needs to be looked into as well -- how many needless deaths do they lead to, or what are the consequences of these fees?

This is where many in animal welfare will repeat the old, tired cliche that if a person cannot afford a pet, they should not have one. Progressive approaches do not look to the wallet of a pet guardian as the sole proof that person can be a loving provider for their pets. Just because someone on a fixed income cannot come up with a hundred dollars within a few days to save the animal they love does not mean they don't "deserve" to have that animal.

These knee-jerk reactions and judging books only by the cover are a big part of the reason why we still kill too many animals in our community. It's because we operate from an animal control perspective instead of a care and control model that seeks to find ways to save and enrich lives of animals and the lives of their caregivers.

There is usally more to a story than the black-and-white picture we paint in our minds. If we can start looking at the gray areas and the colors and start to work outside of the lines and ideas we have drawn on for too long, maybe we can start to change our community for the better in terms of our care and processing of unwanted, homeless animals.

System Woes & Muerto Momentos

2009-11-13T12:20:00.026-07:00

Week's biggest woe: Scott case dismissed and dogs going back to their abusers

Today's headline about the Scott dog fighting case being dismissed was not unexpected news, but this case highlights many issues with our animal control and welfare systems that must be addressed for the future. It is very clear that for a mere technicality, these dog abusers have not only gotten off, they now have the ammunition to attack the very system that should have protected their dogs FROM them. The brothers also supposedly have a chance to redeem their names and reputations. Lastly, and worst of all, the dogs remaining from this case are beign returned to their abusers.

This case has enough twists and turns to make one sick and dizzy -- too many twists and turns to address in one blog posting. I personally saw many of the Scott pit bulls during my volunteer work with the animal shelter and out at a remote holding area where they were being cared for, sometimes in pretty bad conditions by definition of that care and the facilities involved. Overall, the dogs were loving to humans and very needy of TLC, but they were obviously trained to attack other dogs. In another system, many could have been salvaged and placed into homes.

One thing is crystal clear: Don't doubt that these dogs were used for fighting and suffered at the hands of the Scott brothers. That was painfully obvious, so any attempts to say these men were legitimate breeders is a joke. Some of the dogs were bait ones that were used to train the other dogs, and they had the horrific scars to prove it. And, without attempts to rehabilitate these dogs during their tenure in the system, most will still go after each other when given the chance. So, what is going to happen to the ones that are left over and being given right back to their original abusers?

It's a sad day indeed, but the day they are returned will be even sadder ... or, will it? What was the alternative at the hands of our animal-welfare system? Being locked up for years in a 10 x 10 kennel at our animal shelter, going literally crazy until the case was resolved? Being locked up for years in a slightly bigger outdoor kennel with little shelter from the elements and little enrichment or socialization? Who cared for these dogs better? Why are there no better alternatives for all victims of animal abusers?

Usually, when cases such as this are resolved, the choices are still few. The animals either go back to the owners they were taken from (such as in this case) or the entire group is systematically put to death by the animal-welfare system that says they cannot be saved or made ready for new homes (this assumption is being disproven in many cases in the U.S. now, and each individual animal deserves an equitable assessment to determine if this is true). For victims of these crimes, none of these choices is a good one.

In this case, some of the dogs died by mistake at our shelter. Some of them died during their tenure at the remote holding facility. All the ones that have survived have endured hell, and now they are going back to the men that started that hell.

If this case doesn't show the many issues we have in our community, I don't know what else can. Many of these issues do lie square on the shoulders of the leaders that run our animal control and welfare systems. We have to keep pushing the system to come up to an animal CARE and control standard and model that does better for victims of abuse. That's what our community deserves, and that's what the victims of these cases deserve as well. It is no longer good enough to simply go after the perpetrators and make them pay for their crimes (which they seldom do anyway). We need to push the system to find alternatives to systematically killing victims of these crimes or housing them in equally cruel ways. The victims and their care should be at the top of the list of priorities.

LOST and FOUND woes

Some months ago, I was helping trying to find the owners of a lost puppy in a neighborhood in the East Mesa. I went around the neighborhood plastering signs and flyers, which is the common advice given to those who lose or find pets. The Missing Pet Partnership experts give even better advice: post big posters at major intersections of the neighborhood where the pet was lost or found so that those passing in their cars can see them -- simple posters with big lettering, such as "LOOKING FOR LOST BLACK LAB; please call 555-5555". For some of their other great search tips, see their website at http://www.missingpetpartnership.org/.

So, the next day I was passing through the neighborhood to find all of my posters and flyers were gone. It had taken me hours to create, print, and post these notices, and I had every intention of going back to take them down a few weeks later. When I saw that this was done, I went around and posted the flyers to all the mail boxes in that neighborhood (probably also against the law), and within a day, I reunited the lost puppy with his family because they saw the flyer and called me. He had been taken from his own gated yard and left to wander loose in the neighborhood, and his family was very upset to find him gone.

I was never called by a City codes person, but I figured out that day that posting flyers is against the law here. You cannot post them on public property (such as light posts), and you must obtain permission to post them on private property. So, what is a pet guardian supposed to do? Yes, you can file your LOST reports at the animal shelter and with the newspapers, and you can go check the shelter each day, but the person that may have found your beloved pet may never check these resources and will probably also assume the worst of you. Your best bet is still putting out posters for those in the area to see to reach that person, show you care, and show how much you want your companion back.

Recently, Suzy lost Mugsey in the District 5 area of Las Cruces; the dog is an Australian Shepherd (pictured at right). Suzy loves her dog dearly, and she was distraught to find the dog missing from, again, her own gated yard. Suzy spent time and money posting more than 300 flyers. She was soon called by a codes person, telling her she had to go remove them all. And, Suzy has still not found Mugsey, and the dog has been missing for more than a month. Suzy has the added unpleasant task of taking stray tours at our shelter all the time, but she is vigilant and keeps looking.

The City and County codes people will tell us this law was put in place to reduce trash. That is legitimate. However, why can't the law be modified to allow these postings and require that the person who posted them return a few weeks later to remove them and dispose properly of them? A date of post could be required, and most good pet guardians would comply with the law. That will take care of most of the trash issue this causes. This is also not our biggest trash issue!

After all, what is more important -- trash or saving lives? In a community that kills 12,000 animals a year at our municipal shelter, it seems that supporting those in the community who are not turning animals over to the shelter would be a good thing to do. Helping to find the homes of animals should be a top priority. We can figure out the trash issue somehow.

Some progressive animal welfare agencies in the U.S. are working with groups such as the Missing Pet Partnership on stepping up their efforts at finding the homes where loose animals belong. The Washoe County AC officers leave signs themselves in areas where they pick up loose pets. This has increased their redemption rates for both cats and dogs - not an easy feat for cats, especially.

For us that find or lose animals, one of the mantras of Missing Pet Partnership is "think lost, not stray". Too many times, because of our work in animal-welfare or just because it's always easier to think the worst, we are poisoned against anyone whose animal gets away. We always forget that the majority of pet guardians in our community love and cherish their pets. We punish even the Suzys of the world, who are frantically looking for the pets they dearly love and care well for. And, we forget there are many legitimate ways animals can become lost and separated from a home where they were dearly loved. We also mistake all xenophobic (fearful, nervous) animals for abused ones, etc. Because of these cumulative mistakes, many animals are not reunited with their loved ones.

So, the next time you can make it to a City Council or County Commission meeting, speak up about this lack of support for pet guardians trying to do the right thing. There has to be a way to keep the trash in our community down without sacrificing lives to do it.

Muerto Momentos

This goes out to all my fellow animal-welfare compatriots. I know that because of the work we do, our views get skewed much of the time. Our worlds become dark because that is the only part of the animal world that we see on a daily basis (the bad people). I like to remind myself every day that that is not the majority of pet guardians (not even in our community), and I make it a point to notice the good ones, too.

At APA's pet altar at the Dia de los Muertos event at Mesilla Plaza a couple of weeks ago, more than 75 people filled out momento cards to pets they have lost. Here are some of the messages written to these beloved family members with fur. I leave you with these thoughts so you can remember the ones you have loved and lost and so that you don't lose complete faith in the human-animal bond.

"Wilmo - You were a great dog. I know I'll see you in the next life. XXOO"

"Teddy - I love you - wherever you are. I hope that you are happy and in a beautiful place. P.S. Thanks you for sending me Ursa cat to love."

"Spirit - Even though you lived with us a short time, we loved you much! Love, Dad and Mom."

"Hi, Mikey - I miss you and your sweet, cute face. Please know you are loved. Dear Lord - Please watch over all the sweet souls in the animal spirits that bless us. Thank you for our time here."

"To Balou - The sweetest and "baddest" dog ever. I'll never forget you."

"To Renard. You were "mine" only for a short time, but I loved you so much. R.I.P., dear. - HL"
"To Skipper, my friend, who left too soon. To Cody, who taught me about cat ways and opened the door for the rest. To all my fosters wherever they are."

"To my Tiger. You always lit up my world and day when I was sad. I love you!"

"In loving memory of my buddy, Scruffy. You had the softest nose and ears. I miss you."

"Missy, we still miss you after more than ten years. - Diane and Hank"

Spread the word about animals in need

2009-11-02T12:14:00.002-07:00

There is a new page on the ACTion Programs for Animals website called Animals in Need. Any messages that are sent to animal-welfare advocates about animals that are lost, found, or needing a new home are posted on this page. Also posted are any requests for specific kinds of animals that people may want.

Please check the page and forward this resource to your contacts. These are animals that are not in any animal shelter or rescue system so are not listed on adoption sites such as PetFinder. Most of the animals needing rehoming come from someone who has cared for them temporarily after being found or someone that has to rehome for whatever reason. This is an opportunity to help keep an animal out of the shelter system as well.

Two new progressive animal-welfare links

2009-10-21T12:26:00.005-06:00

I wanted to let everyone know about two worthy website links added to my Progressive Animal Welfare list at the right: Animal Shelter Tips and Rescue Ink.

Animal Shelter tips offers a wide variety of ideas for shelters, from fundraising to getting more volunteers to how to get more people in your shelter to adopt more animals vs. the alternatives. This site is out of Santa Fe, NM, too. Two shelter cats are the inspiration for the site.

Rescue Ink is the site of that famous rag-tag group of big biker rescue guys with hearts even bigger than their biceps. If you have not watched Rescue Ink Unleashed on the National Geographic Channel, please try to check it out on Friday nights. It airs right after The Dog Whisperer. If you don't get this channel, look out for it on DVD in the near future.

When you watch what these guys accomplish, you wish there was a group of similar tough guys with big hearts in every community to track down animal abusers and deal with the issues they encounter in reasonable, yet firm and powerful, ways. They strive to change the situation for animals and to educate abusers and teach people how to provide better for their animals. When that is not possible, they strive to get animals out of bad situations themselves.

They have great results because there is something about eight tough, inked bikers knocking on doors that garners instant respect. I can't see getting that same response if myself and some other older ladies went knocking on abuser's doors.

All kidding aside, we need this kind of outreach and help in our community. If there are any people out there reading this, whether you are a tough guy with heart or not, we need your assistance to help educate and train people to provide better for their animals. Not a week goes by that I don't get a call as the Dogs Deserve Better representative about a chained dog that could use a group of people to advocate for him or her, and I just got a call this week about an abused, half-starved female husky that is being used as a puppy machine and is being beaten by her owners. The lady witnessing this tragedy is elderly and afraid for herself and her own dogs should she try to approach this family.

Right behind the need for more spay/neuter in our area, we could really use a Rescue Ink of our own as well. I hope that as more people sit at home and watch this show, more big guys with big hearts will be inspired to do the same kind of work in their own communities.

High-volume spay and neuter is our area's biggest need

2009-10-11T21:29:00.008-06:00

Miles to go

It is not news to anyone that our community has a long way to go before we reach the kind of high-volume spay and neuter that will start to make a real dent in our companion-animal overpopulation numbers. I have been working the past few months on the ACTion Programs for Animals pet food bank, and it is obvious that we in animal welfare are not reaching the common masses with a message that is getting through to them about the urgency of our situation and how their individual actions (or inactions) are part of a cumulative problem that leads to the death of nearly 800-1,000 animals in our shelter each month.

Most people do not spay/neuter their pets due to the cost prohibitiveness of the surgery as well as a handful of other reasons, such as myths that have been passed onto them for generations or because they do not make the connection from their animals having litters to those thousands dying every year at our shelter. They say they find the puppies or kittens "good homes", but they don't think about what happens when those homes also do not fix their pets. It's a generational and cumulative issue that is not easy to change or tackle overnight. There are also many backyard breeders in our community as well, and we need to think of creative yet sound approaches to this problem, too.

Many animal-welfare activists call for mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) as the supposed easy answer. However, myself and other progressive animal-welfare activists strongly oppose MSN. The reasons are many. If you do your research and read the details about areas where MSN has been attempted, you see that laws and enforcement are not a simple answer either. These laws often have detrimental affects in a community, too, and not ones that animal people anticipate. If you pass and strictly enforce via Animal Control the MSN laws without having the services and support to back it up or without sanely getting people to comply with the laws, all you will end up with is more and more dead animals each year at your shelter and the same problems. People who don't obey laws will continue not doing so. If only it were that easy!

The point is to reach people in ways that start affecting future generations and start breaking down the myths and getting people in different demographics to see the connections between their actions and the issues we face. The best medicine is to engage with leaders in communities to carry the message for you. We need strong outreach and PR to do this. If you inundate the community with a smart PR effort, and then you back this up with plenty of avenues and choices for them to fix their animals, that's the only recipe that has ever worked. In areas where this is tried vs. MSN, the outcomes have been extraordinary. In this sense, it is incumbent for all in animal welfare to do their homework and learn from the mistakes and successes of others before pushing for changes in our community.

The kind of outreach we are doing with efforts like the pet food bank and pet help lines is important, but it is not going to make a huge difference overnight. We need to seriously pump up the volume of spay/neuter in our community, but to do that, we need to first work toward more services and facilities that can meet our area's demand.

The following is a link to a very important article out of the July/August 2009 Animal Sheltering magazine. Comparing our situation to that of the Gulf Coast region is not that far of a stretch, and their approach and successes in the last few years since Katrina speaks to the level of need in the Borderland as well-- for both El Paso County and Dona Ana County. Until our community starts tackling this issue with this level of effort, we will continue to see our landfills piled high with bodies of unwanted animals. That's the bottom line.

Read the full article here:

SAVING LIVES in the Gulf Coast: Groundbreaking spay/neuter initiative spells hope for homeless animals nationwide

The Shelter Pet Project has launched

At the end of September, the joint campaign effort by The Ad Council, Maddie's Fund, and the HSUS was launched. It features national ads and PSAs that encourage anyone looking for a new pet to adopt them from animal shelters and rescue groups vs. alternatives.

Though we still put down about 4 million pets a year nationally at shelters, studies led by Maddie's Fund show that more people each year are looking to add a new pet into their families than those that get put down. Many are what they call "swing voters"; they are not sure where they might get their next pet from, so Maddie's and their partners are trying to dispel some of the myths and fears that scare people away from shelters, such as assuming all animals that end up at shelters are damaged goods or have irreversible problems.

Some of the other things that run potential adopters off at shelters are the very shelters themselves, with too many not providing adequate customer service or adoption counseling. This campaign will also put pressure on all shelters to do a better job in these regards. As a result, Maddie's has also launched reward grants to shelters who have turned things around in their customer services. Anyone interested in learning more about this program can read about it at http://www.maddiesfund.org/.

When you are watching TV in the upcoming months, look for the humorous ads from The Shelter Pet Project. This is the first time The Ad Council has taken on an animal-welfare cause, so these ads should lead to more people going to look for their future pets at shelters instead of buying from pet stores or backyard breeders.

To find out more about the project, see the ads, and learn how you can help the No Kill movement, check out the website at http://www.theshelterpetproject.org/.

Update on 14 beagle lab puppies

2009-10-02T21:52:00.009-06:00

Thanks to a huge effort by local beagle and basset rescuers Bill and Linda Hart, and lots of help they recruited from other rescuers and animal lovers, 14 former Las Cruces laboratory beagle puppies are now safe in great homes in Arizona instead of the alternative many former lab animals face ... death by euthanasia. This happy story was also made possible by the local laboratory itself, Southwest Bio-Labs, Inc., a company willing to sit and do business with animal rescuers and figure out a way to save lives instead of prematurely end them. This was one case where unnecessary death was avoided due to hard work and perseverance.

Ironically, these dogs and other animals are used to test the very drugs we give our own pets to guarantee they live long and healthy lives (prescription products such as Frontline, HeartGuard, etc.). This animal testing is mandated by federal law, as are the tests of the pharmaceuticals we take ourselves. All we can ask is that the animals used for such tests receive the best care possible, that all repeat and unnecessary tests are avoided, and that the animals receive relief from pain and suffering during testing as much as possible. There are many murky ethical, philosophical and scientific areas regarding animal testing, but what we can ask laboratories to do is be sure the source of their lab animals is not one laced with suffering (such as animals obtained from Class B dealers) and to ask that when they no longer need animals for testing, they search for alternatives to putting the animals down.

The rescue of these 14 puppies this week shows that alternatives exist and should be sought. Happy endings can be found, and no animals deserve it more than those who have sacrificed of themselves so that you, I, and our pets can live healthier and safer lives together.

Here's an update of yesterday's rescue and transport of the puppies from Bill Hart:

"Here's the latest on the 14 beagle lab puppies.

As of 9:30 p.m. last night, all were in their new homes -- safe, sound and happy. What took place yesterday morning with these puppies was nothing short of incredible. We picked up all 14 and transported them to a small but lovely park and released them all at once, not knowing what their response would be. In unison they all leaped from their transport crates and proceeded to romp and play as nature intended.

All who were there were amazed that these little guys could come from living in total confinement to run and play as though they had never seen a cage. Not only did they romp and play with each other, but they just couldn't get enough love and attention from everyone there. For a lack of a better description, they acted as though they had been reborn and whatever they had to endure in the past was completely wiped away from their short lives.

Watching these puppies was something that I and the others there will never forget. We all know that dogs cannot verbally talk to us but if you look into their eyes, they are speaking volumes. And the look in every one of these pups eyes said "thank you, thank you, thank you; we're free and we love you for setting us free and for loving us the way you do!" Yes, their eyes spoke to all of us loud and clear. To see these puppies run free and pick up sticks and pine cones and play with them as toys was something you just don't forget. What I saw yesterday was the unshakable beagle spirit entwined with loving, caring and compassionate human hearts. I saw tears of joy, heard uncontrollable laughter and saw unending smiles. I thought to myself ... this is the way it is supposed to be. What a wonderful event to have experienced!

The only things I regret about this event are that all of you did not get to share the day with the rest of us and that yesterday had to come to an end. I want to truly thank all of you for your thoughts, prayers, donations and everything else that it took to save these beautiful little beagles. I could not have done it without you. I especially want to thank Eli Valdez, Darlene, Renee and Ron, Lynn and Dan, and Linda, my more than understanding and supportive wife, who had to endure me through this whole process.

This was a beautiful day with a happy ending. Because we cared enough to intervene on behalf of these puppies, they are free, happy and most of all alive and healthy. Saying "thank you" doesn't seem to be enough but for now that's all I have. I will go to my grave remembering yesterday."

Fourteen former laboratory pups on way to good homes

2009-09-27T14:18:00.008-06:00

This is an update about the laboratory beagle puppies that local animal-welfare advocates found out about recently. They were used to test some kind of pet drugs at Southwest Bio-Labs, Inc., a local laboratory. This lab tests pharmaceutical produts many of us use for our companion animals to fight parasites and the diseases they spread (drugs such as HeartGuard, etc.)

Luckily, this laboratory has agreed to release the puppies they no longer need for testing. The fourteen puppies, all about 3 to 4 months old, will be turned over to beagle/basset rescuer Bill Hart on Thursday, Oct. 1st.

The puppies are healthy, and Bill will adopt them out via his rescue. He is searching for the proper placement for the pups. They have had zero socialization and training, so they will need special attention and training from anyone who adopts them. They should not be adopted out of sympathy alone; only those who are seeking to adopt a beagle should take them. For more information of if you are interested in one of these puppies, please send me an e-mail, and I will get you in touch with Bill.

E-mail me at cheressemm@gmail.com.

Magazine article explains "progressive" animal welfare

2009-09-15T22:53:00.006-06:00

Don't take my word for it nor that of Nathan Winograd. I know I can rub people the wrong way, and I'm sure Winograd's tough love approach also loses part of his audience as well.

However, I am more hopeful than ever that the progressive drum is beating too loud for people to ignore and will only grow louder. My hope comes from seeing regressive hold-outs like the HSUS acknowledging that progressive approaches to animal welfare for animal control departments and animal shelters are inevitable. This recent article from HSUS's very own Animal Sheltering magazine talks about animal welfare's regressive history and its progressive future. I urge everyone who cares about animals to take the time to read this.

Out of Control, Into Compassion, by Carrie Allen

Dog experiments right under our noses

How would you feel if you were asked to be on a community oversight committee for facilities that test on animals, especially dogs and cats? What if you had to walk through these facilities to witness the fate of the animals within those cages and the sacrifices they make for the supposed human and animal good? Even our pet foods are tested on animals in inhumane conditions, and the companies that do this work are very good at hiding from the public.

I had looked into this at NMSU at one time but decided against it--to join a community oversight or watchdog group for the facilities that test on animals at our university. I knew that I could never be silent if I had to walk through such a facility and accept the fate of these animals or only look for cruelty that broke whatever laws are in place to supposedly protect the animals.

For me, being on a community oversight board for a regressive animal shelter is not that much different. Biting my tongue and trying to work from within the system to affect change is also not in my DNA.

That said, people are needed for these roles. An e-mail message I got today reminded me of this.

A man who rescues beagles and bassets wrote to tell me there is a lab here in Las Cruces that is currently testing on female beagles. This facility is looking to place any male beagles into homes that are born from the litters they are breeding. I had no idea a private research facility that tests on dogs and pigs existed here.

It's called Southwest Bio-Labs, Inc. Google it to try to find out more information, and you see that the company is hard to pin down. From the little I read tonight, it looks like they test drugs made for animals.

I urge anyone who is interested to contact NMSU's animal experimentation labs and this company to ask if there are citizen or community oversight committees you can join for these facilities. Someone needs to have access to ensure that animals are not suffering more than is absolutely necessary.

As for myself, I live for the day when experiments such as these are entirely unnecessary. I think most fit this description today, but many industries are hard to change and even more difficult to topple. In the case of "science", much that passes for legitimate reasons to test on animals seems absurd to the average person, but try to tell that to the scientists whose bread and butter rests in these experiments.

Animal sheltering is not the only industry that needs progressive approaches and needs to change to correctly reflect today's views about animals by the majority of the public. Only by having access to these industries can we know and understand the status quo so we can demand progressive changes that are long overdue.

Socialization and enrichment for sheltered animals

2009-09-02T21:51:00.007-06:00

In many shelters across the nation, enrichment and socialization efforts and programs for both dogs and cats are showing that thinking outside of old-fashioned sheltering cages and kennels does a world of good for both animals and people. There is no doubt that landing in a shelter is a stressful situation for all animals, but a big part of this has to do with regressive shelters that do not offer enrichment for animals in their care. Animals suffer for the "this is the way we've always done it" mentality that befalls many an industry.

Historically, the sheltering situation has been worse for cats, who fall to illness and then subsequent death in greater numbers than dogs in shelters. Because cats hold a strange place in our society, where people less frequently reclaim them at shelters when lost, and because communities such as ours are very outdated in how we deal with homeless and free-roaming cats, our shelter's kill rate for cats is deplorable (more than 80%). So are the conditions in which our cats are housed.

Dogs do not fare too much better in our shelter. Even dogs lucky enough to make it to the adoptables section can languish in kennels and get out infrequently for walks or other escape from the confinement and stress. Blankets and toys and beds are not provided, and sometimes dogs and cats can remain in these conditions for many months (years for court-held animals).

One court document I read recounted how some dogs kept in kennels for years in our shelter had literally chewed on the concrete so much that their teeth were mere nubs when they were finally returned to their owner when the charges were dropped against this person. Needless to say, this owner was back in court charging the system with animal cruelty. This same circle of irony is one that happens often, though it's not something you'd read about in our newspapers!

At our shelter, supposedly to combat disease spread, cats are not allowed to be handled or socialized by volunteers at all. Only staff are allowed to touch the cats, but little in terms of enrichment is offered to cats in their cages by the staff. Cats are stressed, and because of this, they die in more numbers than are probably necessary.

Alternately, many shelters, even those overwhelmed with a large number of cats, are doing things differently and seeing fantastic results in both lowering disease and making better matches for cats and their adopters in the long run and making cats' stays in shelters more peaceful. It has to do with thinking outside of our traditional sheltering boxes.

Special volunteer teams that focus on cat enrichment alone are offering ideas and implementation of programs to help cats survive and thrive in the shelter setting. What shelter staff and volunteer groups need is the same training on properly handling cats to avoid disease spread, but once everyone follows these protocols, the next most important step in mitigating disease is to help cats feel less stress ... provide spots for cats to stretch and scratch and perch and hide, and provide plenty of human contact so cats do not become more and more aloof and nervous, which often causes them to be next on the dreaded kill list.

If you care about cats and want their level elevated to that of dogs in shelters, the thing you need to push for is a shelter enrichment program for our cats, whether this is lead by staff or volunteers. Even simply providing a cardboard box for cats to hide in and perch on in their cages can make a difference ... but why not shoot for better? Push for cat colony rooms to be developed. Do some research about what other shelters are doing, and do the best to emulate these efforts with the resources you have. At a shelter like ours, dogs need this type of advocacy as well.

Still, cats have it worse at our shelter. They still take more of a backseat in terms of staff and volunteer efforts made on their behalf. In response to this, many of us often lament the second place that cats take in both society and in our shelters; however, if you work or volunteer in the animal-welfare arena, you have to lead by example to show that cats deserve the same efforts as dogs. After all, how will the general public ever change their tune if we don't change ours first?

In our shelter, socialization and enrichment efforts and consistent programs are sorely needed for both dogs and cats. If the staff cannot find the time to do it or are not directed to do it, then volunteer teams have to be formed to take care of this important business. Now that the shelter has hired a new volunteer coordinator, the time could not be better to push for these efforts.

For further reading/research:

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/SocializationProtocols.pdf

http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/may_jun_2009/feline_good.pdf

http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/mar_apr_2009/behavior_dept_enriching_shelter_dogs_experience.pdf

http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/jan_feb_2007/behavior_uri_challenge.pdf

Court-held animals are evidence, but they are also sentient beings

2009-08-24T21:32:00.005-06:00

This is in response to the person who keeps asking why volunteers are allowed to socialize and handle court-held dogs and who trains them for this work. For the exact answers to your questions from our shelter and the Animal Control departments, you will have to ask them this directly. I am not sure who is allowed to do this work and not as a volunteer and how they are trained.

That said, even shelter staffers and Animal Control staff have made mistakes with court-held animals in the past. We've had cases of the shelter erroneously putting some animals down that were evidence, and there have been cases of animals dying during their holding period for various reasons while under the AC department's care. I think the gist of this is that no matter who is caring for the animals, they need to be trained well. They need to also take extra precautions to not lose a court-held animal or put them in harm's way. Safety for these animals also comes from the areas they are held.

Furthermore, just because they are evidentiary items does not mean it is okay to lock them up in a smal cage or kennel and completely ignore their right as sentient beings. No matter what the court labels them as, they are living creatues.

If we are doing our jobs well, we will BOTH safeguard the evidence as well as provide for the animals' humane care. It is possible to do both, and we should not settle for less.

These animals, especially since they are held for so long, deserve the Five Freedoms: 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst; 2. Freedom from discomfort; 3. Freedom from pain, injury, and disease; 4. Freedom to express normal behavior; and 5. Freedom from fear and distress. Their quality of life while awaiting their eventual disposition is very important, and all animal advocates should push for their humane care when cared for by the shelter, the AC department in their holding facilities, or in temporary foster homes.

More from shelter volunteer Renee Davis

Longtime and former shelter volunteer Renee Davis worked with court-held dogs at our shelter for the past year. She recently did something very brave; she spoke up publically about the conditions for dogs living in the double-wide trailer at the shelter, where they are intensely confined. She had hoped that in her bringing the issues to light, our leaders would address these concerns. To date, that has not really happened, and it is a shame.

She shared the following story with me via e-mail to show that the issues at this trailer are multi-fold and have been going on for some time:

"I believe it was September of 2008 that a dog that was kept in the double-wide trailer got out and killed a rabbit that was also housed in the trailer. I remember the shelter's vet tech at the time was so upset about this that she quit.

This year, around May, another dog housed in the trailer, who I believe was eventually transferred to Denver, got out as he did many times and jumped through the screen window over the sink. He was running around in the trailer's enclosed yard.

He saw me walking another dog in the desert, and he jumped the fence and came running up to me. He was very friendly but was not wearing a collar. I was trying to hold him and the other dog because once out in the desert, he could have escaped and run to the highway.

I was screaming at the top of my lungs; finally, another volunteer came to help me. She went to the double-wide trailer to get the staff person who was cleaning at this time. He was suprised to see the dog out. It turns out he couldn't hear me scream because was listening to music with earphones as he worked. Many of the staff regularly do this, and I feel it is unsafe. Dogs were constantly getting out from the doublewide, and this is not a safe environment for the animals or people."

MORE of us need to speak up to the shelter's management and our local leaders about the misuse of this trailer as permanent housing. Time and again, incidents like this prove that how that trailer is being used is not only against sheltering industry standards, it is inhumane.

Former Best Friends CEO visits Las Cruces

2009-08-18T22:12:00.009-06:00

I was very fortunate a couple of Sundays ago to spend some quality time with the former CEO of Best Friends Animal Society, Paul Berry. He passed through Las Cruces as part of his Our Humane Nation motorcycle tour. Las Cruces was lucky for this visit because our community was not in Mr. Berry's original plan. He had a last-minute cancellation in Albuquerque so stopped by here instead. He got my name and number from a fellow No Kill advocate in Austin, TX. Thanks to Ryan Clinton at FixAustin.org for the referral!

You can read Paul's blog about his Las Cruces visit on his website (http://www.ourhumanenation.com/) when he publishes it. I think he said that should be posted within a couple of weeks from now.

During his visit, we stopped by the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley (ASCMV), and then we stopped by Safe Haven Animal Sanctuary. We then had a nice vegan dinner with fellow Las Cruces animal advocate Jean Gilbert.

Paul is an electrical engineer who made a career move to animal welfare and away from corporate America some time ago. He has been an animal-cruelty investigator and also ran a mobile spay/neuter van before taking the Best Friends CEO post for the last seven years. He left Best Friends earlier this year, though his wife is still working there. He decided to take this tour to find out what is going on in the world of animal welfare across the United States.

Some of Paul's remarkable work at Best Friends included the rescue and rehabilitation of the Michael Vick dogs; Best Friends took on the dogs that needed the most work and rehabilitation from this group. Paul is also responsible for making the TV deal for Dogtown, one of my new favorites that shows on National Geograhic.

It was especially nice to bounce off my questions and ideas on Paul. He agreed that our community has a long way to go and a big problem in our yearly animal intakes at our one shelter. He urged us to start doing some data gathering and research to use to build up alternatives to the one municipal shelter.

I was also glad to hear that he had some insight into one of my dreams for our near future -- opening an NSNRT clinic from the Humane Alliance group (http://www.humanealliance.org/). He said that model is terrific because the clinics are able to service a wide area of a community and spay/neuter hundreds of animals each day. Wow! Isn't that something to work toward for our community? We all can agree we need that level of high-volume spay/neuter to start reducing our shelter's intake rate in a significant way.

Shelter observation

As a critic of our shelter and former volunteer, I admit that I have not been there for many months. I decided to quit my shelter volunteer work to instead work in the community to the best of my ability to help animals and people. However, I also agree that there is a place for all of us and that our shelter needs the support of volunteers in the community. I also think that the more staunch critics should not be silenced, but I myself have stepped more away from this role because I think one group of animal-welfare people needs to actively work on alternatives to our shelter. If you let yourself, you can become completely overwhelmed with the shelter's issues, and that leaves little time and effort for anything else.

So, Paul and I stopped by the shelter that Sunday at about 4:30 p.m. The shelter was going to close at 5 p.m., so there weren't too many people around. We were allowed to walk through the adoptables area when Paul explained to a shelter staffer who he was and what he was doing there. Usually, people are not allowed to walk around our shelter and just look. People are required to fill out a complete adoption application.

We walked around for a bit in the dog adoptables area, and then we moved on to visit the cats and bunny rabbits. On our way back out toward the entrance, Paul stopped to look into the dog adoptables area again. There is a door that leads to it from the hallway on the way out the shelter. He stood at that door for a while, looking through the door's window, so I went over to see what he was looking at.

We saw a kennel attendant, dressed in scrubs, standing at the entrance of one of the dog adoptable kennels. The two dogs being housed in that kennel were standing in it, and the kennel attendant was hosing down the feces/waste using a hose. Himself and the two dogs were inside the kennel at this time. I was surprised to see that he was not only doing this (which is against humane care and cleaning standards for shelters) but that he was not hiding it from anyone either. The shelter was not not closed yet, and there were still a few people from the public, including Paul and myself, walking around.

It may be my imagination, but I got the feeling and an attitude from the shelter staff from the moment we walked in that they are pretty much autonomous and can do as they please. I guess this comes from the fact that our leaders blindly and fully support the shelter's director, so there is no fear of repercussions. For more stark evidence of this, see the last blog posting on this site and the pictures at right.

It was at this time that something hit me. Maybe all us advocates have been going about this the wrong way. All this time, we have been pushing the leaders on the ASCMV oversight board to visit the shelter more often. They sometimes do this but announce their visits ahead of time. Yet, even if they didn't, would they be able to see that someone hosing down a kennel with the dogs standing in it raises a BIG red flag?

I think what we should be pushing for instead is that each person that sits on the board of directors for our shelter should have to become educated about sheltering industry standards. They should have to take numerous shelter tours in nearby areas as well as other states, including visits to shelters that have very good reputations. After all, this board will be setting policy which then feeds procedures for our shelter. Unless they know something about animal sheltering (the industry and its standards), they will never see what is wrong with the picture when they visit our facility.

It's no wonder our shelter staff, including the director, do not feel they need to be held accountable to sheltering standards. No one in power is holding them up to any.

Guest blog on inhumane conditions for shelter dogs

2009-08-11T22:21:00.015-06:00

Today's blog was written by a guest blogger and shelter volunteer. Her name is Renee Davis, and she has been volunteering at our municipal shelter for about a year (at the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley). She has worked about 400 hours and is a faithful volunteer who primarily works with dogs housed at the shelter pending court cases. She goes every Tuesday and Friday to give these dogs a break from intense confinement, but she can only help a few of the many.

The animal-welfare and court systems regard these animals as "evidentiary items", and sometimes their cases can drag out months or even years. A recent example is that of the Smith brothers who were charged with dog fighting. Many of their pit bulls have been housed for years now at both the shelter and another facility operated by the county's animal control department.

Renee spoke up recently about conditions for dogs kept in a double-wide trailer on the shelter's property. She took pictures and approached the shelter's oversight board to ask them to look into the legality of this practice and also to ask themselves this simple question, "Is it humane to house dogs in small cages for long periods of time (weeks/months) for 24 hours a day?"

In a Las Cruces Sun-News article last week, the shelter's director is quoted as saying they will continue to use this trailer to house dogs and that it is not inhumane or cruel. Advocates are asking others to speak up about this to their local leaders. The only way this would not be considered inhumane is if the dogs were given lengthly breaks from the confinement every eight or so hours and allowed natural movement for long periods of time. As it stands now, according to Renee, who heard it directly from the shelter's kennel supervisor, the cages are cleaned once a day, and that's the only break the dogs get from them. This break lasts about 10 minutes, and the rest of the time, the dogs live in their urine-, feces-, and water-soaked cages. Some of these dogs are large and can barely stand or turn around. Even energetic, powerful dogs have been housed this way (such as the pit bulls).

See the stories below from Renee about two terriers she worked closely with that had bad experiences as court-hold dogs. As you read this, keep in mind that Renee is not one of us animal activists/advocates. She did not got to our shelter with any kind of agenda or preconceived notions. She went to help the dogs, whom she genuinely loves and cares for. I know this because I have seen her break down in tears over the powerlessness of volunteers to do more to help. I have been in her shoes before, so my heart goes out to her and the dogs.

I thank Renee for her courage to speak up. It is not an easy thing to do.

The Tale of Two Court-Hold Dogs
by Renee Davis

Many months ago, a group of court-hold animals came into the shelter. Among them were two terriers that I had direct experience with.

Court-Hold Terrier #1

One of these dogs, Hermy, was put in a kennel with a very large dog in the Quarantine (Q) area, which is where the court-hold dogs are housed. Hermy’s leg was broken, either by being trampled on by the big dog he shared the kennel with or by escaping the kennel through the water dish area (a very common occurrence at the shelter). The bowls are not properly secured on most of the kennels throughout the shelter, so small dogs can escape from this opening.

The shelter’s staff vet put a cast on him right away and put him in a cage in the director’s office for observation. When his leg didn't heal correctly, the vet put another cast on his leg and kept him in her office. That's when myself and another volunteer started taking him outside to get fresh air. When his leg healed, shelter staff put him in the double-wide trailer below the shelter where there were three other small dogs housed at that time. They each were in individual cages.

The volunteer and I began socializing these dogs since the kennel supervisor said they hadn't been out in a while. A couple of months ago, the people who owned these dogs and other animals related to this court case relinquished custody of all their animals to the shelter as part of a deal to have the charges against them dropped. About a month ago, Hermy was put in the adoptable puppy area at the shelter and made available for adoption.

A couple of weeks ago, he broke his leg getting out of the puppy area, chasing after a little chihuahua. When the other volunteer and I were leaving one day shortly after Hermy had been moved to the adoptables area, we saw the shelter director in the back parking lot with two animal control officers.

She said, “How’s everything looking, ladies?”

I said, “So, the little dog broke his leg again.”

She said, “Yeah, he kept getting out after that little chihuahua. You can't blame him.” She was referring to both dogs being unaltered, which was giving the terrier incentive to jump out of his holding area after the female dog that was in heat.

I asked, “Are you going to fix the broken leg?”

She said, “We don't know what were going to do with him.”

The other volunteer and I looked at each other and figured she was going to put him down from her choice of words. I called Frank Bryce because I know he tries to rescue animals at the shelter at risk of being put down on behalf of the Humane Society of Southern New Mexico (a non-profit animal-welfare organization). I told him about the situation with Hermy and my concerns over his well-being.

He called over to the shelter the first thing the next morning. Since it was a Saturday, the shelter director wasn't there and her population supervisor was taking animals to an offsite for adoption. Frank told the shelter staff person on the phone that he wanted to rescue the little dog with the broken leg and take him to the vet right away. Frank called me and said the shelter didn't open until 12 p.m. I told him I would go over and check on Hermy.

Hermy was back in a cage in the med wing. I told the staff person on duty that a rescue person wanted to take Hermy. He said the dog was in good hands at this time, but that he’d let the staff know about the rescue person wanting to take him. I also told the girls up at the front desk; they already knew a rescuer was interested in Hermy.

When I heard from Frank later that day, he said the shelter director wouldn't let him take the dog. Frank called the city manager, concerned about the dog and why he wasn't allowed to take him to the vet. The city manager apparently called the director and was told that Hermy was going to a foster home.

I called the city manager because I was very concerned about the dog’s newly broken leg, which I understood had not been treated. I told him that I couldn’t understand why a rescue person wasn't allowed to take the dog. It had been four days since the leg was broken. The city manager told me he was going to let the shelter director handle the situation.

Soon after that, I called another volunteer to explain what happened to Hermy, and she called the shelter and talked to the staff person in charge on weekends. The staff person in charge went to check on Hermy and said that he seemed to be playing with something and the director had found someone to foster him. She did not know who the foster parent was going to be. She also said they weren't even sure the leg was broken; it could be nerve damage or something else. So, my fellow volunteer said I should not worry.

On that following Monday, I was at Sam’s Club and saw the shelter vet in line at one of the registers. I went up and asked her how the little dog with the broken leg was doing. She said the dog was fine; it was the other leg this time that broke and that he must have a bone problem. I told her he broke his leg the first time when he was sharing a kennel in the court-hold area with a much larger dog and was also escaping out of the kennel via the area where the water bowl was supposed to be secured. I also said the second time he broke it he was in the puppy area, and he more than likely broke it by jumping the wall to get out of his holding space. I asked her if she was going to fix the dog’s leg, and she told me that the shelter was not going to do it because Hermy was going to a rescue and rescue was going to fix it. I asked her which rescue was taking the dog, and she told me to ask the shelter director.

I was getting very concerned at this point. It had now been six days since he broke the second leg, and I wondered why we have a shelter vet on staff that gets paid handsomely to help dogs that are sick and injured. My genuine concern was about the dog’s well-being as I had grown attached to him with the many months I had worked to help rehabilitate and socialize him on a weekly basis. I felt it would have been the respectful thing to do to let me know which rescue was taking him on and when the dog’s leg would be looked at and fixed.

Court-Hold Terrier #2

There was another small, older terrier that came in with the same group Hermy did; he was also a court-hold dog from the same case. I was told by the population supervisor, in an unsavory vocabulary, that the little old dog was very mean. Because of this, I was afraid to take him out of the kennel. The old terrier was being housed with a medium-sized female in the beginning, but the animal control officers in charge of this particular case asked the shelter management to move the terrier because it was not a good idea to house two unaltered dogs together of the opposite sex.

The population supervisor decided to put the old terrier, who weighed 8 pounds, into a kennel with a very large pit bull named Blue Eyes, who was very friendly but energetic and weighed about 90 pounds. The pit bull was very strong and hard to handle when I’d take him out to walk. Being confined most of the time, he had plenty of energy to burn. Most pit bulls in the Q kennels develop very repeated patterns of leaping on the walls and literally going kennel crazy.

When the pit bull would get excited, he’d jump around in the kennel and pounce on the little old terrier, who stayed huddled in the back of the kennel. The terrier would scream and howl and I was told that his legs would sometimes be bloodied by this. I think at one point the old terrier was sent to the med wing, and the shelter director said he let her pick him up. I remember thinking that it was a blessing for the poor old dog to be out of that kennel and away from the large dog.

However, shortly thereafter, the old terrier was put back in with the big dog. At this point, I saw the little dog had on a horribly large choke chain collar, and I went and asked someone on the staff about this because it looked like it was hurtful or dangerous to the small dog. He was huddled in the back corner again. When I went back to the kennel to check on the small dog, the chain collar had been removed. I am not sure who had put that on him in the first place.

Finally, another volunteer and myself were so upset by what was happening to that poor dog in the situation with the bigger dog, that I went to the director. I was crying and asked if she could please take that little dog out of there because he was basically a chew toy for the bigger, energetic dog. The director said she was aware of the situation and would have him moved.

However, it was not until a week later that the little old terrier was moved into a cage of his own in the double-wide trailer. He was housed there with three other dogs from that group of court-holds. It was such a relief, but I wondered why he was not moved right away when the situation was brought to the shelter director’s attention by myself personally. She saw how upset and worried I was and that my feelings of fear for the dog were genuine.

Once the old terrier was moved to the trailer, another volunteer and I started walking him and loving him. We found out that he wasn’t mean at all. He just needed someone to care about him for the first time in his life and to be out of the traumatic situation he first faced at the shelter. It was torture to put him into a shared kennel with such a large dog in the first place.

Like Hermy, this old terrier was relinquished by the owners to the shelter. He was eligible for adoption consideration or to go into a foster home, etc. The other volunteer and I were very afraid for him, knowing what treatment he got in the shelter environment in the first place. We continued to walk and take care of him, hoping for the best.

One day a couple of weeks after he could have been put up for adoption, I was holding him in my arms when the shelter director and the population supervisor came up to me.

The director said, “So, how is he doing?”

I happily said, “He is doing really good! He likes to lick my neck and learned to jump into my arms. He loves to be petted but just doesn't like his hiney touched. ”

At that point, the director reached out and grabbed his nose very hard! He snapped at her and screamed. I was in shock.

She said, “We can't have kids putting their hands in there with him.”

I remember saying something like he sounded scared like he did when he was in with the pit bull in the kennel.

The shelter decided to kill the old terrier that night. I can’t even write this without crying.

I feel it was a betrayal to the dog and myself as a volunteer after all the time I took to work with this dog. The shelter director set him up to fail, and it shows how little herself and the population supervisor understand about dog behavior. The little dog was scared and was perhaps protecting the only person (myself) who had shown him any kindness at the shelter. That is not the correct or fair way to temperament test a dog by any standard, and even if he was not a good match for children, he may have made a wonderful companion to an older man or woman or couple.

Conference Workshop: Overcoming Internal Obstacles to Success, Part II

2009-08-02T11:14:00.006-06:00

I'm finally getting back to the No Kill Conference 2009 and finishing up my summary of the best workshop I attended, which was called Overcoming Internal Obstacles to Success. From what I have seen, most of the obstacles to shelter success are internal, and the way forward to pushing through these obstacles is right in the hands of that shelter's leadership ... mainly the shelter's director.

Still, the ultimate responsibility goes higher than that. This director is a hired person. In a privately run shelter, the non-profit's board of directors hires the executive director, and they are ultimately responsible for this person's performance. In a municipal shelter such as our own, it is our City and County leaders who hire the executive director and are responsible for the way the shelter runs. In our particular case, a shelter oversight board was formed that consists of three representatives from City government, three representatives from County government, and two non-voting members -- the City manager and the County manager. This board appointed a chairman of the board, but it does not assign officer roles similar to those of a non-profit board.

The board's agent-in-charge at the shelter facility is their executive director. That role is of utmost importance. The tone and leadership set by this person permeates down through the rest of the employees and then to the public this facility serves.

At the No Kill Conference 2009, we had the luck to hear presentations by this nation's top executive directors, and one of these is Bonney Brown from the Nevada Humane Society (NHS). She came to NHS from Best Friends, and she brought all that positive energy with her. She is also an avid reader of management books and gives leadership much of her time and effort. Her slide presentation on overcoming internal obstacles included lots of great quotes such as this:

"I am personally convinced that one person can be a change catalyst, a 'transformer' in any situation, any organization. Such an individual is yeast that can leaven an entire loaf. It requires vision, initiative, patience, respect, persistence, courage, and faith to be a transforming leader." -- Stephen R. Covey

Leaders like Brown overcome adversity and obstacles by working hard at doing so and trying their best to always remain calm, professional, and courteous and keep their personal feelings out of the equation. That is not an easy feat, but she offers some tricks of the trade to help others accomplish this.

She said it starts with acknowledging some basic things. You have no control over others, yet the way you respond to others is important, and self-control is a must. Being defensive in the face of criticism gets you nowhere, no matter who is offering that criticism. It is best to ask lots of questions, ask the person for advice and what they'd do, and then reflect that back. Focus on the content, not emotion or feelings. That said, it is important to empathize with the person. Thank them if you can, and assume sincerity on their part (even if you suspect they may be lying or being malicious). Look for the common ground.

If you did mess up, offer a sincere apology and explain how you'll address the situation differently in the future or how you'll address the situation with your staff. Take ownership and responsibility. You can then ask the person to let you give or offer your view of the content. Look for what will make it better.

In the face of very angry or negative energy, try your best to stop it and redirect that energy into a more calm and positive place. Never give angry or negative energy in return. Being calm yourself will help calm the whole situation down. Demonstrate goodwill by really listening and talking less (especially at first). This is a very preventative measure as well. You never want to let a conversation escalate into an argument; this does not make you look like a positive leader to anyone -- that person, your staff, or anyone else that is around.

Whatever the resolution is of the original content, share your plan. Share success and congratulate the person or persons who are part of the success.

Most important is this bottom line for any shelter leader wanting to turn things around:
ALWAYS BE TRANSPARENT.

Shelters like ours give No Kill a bad name

2009-07-21T21:03:00.010-06:00

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.

Sorry for the gaps between blogs these days

2009-07-16T20:36:00.002-06:00

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.

Shelter oversight board -- what's the point?

2009-07-05T18:40:00.009-06:00

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.

Irresponsible pet owner's wrongs don't make our shelter's wrongs right

2009-06-21T15:34:00.016-06:00

Two wrongs don't make a right. And I, for one, am tired of the excuses, posturing, defensiveness, deflection and egos that stand in the way of progress. At some point SOON, we have to change the nature of the conversation and our efforts and actions in animal welfare in our community. We are literally spinning our wheels here.

Everywhere you turn these days, our local leaders and newspapers are using what amounts to faulty logic concerning the conditions and operations and high kill rate at our animal shelter: that because our shelter takes in an average of 1000-1400 homeless animals a month, it excuses our leaders and shelter from addressing the alarming and legitimate issues in their own operations and treatment of these animals and the way they engage with the general public. This is nothing more than a political cover-up and ploy to completely deflect attention away from legitimate issues that are raised and a way to avoid addressing each and every issue and topic.

It's like putting a clean blanket over the poop in a kennel or cage and continuing to cover up the next mess using this same tactic. In the end, all we have is more piles of poop and dirty blankets, and nothing is addressed or resolved.

I am also tired of this old cliche they repeat constantly: "Our community has an overpopulation problem and if only people would spay and neuter and care for their animals, we would not have this problem". Well, first of all ... DUH! We and the rest of this nation have the same issues to deal with, and of course we would not have this problem if all people were responsible. That they are not is a given, and animal shelters are made to be safety nets for animals in times of need. If that weren't the case, rescues and shelters would not be necessary, and we could close them all down and fire all our high-paying shelter directors and their staffs.

This faulty argument simply states the obvious. We do have problems. What many of us advocates are saying is the day has come that we learn to face issues more proactively than we have done in the past. If our shelter facility cannot adequately handle the number of animals coming in, they either have to upgrade the facility to meet the demand or come up with targeted methods to start decreasing the intake at the shelter. Intake at the shelter is not simply about spay/neuter; they also need to look at why AC departments are hauling animals in and assess if this is the only or best option in all cases. For hundreds of cats, for example, this should be the LAST option. They also need to look at many of their other efforts, such as helping people who are looking for their lost animals find them in their facility. This part of our shelter's customer service, in particular, is horribly lacking. There is little in terms of information-sharing, giving sound advice, and genuinely helping people or welcoming them.

All our leaders and newspaper stories also point to only spay/neuter and adoption as the answer to our high kill rate. They all ignore or can't be bothered to learn about the other parts of the lifesaving No Kill Equation that -- when implemented correctly -- is having great success in other areas of our nation, with more success stories added each year. They simply don't get it. They especially do not get that the shelter has to have a complete philosophical and attitude adjustment before we can engage the public in ways that make a difference.

For those who do not believe that our community has the compassion and will to make change, look no further than this past week's story in the paper where the shelter was supposedly going to be forced to put down 50+ dogs by this weekend to make room for 12 court-hold pit bulls. First of all, this story came out at the last minute when I'm sure the shelter and AC department were aware of the issue long beforehand because the pit bull's care relied on grant funds that were going to end on July 1st.

Nevertheless, when the story came out, complete with pictures of mom dogs and puppies slated for almost immediate death, the community responded overwhelmingly within ONE DAY. This was a very positive response to very negative and incompetent messages from the shelter's director and other leaders in our animal-welfare system peppered throughout the news story. Imagine what kind of a response we could get if we engaged people positively and proactively and with enough time and a specific plan ahead of time? I have no doubt our community could face these challenges more effectively if led to do so by professionals who know better and understand how to meet challenges instead of those admitting they don't know what to do about the situation.

Essentially what our leaders are doing with this simplistic straw man tactic is closing the opportunity of any detailed conversations about known issues, much less the hard work and action it would take to address the issues with specific solutions. When our leaders simply point or wag that finger at only the irresponsible public, they miss the entire boat. They are forgetting the rest of us ... the majority of us who do not represent this irresonsible segment of the population. We, the majority, are individuals and groups that can become part of the solutions.

I imagine using this argument also helps them sleep better at night even though the evidence from multiple written assessments of our shelter over the past few years tells one story very clearly -- our leaders are doing a very poor job of running our shelter, and little has changed with the hiring of a new shelter director last May, which is also the same story repeating itself. We've been there and done that time and again.

Those on the ASCMV oversight board that cannot be bothered with the details of what is going on at our shelter have no business serving on that board; them not holding their agent in charge of the shelter accountable for the management and operations is not acceptable, no matter who that individual is today or who it will be tomorrow. Don't let them fool you into thinking that because they have so many animals to deal with and such a hard job that the blind eye they turn to issues is acceptable. It is not, and it has never been!

It's time for any animal-welfare advocates that are fed up to join forces and come forward with a more organized and targeted approach as well. Anyone interested in helping us along these lines, please contact me at cheressemm@gmail.com.

There are a few of us that are tired of this revolving door and ongoing issues that never get addressed by our leaders. It's time we come up with a new approach to let these leaders know that not only are we not going anywhere, we see through these political arguments and cover-ups, and we are going to continue to demand change and action and solutions. We are not ignorant, and we are well aware that there are more complexities to the causes and solutions of the problems in our system. We want progressive animal-welfare services and sheltering, and we are not going anywhere until the step up to this challenge or find someone who can lead us in that direction.

What our community needs to focus on next

2009-06-09T17:22:00.018-06:00

I'm sorry to interrupt my No Kill Conference 2009 workshop summaries, but some important things came to light in our community this past week that I wanted to share. I will continue writing about the conference and sharing information given to us in our CD packet in the next few months, but there are times that local matters must be addressed.

Challenge to Our Local Shelter and AC Department Leaderships

In an e-mail message sent out to about 130 people this past week, our shelter's executive director implored us to become part of the solution and take actions instead of waste time. She had received a personal message from myself and an individual rescuer to our personal network of animal people; we were trying to save a few dogs in danger of being killed at our shelter. It seems when anyone tries to address issues in any real, meaningful or detailed way, they are accused of being part of the problem. I have experienced this directly myself and have heard it time and again from many who work in animal welfare.

That's where I form my opinion about our current shelter leadership and how it reflects going up the ladder to our ASCMV governing board. I honestly don't think we are doing all that we can to enrich and save more lives at our shelter, and I have every right to that opinion. I also have observed far too many times where our shelter's leadership and staff have been very unprofessional in their dealings with animal groups and individuals from the public, and I think this is uncalled for and the main reason why we cannot progress.

For example, this one paragraph in the director's message shows how far we have to go as a community. First of all, it is insulting to many of us as it slaps us in the face and acuses us of doing nothing to help solve our community's animal issues. This came to us from a hired individual who is paid a good salary to run our sheler and has only been here a little over a year. Yet, she said this to some rescuers who have been here working for years on these issues. Her message and demeanor also show how horrible the lines of communication are between our shelter and the rest of us out here working hard most of our free time in doing just what she asks us to do. Overall, it's sad and tragic to see how out-of-touch our shelter's leadership is with the community it serves.

Many of us are out here working directly with normal people and helping them become responsible pet guardians. We are not stuck in a myopic view behind the walls of an overburdened facility pointing fingers outward and circling those wagons. Some are out here helping people spay and neuter their animals, some are trying to find alternatives to pet relinquishments at the shelter by re-homing animals, some are operating non-profits and rescues, but there is no doubt in my mind that we are all working hard ... most of us for no monetary compensation whatsoever.

On top of that, there is another whole large part of our community that we have not even started to tap into nor have we begun to harness the overwhelming compassion that is out there. We forget that for every bad, irresponsible pet owner, there are tens of hundreds more normal people that are good guardians and who provide well for their animals and have a strong bond with them. If not, Americans would not be spending billions of dollars on animal care each year. It is these people we have to reach out to and invite to become part of the solution as well as those who we can educate and turn around. Ironically, most of what shelter leaders who are regressive do is point fingers at people, treat them suspiciously, and turn them off, which directly affects the programs and services the shelter can provide for our homeless animals. It's akin to a police officer who treats every person as a criminal.

The other day, I was walking my dog in what many would consider a more poor area of our city; then we went to the dog park and then another city park after that (it takes a long while to tire him out!). I have been making it my duty these days to take a mental "pet guardian" vs. "pet owner" count as I'm out on my daily tasks. I often notice the difference between beloved family dogs vs. resident dogs tied out with zero socialization ... and everything in-between. I do this to not get lost in the negativity that can sometimes come from animal-welfare work and to keep a bigger perspective.

From these observations, it is clear to me that nothing is black and white. In this one outing, I saw about five dogs outside whose owners were playing and hanging out with them in the yard; I saw a man feeding a cat on top of an abandoned car in his yard and petting him/her; I saw one tied up, pathetic resident guard dog; and then I saw about 10 to 20 pampered pooches at both the dog park and regular park I went to as well as several people walking their dogs on leashes or riding with them in their cars. Once you look at the big picture, you realize how colorful it really is.

That's not to say we don't have issues in Dona Ana County; it would be an insult to say that as well. I just think we have alot of untapped resources to deal with the issues more creatively and successfully. And, we are never going to get to a time we turn the tide around until there are clear, open, transparent lines of communication and partnerships between us animal-welfare volunteers and non-profit groups and the shelter's leadership. Then, there needs to be the same openness and partnering with these groups and our AC departments and between the shelter and each AC department. If the shelter tries to do it all alone, it will take a longer time to reach success, and they will probably never get there.

A good case in point is information our director revealed to us in this same e-mail about their increasing transfers of animals out of our area and how that reduced our kill/euthanasia rate from the horrible 70-80% rate to actually matching the national average of around 50%+ in April 2009. That's great news, and that is the kind of success that everyone who works with animals in our community should know, and we should know if we are maintaining that success from here on out or not and look into why we are or not. However, unless we can make it to one monthly morning ASCMV board meeting held on a work day (at 9 a.m. the first Thurs. of each month), we are in the dark. And, that one meeting is not conducive to working through any details or for back-and-forth communication and problem-solving.

In the end, our overall kill rate cannot be reduced by any one effort or program alone or any one facility, group, or person alone. We still have a long way to go. The national average kill rate of 50% is still a tragedy. It takes the whole village and whole slew of efforts to create a No Kill community. It is being done in more and more communities in the U.S. each year, and it is up to us to decide to join that movement now or later. I have no doubt that the nation will reach No Kill sooner or later. When will we join the shelter reform movement?

For us, it's the flow of communication and information I challenge us all to improve in order to help save more lives and in order to come to the day when our shelter's staff does not have to make those daily, harsh decisions of who lives and who dies. Yet, even those decisions need to be made equitably and after fair, documented behavioral and medical assessments.

What kind of information will help us? How can we begin to share it better and start mending these broken relationships? How can we move on from the past?

We all talk about the horrible overpopulation issue in our community and the high intake rate at our shelter. That is an issue we can all agree upon and want to do something about. However, that is still a very big-picture view of the situation. Each non-profit group and individual rescuer is trying their best to make a dent in these numbers, but we also spin our wheels alot because we lack the information of where and how to best target our efforts. No story is that simple, and the more detailed information we can share, the better off we all will be.

Here is some food for thought for us all moving forward:

If the AC departments and the shelter shared some of their database information with animal groups, we could start targeting our efforts outside the shelter to those areas in most need first. For example, from what exact areas (by zip code or other identifier) are the most strays picked up? Where are the mom dogs and cats coming from with their litters? These are the areas that groups can target for public outreach/education and that can be targeted with special spay/neuter efforts. For example, Albuquerque's Animal Humane has a program that offers free s/n services via their mobile van in only one zip code of their community from which the most homeless animals come.

Another useful piece of information would be to know the predominant breeds and "types" of animals coming into our shelter. From my experience there in the past, I saw that we got many chihuahuas and mixes, pit bulls and mixes, and too many stray/feral cats. These figures can help us develop incentivized efforts to make a dent in these populations first. In some areas, they have programs that fix pit bulls for free or for a small "reward". Also, the shelter's leadership should be at the forefront of lobbying for legal changes in our system to deal with cats in the community in better ways than hauling ferals in to be killed within hours of reaching the facility. Of all groups, the shelter should understand this is the last place any feral cat should be, and they should be giving educational presentations throughout the community about community cat programs that work and are now endorsed by every major animal group in the nation.

With the large intake in our one municipal shelter, it is obvious that one facility is not enough. What about starting a capital campaign to build another facility -- perhaps one run as a private, non-profit that can take up some of the slack and offer/model progressive sheltering programs and services? Or, how can we build a larger foster network to help ease the burden at our shelter? We need foster homes that number in the hundreds if not thousands, and with a community that has so many military families, why not target a P/R effort to these families to help them understand the benefits and rewards of fostering animals? I know that most people in the general public do not understand what fostering animals entails; it's a foreign concept to them. Many people love animals but cannot make a lifetime commitment at this time -- those are the ones to steer into fostering. News media can help by featuring stories about families who foster as well.

We need a PR campaign that educates the public that the animal shelter should be the place of LAST resort for unwanted animals. When possible, we need to help people work through issues with behavior modification, etc. We also need a shelter staff that does more than repeat one sentence to anyone relinquishing an animal, "We don't have space right now, so if you leave that dog/cat here, the chances are it will be put down immediately." We need to sit down with these people, get as much information as possible about each animal to make better adoption matches, and we especially need to start sending a message back to the public that dumping an animal is not something you can do in five seconds. Make it as important event as it is, and also remove the option of people stuffing animals into a cage when no one is around. Until we in animal welfare start treating each animal like his/her life matters as much as the one that came before, the public won't get that new message either.

We need to find a way to provide socialization, training and enrichment to our shelter animals as they are going through the system. We need to do more than figure out their outcome; we need to be responsible about the quality of their lives in the system, too. This is also one of the biggest efforts in disease control because stressed animals have depressed immune systems. It is not enough to follow shelter medicine cleaning protocol while you restrict access to animals and then provide zero enrichment. This is an outrage, and it needs to be addressed. We must employ the Five Freedoms in the least (see the last part of this blog posting for a definition of this concept), and if the shelter staff cannot do this alone, we need a plan of action to get people in there who can. This is especially true for any animals held long-term, such as those pending cruelty court cases.

When it comes to increasing animal transfers, we can still do much more. The animal-welfare network in Las Cruces should be fully vetted on which rescue groups our shelter works with and not, WHY not, and the process by which rescues are contacted or when they are allowed to come look through the shelter. We need to be sure it is against the rules for the shelter to kill any animal a rescue is willing to take. We need to be informed about the policies in place and when and if there is logical flexibility around these policies. For example, many reputable, dedicated individual rescuers in our area do not have official non-profits and do their work out of their own homes/pockets. We need a work-around for working with these individuals as well as those networks that help only with transport. We also need to start branching out to surrounding areas and partner with those on the border facing similar issues, such as all the groups in El Paso--not just one or two.

We need to develop partnerships with human-services groups and agencies, such as juvenile and adult detention facilities and prisons as well as places like La Casa, which probably need help developing a foster system for abused spouses who don't want to leave their situations because they don't have anywhere to go with their furry family members. I'm sure that those groups and agencies that service various low-income individuals have similar needs, such as programs to match and support pets for home-bound seniors, etc. The possibilities of these human/animal-welfare partnerships are endless.

The single greatest need is for us all to sit down together, roll up our sleeves, get to work, and share essential information. I openly challenge the shelter's leadership (oversight board) to be the leader in these efforts; after all, it is our shelter that is ultimately responsible for the animals that enter their system. They also have the most pertinent information because they are the only large facility in our area at this time that takes in the majority of our animals.

I know myself and others are willing to pitch in and work on areas that will make an impact. Alternately, we don't want to go in and work in a restrictive, negative, unprofessional environment that does not allow us make much of a difference; that is a waste of time for us and does nothing to positively change things for those we all care about -- our homeless animal population.

Why we should push for the Five Freedoms for all long-term sheltered animals

It is animal welfare's dirty little secret because the general public is not aware of this issue, but it is high time for anyone who loves animals to speak up against the horrible intense confinement of animals long-term in sheltering facilities here and nationwide. This happens in our system each time someone is busted for animal cruelty and their animals are removed pending case resolution. It also happens to any sheltered animal that remains in intense confinement long-term for whatever reason, such as undesirable breeds or other special-needs animals that take longer to place or for which special efforts are not made to adopt them out. Whatever the reason, living in a small cage or kennel with little or no breaks from that stressful environment is unacceptable in this day and age.

The issue goes all the way up the ladder to national groups like the HSUS and PETA; these rich animal-protection groups raise millions of dollars each year to fight animal cruelty, as they should. However, shouldn't those of us giving our money in the name of fighting animal cruelty also call for alternatives to the intense confinement and subsequent death that many of these victims of abusers face after they are taken away from their horrible conditions? This is the height of irony for the victims in these cases ... that they continue suffering and being victimized after being "rescued" from their abusers.

Look no further than our community. There is only one choice for long-term care, and that is our shelter. Dogs are placed in kennels, and cats in cages, and they go crazy in no time in this environment after even a short period of time, much less long stretches in time. Some look emaciated from the stress, or they jump in circles of panic all day long, or they go as far as to gnaw on concrete and destroy their own teeth or gnaw/lick themselves raw. Sometimes these cases drag on for months-to-years. Conversely, look at the serene environment of the long-term care at our one animal sanctuary which often provides a home to animals for years. There, dogs live in bigger pens with companions and are much happier and cats live in an enclosed cattery (much like the way they are housed at Best Friends Animal Society in UTAH). There is no reason why each community should not have a peaceful alternative to the intense confinement for any animals being held pending cruelty case resolution or adoption/transfer.

For all the animals who are housed for any period of time, the standard of the Five Freedoms must be applied. These freedoms were developed with factory-farmed animals in mind, but they apply equally as well to companion animals in shelters:

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst
2. Freedom from discomfort
3. Freedom from pain, injury or disease
4. Freedom to express normal behavior
5. Freedom from fear and distress

Our local shelter and AC leadership must also focus on animals' quality of life while they are being housed for whatever reason. Any animal lover who contributes to animal-welfare organizations--especially the big, rich and powerful ones who have the money and clout to change things--must lift up their voices to say that it is negligent and unacceptable to forget the other part of the animal-cruelty crackdown equation ... that of the victims who are rescued from one horrible environment to be placed into another stressful one awaiting a usual sad outcome in the end. We must demand better care and treatment for all of these animals, including equitable assessments, opportunities for survival (a second chance), and the well-being of all the animals in a facility--not just a token few or favorites or "special cases".

Conference Workshop: Overcoming Internal Obstacles to Success, Part I

2009-06-01T20:59:00.012-06:00

The third workshop I attended at the No Kill Conference 2009 was wonderful. It was packed full of useful approaches and advice for any shelter director trying to work toward No Kill. Segments were presented by seasoned, successful shelter directors who are well-versed in coming into shelters such as ours and turning things around within a year.

Susan Cosby was just hired as the CEO of the Pennsylvania SPCA--congrats, Susan, and what a boon to that community! Susanne Kogut has been running a successful No Kill shelter at the Charlottesville SPCA for years (one that also contracts for municipal sheltering services); Bonney Brown has made great strides in a community much like our own in terms of human population and animal intakes; the Nevada Humane Society is saving more than 90% of the dogs and more than 85% of the cats that enter the entire system; and Abagail Adams is the director at the Tompkins County SPCA, a longtime No Kill success story as well. (My only regret is that each presenter had so little time...)

So, how did they do it? What's the secret to their successes?

A huge part of what they all did was look inside and identify and tackle each and every internal obstacle to success. Many seasoned shelter directors don't do this important exercise because they are stuck in the old-guard sheltering rut of pointing fingers outside of their own organization and blaming all the killing on the irresponsible public alone. Then they circle the wagons on and on and staunchly defend even their most outdated practices, and nothing changes.

But, I ask: What industry has ever prospered or changed for the better that did not take a critical eye and look inward and closely at what parts of their own operations are in serious need of fixing or updating? How could any industry that has operated the same way for so many decades expect to get different results? Are all of the ideas and policies that are ingrained in old-fashioned sheltering based on sound ideas and data or simply part of the failed industry philosophy of "we do it this way because we've always done it this way"?

Susan Cosby on NOT Writing the Book Based on Worst-Case Scenarios

Shelters are very guilty of instituting knee-jerk, blanket, restrictive policies based on worst-case scenarios that either actually happened within the shelter or -- worse yet -- are part of the mythology/urban legend that is carried forward by animal-welfare people themselves and not based on any known facts or cases. Thankfully, some organizations are asking themselves tough questions or posing new ideas and then testing whether something new might work better.

A case in point is a recent study done by the ASPCA on a free adult cat adoptions program instituted at the Wisconsin Humane Society and other test shelters. Challenging the long-held humane notion that you have to charge an adoption fee in order for an adopter to value the life of a cat or dog, a complete study was done on this program to track--after the fact--how the adopted cats were faring in their new homes. Contrary to our humane urban myth, what the study overwhelmingly found was that those that adopted these free cats did not value their lives any less than those that adopted cats for a fee. All the cats adopted out went to good, responsible homes. (If you are interested in reading more about this study, see this link: ASPCA PRO.)

Although Susan Cosby didn't talk about this program in particular, what she did talk about reminded me of it. She pointed out that a shelter director with new ideas will not always be popular, especially when you are going against long-held myths held by animal lovers themselves.

However, in order to save lives, shelters must start trying new things ... maybe not all of them will be successful, but you learn and move on. When faced with working against the mantra of "it can't happen or work here" for whatever reason, a director has to be strong in his or her resolve to focus on lifesaving and not let themselves get derailed by worst-case scenarios or naysayers.

Instead, open yourself up to people in the community. Reach out for help and support using all means possible, including Facebook, Twitter, and Craigslist! Challenge the myths with well-thought out programs and services, and then track the data for each to see why it was or was not successful.

Most importantly, never write or administer policies at your shelter based on worst-case scenarios. By doing so, you'll be so restrictive that you end up weeding out all the good people/good homes and supporters in order to avoid one possible bad thing that no one can see coming or that maybe no one could have stopped anyway.

There is no doubt that it is sad when you hear of an incident like one that happened in El Paso not too long ago -- where the soldier from Ft. Bliss beat and killed a puppy he and his family had adopted from Pet Guardian Angel -- and injured a second puppy. However, because this happened does not mean that this shelter should expect it to keep happening or blame themselves. Maybe they missed a red flag during the adoption process or not; if so, learn from it in a measured, logical way. All you can do is your best and not punish yourself and everyone else in the public for the actions of one sick man. It is very hard to identify who might be capable of such violence; we can't even determine that in human abuse.

No matter what the pressures from the outside after an incident like this, resist that urge to change all your policies and how you deal with the public based on cases such as these. You could end up killing more animals in the long run if you become restrictive and rude instead of open and welcoming. You can do both -- be open and welcoming and still administer adoption counseling that will ensure good matches and also reveal most red flags ... an adoption policy and process that best serves both the needs of people and the welfare of animals.

Susanne Kogut on Staff Obstacles

Most of these successful shelter directors had a similar message that is not going to be well-received by seasoned shelter staffers ... the fact that staff turnover is often necessary to make the changes needed to save more animal lives. Sadly, some of the negative attitudes are so institutionalized in staff that many will not be able to learn how to function successfully in a progressive shelter and many may put up huge roadblocks or be openly insolent.

When Kogut started her first shelter director job at the Charlottesville SPCA, she thought she'd be walking into a professional environment with a strong work ethic. She thought everyone who works at a shelter must be passionate about saving animals' lives. Why else would they work there? Her strategy was to get down and dirty with the staff and work side-by-side with them to earn their trust and respect.

The reality of what she encountered was that even after some time, she failed to gain respect. Most of the people on her staff were not excited about nor supportive of changes. They were not only sadly disinterested in saving animals' lives, they were much like a very dysfunctional family.

She quickly learned that she had to establish who was the boss. She looked and planned to the future, and she started to focus on the positive. She started engaging with staff in a different way. For one, she did not accept gossip and instituted a clean slate. She never allowed complaining unless it came with a suggested solution. She eliminated all of the negatives in the vocabulary used in the shelter as well.

Her key ingredients for surviving these trying times were faith and courage in herself and in her commitment to save lives. She maintained the positive attitude in the face of all obstacles, and she was willing to make difficult and unpopular decisions. She was confident and decisive and held people accountable, including herself. Yet, she was willing to make mistakes and learn from them. She employed constant innovation and determination, and that started to turn things around.

Her motto for running her shelter is a simple mantra of, "Have fun! Save Lives!!" She worked hard with her staff to finally get all the right people on the bus. Once on the bus, she worked quickly to ensure each person was on the right seat of the bus (that the roles they held matched their strengths and passions). She also got all the wrong people off the bus.

She recounted one day when she came into the shelter to find a whole room of cats had been moved and was missing. One staff person told her the cats had been taken back to be "euthanized" at the vet's request. Kogut chased the trail around and found the cats at the brink of death. When she questioned the vet, she found that her staffer had lied to her .. the vet did not order the deaths of the cats. Kogut ordered her staff to put the cats back where they were and got to the bottom of who was responsible for the decision and for giving her the run-around. Those individuals found at fault were held accountable; they were fired for making a decision that went against the shelter's new grain ... that of saving all the lives possible and only ending the lives of any animals deemed truly vicious after behavior assessments and those deemed irremediably suffering or with a poor health prognosis by the veterinarian.

In order to save lives, Kogut said, you have to shake things up. Look at your programs, policies and operations and make needed changes. Employ new ideas, and don't give up. Review programs constantly and keep evolving your policies as needed. Don't get stuck in a rut, especially not the negative rut of sheltering past.

Susanne suggested a book for managers that I have heard others mention often: Good to Great by Jim Collins. There is a social sector addition to this book that was completed later. I have started to read Good to Great, and it is fascinating. It is based on a decade-long study Collins and his fellow researchers did to see what sets companies apart -- those that excel and reach success and then stay up there in the great realm. They are few and far between, so they wanted to see how they made the leap from good to great and how they stayed there for years and years.

Kogut's last words were about the staff and expectations. The biggest part of change is letting go of the past. Anyone on a current shelter's staff that can do that can embrace the changes and move forward. Increase your adoptions and other lifesaving programs. Have fun at all times. At the same time, demand excellence from yourself and your staff. Be professional; be courteous; and be helpful. The rewards for these changes are immense.

Part II of this workshop conference summary will be next--Bonney Brown on overcoming obstacles with boards of directors and other shelter stakeholders and Abagail Adams on overcoming government obstacles.

Why I am Thankful for the Michael Vick Saga

2009-05-20T20:26:00.016-06:00

On the eve of the day that Michael Vick was released from his prison term and is now home serving the rest of his sentence in house arrest, I wanted to reflect on what he has done--albeit not intentionally--to help pit bulls across the nation. I know it sounds odd ... a pittie advocate like me almost grateful for this horrible case of abuse and to this misguided man who lost everything (and he had ALOT to lose) for the crimes he and his cronies perpetrated toward his canine victims.

However, when one looks at the big national picture regarding dogfighting and how it is handled in our legal system, no other case has catapulted the atrocities of dogfighting to the public arena in this way and no other case has done more to show that the victims of these crimes deserve a second chance at life instead of what was and is usually recommended for them -- a "humane" death. Pit bulls are now regarded with more compassion and understanding, and that is something that no other dogfighting bust has ever accomplished. As we all know, there are many of these busts nationwide each year, with a few here in Dona Ana County as well--for both cockfighting and dogfighting.

In reality, Michael Vick paid a much higher price than the average dogfighter pays in our justice system. It is because of his celebrity that such a bright and harsh light was upon him. As most of us know, he is not the first nor the last who will use and abuse this powerful yet loving dog breed. Most of those busted for these crimes get away with a slap on the wrist (as we have seen here), and most of their victims meet the fate of death after all the anguish and fear they have endured most of their lives.

There is talk out of HSUS that Michael Vick may go to work for them in their campaign against dogfighting. I hope this does happen for several reasons. First of all, I genuinely believe that all former criminals deserve a second chance at life and to redeem themselves after they have paid their debt to society. Michael Vick is no different and isn't more of a monster than anyone else who has committed this crime. I also think that, even if Vick is not genuine in his feelings toward wanting to help dogs, his ability to get the message to the public is a powerful one. He can speak to those youth who are caught up in this lifestyle in a much more meaningful way than you or I can do so.

Another thing I often point out, which does not necessarily earn me any popularity points among my peers, is that even some of those who work in animal welfare are prejudiced against this dog breed and fear these dogs. I can't help but wonder about the irony, too, of an animal-welfare and justice system that calls for the systematic death of the victims of the crimes it fights so hard against. Imagine if we did this for the human victims of crimes? These dog victims are "saved" from their abusers to often suffer more in intense confinement after their supposed salvation and then meet their demise when all is said and done. That is something we need to question and raise our voices against, too.

As Michael Vick goes to work for the HSUS, I hope he and all of us will openly challenge this big, powerful, rich animal group to use some of its vast resources to do more than just lead busts against dogfighters and call for harsher penalties and laws. The HSUS needs to do more than launch educational campaigns to convince the people of this nation that dogfighting is nothing more than a human-constructed world of carnage and cruelty. Although I agree with all of these messages and efforts, where I diverge with groups like the HSUS is that they then walk away from the very victims that they alone have the most power and resources to redeem and rescue.

I hope we can convince HSUS, PETA, and others to monetarily and vocally support the animal groups in this nation that are poised and ready to help the actual victims of each of these crimes (BAD RAP, Best Friends, Villalobos Rescue Center, etc.). The Michael Vick dogs have proven that most of the dogs from these cases are savable and deserve as much of a second chance as any other homeless dog. For an update on the ones that ended up at Best Friends, all of which were deemed the most challenging to rehabilitate, see this recent story: Boon to the Breed.

As we reach a point in this nation where more and more homeless animals are saved, we need to ask ourselves what is the way forward for the humane movement. To me, it is in saving and advocating for all the underdogs and undercats of this society. After all, it was not that long ago we were killing 24+ million homeless animals a year. Now, that number is down to about 3 to 4 million. Of these, about a million are pit bulls and bully mixes. Another large quantity are feral cats. These are the underdogs we should be targeting most for our efforts.

After all, it's easy to save a cute and cuddly animal; there is no want of homes for these types. The ones we need to save now and speak up for are those that are most marginalized.

At right is a picture from the recently-released DVD documentary about some of the Vick dogs called Vicktory to the Underdog. I encourage everyone who can to order this film and watch it. It is about both human and canine underdogs, and it is a story of success and triumph over all that ails us.

I sincerely wish Michael Vick a better future -- one that is not riddled with the suffering of innocent dogs forced to do something that is more unnatural to them than any of us realize. I hope he can also reach some of the people out there that continue to participate in this sorry excuse of a "sport".

Addressing TNR Comments

2009-05-13T22:13:00.008-06:00

One person keeps making comments on this blog about being confused about how TNR works and that no one has told him/her who is responsible for what. Here's my attempt to answer these comments briefly, but for more detail about how TNR works, why it works, and why it is the best option for also protecting public health, please visit Alley Cat Allies.

The main point to remember and that those who argue against TNR seem to forget is that our outdated catch and kill method is the only other approach that has been used and has miserably failed for decades and decades. We know it has failed because feral cat populations have grown steadily instead of diminished, and these cats that are not managed by colony caretakers are not vaccinated, not fixed, and cause more issues for humans and other animals than those who are managed.

Anonymous said...

"No one can ever tell me how and who will be sure all the cats in a TNR program are vaccinated for rabies. Who will keep all of these records and who will be liable if a cat does happen to bite someone. And now with the fact that we have bats that are positive in the area and two unvaccinated cats had to be euthanized because they came into contact with the bat. It was ordered by the State health department. And how about other feline diseases that can spread rapidly. Who will have all the records of each cat if they are vaccinated."

All the cats in managed cat colonies are trapped, fixed, vaccinated and released back into their colony. In rare cases, cats can be relocated to a new territory via barn cat and similar programs (check out http://www.barncats.org/).

Colony caretakers/feral cat groups are the ones who keep records on the cats and are responsible for them. Look to the NMSU program here in our community; they keep a database and are tracking each and every cat. TNR caretakers also provide feeding stations and dispute resolution when cats become a problem for anyone. By feeding and caring for the cats, it is less likely the cats will be out hunting or disturbing people.

Usually, TNR programs do a very good job of catching all of the cats in a colony, and this is why these programs work. With most cats in the colony fixed, vaccinated, and released, that makes it so that other cats are kept out of the colony. It stabilizes that colony and its population. When some or all cats in a colony or territory are caught and killed, it only makes it so that more cats move in and multiply that much faster. That's why there's now an estimated 60-80 million feral cat population in our country--that's above the 80 million in homes!

TNR is the only solution that has worked to reduce the population of feral, abandoned, unwanted cats. These managed colonies are much safer than the alternative for other cats and humans. Now, all the cats in our community that are loose are not vaccinated, not taken care of, etc.

As the cat populations in colonies begin to diminish over time, they naturally die off. The other plus is that most feral/wild cats do not come into contact at all with humans. You'd have to be looking for trouble to get attacked by a feral cat. They hide and do not bother anyone except for their natural prey, so TNR also helps address this issue by providing food to hungry loose cats, which then saves more of their prey.

To me, this answers your comments, Anonymous, that you say no one can answer. This also addresses the recent case of the rabid bat and the cats that "might" have come into contact with the bat that were killed. If those cats had been vaccinated even once in their lives, the chances of them being infected would have been extremely rare.

Also remember that the last time there was an incident in this nation of a domestic cat involved in a human rabies incident was back in 1975. As we know, wild animals still have issues with rabies, but our domestic animals are pretty well-protected these days because of our emphasis on vaccination for the past few decades.

Next post: I'll summarize my favorite workshop at The No Kill Conference 2009, "How to Overcome Internal Obstacles to Success".

Conference Workshop: Harnessing Compassion

2009-05-08T23:29:00.016-06:00

The theme of this workshop was how shelters working toward No Kill use the public's overwhelming compassion and love of animals to help save more lives. The main way to do this is to change the paradigm between the shelter and the community -- instead of an adversarial one of "us against them" that is very ingrained in old-guard shelter leadership and the public's perception of shelters as "pounds", those working on progressive sheltering models work hard to change the distrust and bad feelings into good ones and collaborations with the community to significantly reduce kill rates -- no matter that some in the community are irresponsible and the reason why animals end up in shelters.

The new paradigm says that it is a given that animals will be homeless, neglected, and relinquished to shelters. It's a shelter's duty to be animals' safety net and afford them an opportunity at a second chance at life in a good home. It is also a given that there will always be those that are not good with animals, and it is a shelter's duty to protect animals from these people. However, if you look at how animals are loved and treated as a whole by most people, there is an entire army of compassion ready to be tapped into. Those of us who love and care for animals far outnumber those who do not, so how can we attract more into the shelter to help save more lives?

Foster homes kicked into overdrive

At most shelters, foster homes are utilized to help care for some animals that are not ready for adoption for many reasons, especially puppies and kittens that need extra care. Most shelters have a small number of dedicated fosters they rely on, but to get to No Kill, a small number of fosters is not enough. Progressive shelters work to build the foster numbers in order to save most animals that are treatable and can be readied for adoption. Some No Kill directors have been so successful as to turn the number of fosters they utilize from two digits to three digits ... from 10-50 foster homes to hundreds and some have even thousands of foster homes.

Susanne Kogut, the director at Charlottesville SPCA, did just that. She turbocharged the number of foster homes by using this formula:

Find
Organize & ativate
Support
Train/teach
Empathize/energize
Reward

FIND is perhaps the most important part of building a foster network. Too many times, shelters are complacent with or settle for the few foster homes they have, assuming people are not interested in this work. From the public's point-of-view, the message is just not getting to them often enough or clearly enough. Most people don't understand what fostering is, what it entails, how rewarding it can be, or how it fits into a lifesaving model of sheltering.

Kogut uses media to help get her messages to the public. She played a story that came out on a local news channel that highlighted the work of one of her foster families. This family traveled often and could not have their own pets full-time, but they loved and adored animals. Fostering was their way of having pets in the home when it fit into their schedule, and the whole family participated in the efforts. There's nothing like people who actually do the work taking about fostering to help clarify the message to the general public at home. Kogut also uses other methods of reaching the public ... postcard mailers, fliers, etc.

Once people sign up to foster, the next steps are to offer the support they need to be successful. Instead of relying only on those with fostering experience or experience in a certain area (e.g., neo-natal kittens and puppies), the Charlottesville SPCA organizes and activates those who are willing to give it a try, offers full information and support along the way, trains and teaches people how to care for special-needs animals, empathizes with fosters when they are having issues and energizes them to keep on going, and last but not least, rewards their fosters often. They never let fosters feel like they are alone or saddled with animals forever; they offer support to adopt out the fostered animals when they are ready and to keep the lifesaving cycle moving along.

Kogut ended her presentation with advice to have a set program but to also remain flexible. She also talked about using Internet social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, to reach out to more segments of the population. That way, even if some foster families end up keeping the animals they were caring for and no longer want to foster, there are more volunteers available to foster animals and the cycle goes on. This way, you don't run out of foster homes; on the contrary, you attract more and more of them.

Building resources for TNR

Unfortunately, TNR and community cat programs are scarce in our community because both our city and county ordinances make feral cat caretakers into outlaws. One person who commented on this blog asked who is working on TNR in our community, and all I can point that person to is our one program on the NMSU campus (which is a very successful local model of how these programs work). The FCamp website is listed under my Progressive Animal Welfare Links to the right of this blog. Contact that group if you'd like to help.

That said, I hold onto the hope that our area will someday come up to speed on cat population management and the only method that has proved to be both humane and effective. This is the case for both rural ferals and urban ferals, of which there are many in our community.

Mike Fry, the director of a sanctuary in Minnesota called Animal Ark, talked about how they grew their feral program. They have a spay/neuter van they run that only fixes cats. They started out strongly and boldly and even before they had all the funding they needed. His philosophy is that if you make a decision to do something, start doing the good work you want to do, then the additional resources you will need usually follow. It may be along the lines of the cliched phrase "Build it and they will come", but this mantra seems to work for many successful No Kill shelter directors.

It worked for Animal Ark. They started out by purchasing a used spay/neuter vehicle and barely getting by, but as they worked in the community, their good work was rewarded. After some time, an individual in the community purchased a new van for their neuter commuter, and now they are out performing surgeries on groups of cats on a regular basis.

His advice for working in communities that are anti-TNR was to get out there and talk about how and why TNR works. Usually, those that do not approve of it or fight it have misunderstandings and are not well-informed. Instead of arguing with people and getting nowhere, he says you must address the problems head-on, acknowledge real issues with loose cats, and talk about how TNR helps address these issues. There is common ground for those on both sides of this debate: everyone acknowledges the fact that shelters are inundated with cats, that there is nowhere for them to go in the sheltering system, and that at a great cost to taxpayers, they are put down. Polls on the subject also show that the majority of people in the public do not want the cats trapped and hauled off and killed. This method has been used for decades and is not successfully reducing cat populations or shelter deaths.

The way to address the concerns of those that love and feel sorry for birds is to first respect and understand where they are coming from. Agree with them that birds being hurt and/or killed by cats is a sad reality. Explain how feral colonies controlled by TNR will address this issue better than catch and kill ever has.

Boost those volunteer numbers

Bonney Brown, director of the Nevada Humane Society, shared her secrets for increasing the number of volunteers at her shelter from 30 to 1,300 in one year, and then increasing this to 2,740 the next year. She says that it begins by seeing that volunteers are ambassadors of your shelter in the community and well worth the efforts of having their work and enthusiasm in your facility -- no matter if there are issues with volunteers from time-to-time.

Although all shelters have those die-hard volunteers that are there no matter what and last the test of time, studies show that most volunteers last 30-90 days. However, you can still tap into these volunteers for shelters as well. Make it easy for people to come out and help.

She spoke about the importance of written materials and training for volunteers. Coming from Best Friends, Brown understands that even if a person shows up for one day to volunteer and nothing else, you can still put them to work for the good of animals. In order to keep the flow of volunteers coming so that you don't miss those that are going, you need to work hard at recruitment and training. Among all those you attract, you will find more and more of those faithful volunteers that won't disappear after a few months.

Start by sharing your mission, goals, and programs/areas of need with the public. Provide many volunteer opportunities that help people use their own skills and interests in their volunteer work. Clearly define shelter policies, and write volunteer job descriptions. When expectations are clear, less issues arise.

The Nevada Humane Society offers orientations that are very short that then break up into training groups. Seasoned volunteers are used as mentors and trainers.

It all starts out with creating the volunteer program, putting it in the hands of a capable volunteer coordinator, and adjusting the program as you go along. Be flexible in scheduling, and don't turn people off or away. In your recruitment, you can be specific about your needs. However, the biggest secret to volunteer program success is to focus on fun. After all, people are there because they want to be; they are not paid to care.

In order to recruit volunteers, share success stories with the public. Use good photos in all stories you share, and ask for help from volunteers and others in getting the word out. Employ grassroots strategies, use classified ads, send out PSAs on a regular basis, and use online networks, such as the one on the Best Friends website. Get out there and engage with civic groups, too.

Working with rescue groups

The last part of this Harnessing Compassion workshop was about working with rescue groups, and the presenter was Abagail Adams, the director at the Tompkins County SPCA. The first words out of her mouth were, "More is better; network, network, network..."

Don't sit back and wait for rescues and other groups come to you; be proactive and contact them. Contact rescue groups, other animal non-profits, trainers, etc. See how and when you can facilitate them coming to your shelter on a regular basis to take animals or make suggestions of where you can transfer out of the area.

Rescues and shelters can help each other by sharing referrals and sharing advertising. Rescues have breed expertise that can come in handy with rehabilitation cases or with other issues. They also have a vast group of resources and relationships that you can tap into. By sharing this information, you start to build a bigger and stronger network. This network helps make the safety net for the animals in your shelter larger and larger. The larger the network, the more lives you will save.

More to come from conference

2009-05-05T21:17:00.003-06:00

I have been traveling back home after the No Kill Conference and will keep posting summaries of the workshops. For now, I wanted to respond to a comment from an anonymous person who asked if she/he could use some of the content in this blog to help with a TNR effort. My answer to you and anyone else who reads this blog and wants to use information on it to help animals is a resounding YES. I hope it helps you in your plight, and I am hoping our community comes up to speed sometime soon on community cat efforts and effectively and safely managing colonies and reducing our out-of-control feral cat populations.

More to come ...

Conference Workshop: No Kill Sheltering

2009-05-03T22:29:00.015-06:00

The first workshop I attended at the conference was called "No Kill Sheltering". Presenters were Susan Cosby, the executive director of the Animal Welfare Association in New Jersey; Bonney Brown, the executive director at the Nevada Humane Society; and Mike Fry, the executive director of Animal Ark in Minnesota.

The Clock is Ticking

Susan Cosby opened the session with the important message about the kind of urgency needed in getting animals through the system quickly in order to save the most lives possible. As an example, she and her staff carry pagers with them, and as soon as any animal's time is up in the stray hold period, they immediately have a plan in place for the next spot that animal will take in the routing process.

When it comes to intake, the key is to look at the data to see which animals the shelter is taking in and why. Are they of specific breeds more than others? Are they feral cats? Are they from a certain part of the jurisdiction? When you identify those trends in the data, you can proactively work to prevent some animals from coming to the shelter in the first place by addressing these specific issues or areas with outreach and programs/services.

Another concept she introduced was whether you have to take animals in now or push it off to later ... saying the director and staff need to try to manipulate intake as much as possible. One example was a person coming in with a cat they found and her few-week old kittens. It can't hurt to ask that person to consider holding onto the cats for a few days or more until space opens up, and you can also arrange to have animals who are being relinquished come in by appointment instead of in an uncontrolled fashion. The latter also helps shelters to NOT reinforce to the public that animals are throw-aways if a person has to make an appointment and talk to someone about the animal they are giving up to gather data about each animal you can at intake as well ... while also evening out the flow of animals in your shelter.

Once taken in, the most important thing to do at that point to prevent disease spread and severity is vaccination at intake, which is also recommended by shelter medicine experts. This prevents the animals from becoming ill and needing special care and treatment. Vaccinate early and often; follow strict protocols for handling animals; and clean the shelter well and with the proper disinfectants at the proper diluted rate. This will do wonders for your animals so that by the time they hit the adoption area of the shelter, volunteers and the public and others can interact with them and provide the needed socialization that is also key to fighting disease because nothing causes disease spread more than stressed animals with depressed immune systems.

For cats, this is especially true. Give them what they need to give them a paw up on a second chance at life. Give them blankets, towels, hiding spaces, and time to adapt. Recognize the signs of stress and disease early-on and respond accordingly.

Important in the routing process is determining who is "savable" or not via appropriate, fair, and equitable medical and behavior assessments. Isolate those who are showing signs of illness, and then divide and conquer the rest. Send all those who can be sent out to rescues and other partner organizations, send some who need special care to get them ready to adoption to foster care, and then adopt out more animals with creative and comprehensive adoption programs and promotions. The goal is to move animals through the system quickly so they don't languish in stress and disease and to make room for the new ones coming in.

Keeping Pets in Homes/Increasing Pet Adoptions

Bonney Brown spoke next about shelters needing to take their own lifesaving impact test when it comes to evaluating their progress. She talked about how a shelter should be the last resort for homeless animals, and it is imperative to communicate this honestly and understandably to the public. It is up to shelters to be proactive and helpful in educating the public on alternatives to relinquishing animals they don't want to or can no longer care for--whatever the reason.

One tool/program helping in Reno is their Animal Help Desk, where volunteers are structured and trained to answer calls and e-mails from people needing help resolving issues with their pets. Brown is more than willing to share their program details and caseworker handbook with anyone who asks for copies.

Another advantage in the battle to reduce intakes is to educate people that instead of leaving an animal they may care about at a shelter in which the animal may lose its life, another alternative is to support and offer advice to people on how to re-home animals themselves. Give people the information and tools to do this, and don't give up hope that this or other efforts you make to reduce intakes will pay off.

In the case of adoptions and promotions, Brown showed her application of retail-business savvy to adoption promotions, with the focus on getting the word out and getting people in. She stressed the need to make the shelter experience fun for everyone -- the animals in the shelter and each and every visitor. Using simple posters, donated ad spaces, public service announcements, and other media/public outreach, this shelter has frequent adoption promotions specials and promotions. They shamelessly tack themselves onto every holiday known to man, from national ones to local ones. Some other promotions they have tried are Furry Speed Dating, Staff Picks, and creative answers to hoarding cases, such as the Great Orange Cat Adoption. They also take advantage of national adoption promotion events, such as Home 4 the Holidays.

The main message Brown had was that lifesaving and creativity should take precedence over rigidity and getting stuck in the way things have always been done. Don't be afraid to try new things, and doing so does not mean that you have to make unwise adoption decisions or compromise the quality of homes pets go into. It all falls into place and adoptions increase when you learn how to make the shelter experience a pleasant and positive one for all.

Life Enrichment for Sheltered Animals: Thinking Outside the Cage

Mike Fry rounded out the workshop on No Kill Sheltering by talking about the importance of alleviating stress for each animal in the facility. He also stressed the importance of doing this from the moment the animals arrive -- to help mitigate disease. And, he thinks this should apply to all species who coexist in shelters, including the human visitors.

One of the greatest challenges for shelters is how to deal with cats, who become easily stressed and then become ill. In his shelter, they found the two extremes of stark cages with one cat per cage and large colony rooms both created stressful conditions for sheltered cats. What they decided to build was colony condos in the rooms that used to house steel cages. He finds that having cats inside these condos at about 4 per condo has worked the best, especially since these condos are equipped with cat furniture, piped-in music, separate air sources, and other amenities important for cat health and enrichment.

When they decided to replace the cages with the condos, which turned out to be more cost-effective, they didn't have all of the funds for the project. However, in true No Kill fashion--which preaches the mantra of "start to build it and they will come"--they found that once word got out to the community about what they were doing, people stepped forward to sponsor one condo until all the ones that they needed were built. In exchange for this sponsorship, the name of the person or organization/business that donated the condo was placed on a metal plaque on the condo itself--giving credit where it was due and offering a permanent way of thanks.

Since going to this condo concept, Animal Ark has seen a drastic increase in cat adoptions, zero cases of ringworm outbreaks, and a 95% reduction in upper respiratory infections. There are even accommodations for challenging felines!

The formula for success at Fry's shelter seems simple but does require hard work: provide adequate, low-stress housing, proper vet care, cleaning/disinfecting, nutrition, socialization, play time, exercise, and in the case of dogs, training to prepare them for their coming forever home. Also in the case of dogs, the canines are not short-pawed because of the new cat digs. Large kennels provide a nice space where dogs can move and also a better space for multiple dogs to be housed. Dogs are given beds, blankets, toys, treats, and music-listening enjoyment. They are also on scheduled playtime and potty breaks -- about three a day.

The shelter has also found that integrating dogs in the environment and as much as possible is key for their health and to help shy dogs come out of their shells. Dogs share office spaces, break rooms, etc. Dogs also enjoy some other enrichments, such as large parks they can run and play in outside. They enjoy daily walks, obedience training, agility training, rooms with sofas, TVs, and private yards where volunteers and others can take a dog to meet a new potential owner or just hang out.

Overall Workshop Message

Try to think outside of the normal sheltering model to route animals through quickly and to create success for your shelter, which is measured by your increasing save rate. There is nothing more powerful or rewarding, and the only way to get from standard sheltering to No Kill Sheltering is to believe you can do it, work toward it, and let people get on board and help. Make it fun for you, them, and the animals.

No Kill Conference - Keynote Address

2009-05-02T20:57:00.007-06:00

Today was the first day of a seminal start to what hopefully becomes a yearly tradition -- the No Kill Conference 2009. Myself and animal-welfare colleagues Jean Gilbert and Julie Miller arrived in Washington, D.C., yesterday -- making our own personal sacrifices to be here. Julie and I have ailing dogs back at home, who are thankfully being cared for by our wonderful husbands. We thank them for supporting us!

It was wonderful to meet some of the people I have only communicated with by phone or by cyberspace or have admired from afar, including No Kill's fearless leader, Nathan Winograd. I got to put the faces to many other names as well--Ryan Clinton of FixAustin.org, Richard Avanzino of Maddie's Fund, Bonney Brown of the Nevada Humane Society, Susan Cosby of The No Kill Nation, Abagail Adams of the Tomkins SPCA, and Suzanne Kogut of the Charlottesville SPCA.

Starting with the keynote address by Nathan Winograd and Richard Avanzino, the message of the day was set -- No Kill is an inevitable social movement. Those communities who have not achieved it yet will do so someday--either now or later. It takes a paradigm shift where animal rescuers, shelter directors and community civic leaders come to terms with some overwhelming facts in the face of the myopic vision they have of irresponsibility and abuse of companion animals. The facts, as Avanzino presented, are these:

In 1970, we were killing about 24 homeless animals nationally.
By 1996, that number was reduced to about 6 million.
By 2007, that number was further reduced to 3.7 million.
With more resources available, more compassion and giving to animal-welfare groups and causes, and with the pet population growth to go from the roughly 135 million in homes today to 190 million in homes projected by 2015, we are at a place to compete more for that companion animal adoption market than ever before and reach a time that all healthy and treatable animals entering shelters find a second chance at life instead of the end of the road.

Winograd talked more about the narrow vision that rescuers sometimes have that blinds them to the entire picture. It is understandable why some people, who deal only with the worse-case scenarios day in and out, cannot see that caring and compassion toward animals far outweighs the cases of abuse and neglect. Yet, the evidence of this caring is all around us if we will pay attention to it -- it's in the billions spent on animals by pet owners each year, it's in the dogs you see walking each day with their owners, it's in the numerous best-selling animal books on the market as well as successful movies about animals that people cannot get enough of. It is because of this compassion that we have the power to harness the people and resources necessary to change ... to "bring animal sheltering into the 21st century".

That's the social movement we all have to get behind. It is a movement and revolution that is inevitable. The progressive philosophy and sheltering models are there for us to follow and create. Because of this, not a day goes by that more shelters around the country are added to this list of No Kill success stories.

So, the question is: What are we waiting for, Dona Ana County?!?!

No Kill Conference is next weekend!

2009-04-25T21:45:00.010-06:00

No Kill Conference Online Updates

The nation's biggest No Kill event of the year is taking place next weekend, on May 2 and 3, in Washington, D.C. I will be there along with a few other local advocates. I'll be reporting on what we learn and experience at the conference via this blog next Saturday and Sunday and also via The No Kill Nation's national forum. Others will also be posting their reports to this forum, including one of the featured speakers at the conference and founder of The No Kill Nation--shelter director Susan Cosby.

Everyone who is anyone in the area of No Kill will be speaking and presenting at this conference, led by Nathan J. Winograd, the director of The No Kill Advocacy Center and author of "Redemption". Other speakers and presenters include Richard Avanzino, president of Maddie's Fund; Bonney Brown, executive director of the Nevada Humane Society; and Karen Delise, the director of the National Canine Research Council and the leading expert on fatal dog attacks and bites.

When we return from this conference, we hope to hold a public panel discussion about No Kill and share the materials/ideas we bring back with us. As soon as I know the date and time for this meeting, I'll post it here as well.

Apache Memorial

A memorial will be held in honor of Apache, the wolf-hybrid that was owned by Rev. Scott and was a local staple at our farmer's market. Last year, Apache's owner suffered a great loss when she came home to find her dogs had gotten out of the yard and Apache was implicated in a dog bite incident. Because he was considered a wild animal that was not legally allowed in the City, the dog's owner was forced to put him down.

Friends of Apache are holding a memorial in the dog's honor at Pioneer Park on May 17 from 1 to 3 p.m. If you'd like to pay your respects or show your support of Rev. Scott and her impending case against the City over this tragedy, please come out. Learn more about the alternatives to how this case could and should have been handled and help advocate for more progressive approaches to animal care and control. There are more modern, common sense ways to guarantee public safety and health while also protecting and caring for animals at the same time.

APA Starting Pet Food Bank

2009-04-20T00:16:00.005-06:00

ACTion Programs for Animals--APA--is being converted into a non-profit whose mission will be bettering the lives of pets and their guardians. Our first project will be the launch of a pet food bank, which we hope will help people who are struggling financially to feed their animals and not have to give up a member of the family because of hard times. At first, we will be distributing food once a month on a set day/time, but we hope to grow this bank into one that can partner with other groups already administering people food banks and other assistance so that we can reach all segments of the population in our area in need.

APA will also be looking toward the day we can offer other items that pets need, such as dog houses, cat litter boxes and litter, leashes, collars, ID tags, alternatives to chaining dogs, etc. Other future plans are establishing wellness clinics to get pets vaccinated and microchipped at a low cost. All the while, APA will be working on outreach and respectful education to the public so that every pet guardian can learn how to provide for their pet's basic needs and beyond -- helping people see how much of a special bond they can develop with their dogs and cats.

If you are interested in helping in these efforts, contact APA at actionprogramsforanimals@yahoo.com. We need help from businesses and other locations that will allow pet food donation bins or jars at their locations as well as individual volunteers to pick up food and take it to storage locations and help with the monthly distribution. Also, part of this work is learning which organizations/groups are already administering help to people so that we can partner in future efforts to include pets as part of the families being given assistance. Lastly, if you run a store that can offer pet food donations directly, please let us know.

Exciting week for animal welfare

2009-04-12T22:55:00.029-06:00

This has been a whirlwind week in the world of animal welfare--both locally and nationally. Here are some highlights and links for more detailed information/differing viewpoints.

ASCMV mission statement in the works

Our municipal animal shelter's oversight board had a working meeting this past week to start the process of writing a mission statement for the facility. I had submitted a suggested mission and vision statement to the chairman of the board for consideration in late March, and this draft of the mission statement was selected as their starting point.

Here are the two statements I submitted, which are consistent for any shelter working toward No Kill. This is not to say the statements are perfect as written, and revisions by the shelter's management and the ASCMV board are underway. I think they are only looking to write a mission at this time, not a vision.

Mission

The Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley (ASCMV) is a municipal animal welfare organization and shelter that provides a safe environment for the lost, abandoned, and homeless animals of the City of Las Cruces and Doña Ana County and strives to place them in good homes or with other organizations. We set a standard of excellence and leadership in animal care, humane education/public outreach, and progressive animal welfare programs and services.

Vision

The ASCMV is working diligently toward the day every healthy and behaviorally-sound companion animal entering our facility is saved. We also want to do our best and exhaust every possible option to save all dogs and cats that are medically treatable and can be behaviorally rehabilitated. We want to set the modern sheltering standard for our region and the state of New Mexico. In order to do so, we will strive to develop constructive relationships with Animal Control departments, nonprofit organizations, and other individual and group/business stakeholders in order to advance our mission community-wide.

HSUS to revise policy about fighting dogs

I am hopeful, even if guardedly so, about the slow change at the HSUS from old-guard thinking to progressive animal-welfare models shown by organizations like Best Friends Animal Society and others--in the area of animals confiscated after fighting busts. One can also say that the opportunities of survival and care given to the Michael Vic dogs are having lasting impressions and repercussions. These changes are ones No Kill advocates have been fighting for for many years.

The ultimate goal of No Kill is equitable, individual treatment and fair assessment for each and every animal entering our animal-welfare system, including those confiscated from organized crime rings, such as dog fighting and cockfighting. The old-guard view followed by many Animal Control agencies is led by the biggest name in animal welfare--the HSUS. In court testimony after testimony, the blanket approach of the past and too much of the present is to recommend the extermination of all animals "rescued" from these cruelty cases ... an irony that has been challenged more and more in recent years when even puppies in foster homes are ordered back to the shelter to be killed months-to-years after the court cases are finally resolved. Those that care for these animals are speaking out about the good nature of many of these victims of organized crime and the potential for rehabilitation and subsequent adoption.

A very important meeting between the HSUS, Best Friends, Bad Rap, the National Animal Control Association, the ASPCA, and many others last week in Las Vegas has resulted in a promise from the HSUS to change its policies regarding these crime victims and the opportunity for more fair assessment and possible rescue (at least for dogfighting victims). This is a huge shift in animal welfare, and even the training manuals the HSUS publishes on the subject are to be re-written. A working group from all these various groups is supposed to come up with a new working policy and plan for animals confiscated in these cases.

A recent example in our community was the big cockfighting bust this past week, where more than 600 roosters were put down within a day after the owner relinquished the birds to authorities. Maybe the new HSUS policies will allow for thorough testing of birds in these cases and opportunities given to national farm sanctuaries to provide rescue for the birds instead of this blanket killing policy. It is not clear from the meeting in Las Vegas whether the new policy will apply to other animals besides dogs. In the case of these 600+ healthy birds that might not have been suitable for entry into a regular farm system due to suspected drugs in their systems, it cannot be said that the birds were euthanized to spare them from irremediable suffering or poor health prognosis (especially without a thorough medical assessment), so let's hope more and more of these cases can have better outcomes for the victims of these crime rings as well.

To read more about the meeting in Vegas and its outcome, see the following links. Contact the HSUS to applaud this decision and urge them to do the most possible to not only bust criminals but to provide some resources for rescue of their victims. The HSUS raises many funds to support their fight against cruelty and dog fighters, and there is no reason why some of these funds cannot be used to help the victims of the crimes as well.

Best Friends: Tails Wag for New HSUS Policy
Best Friends: A Victory for Canine Victims of Violence
The No Kill Nation: Cautious Optimism About New HSUS Policy
The No Kill Blog by Nathan J. Winograd: Las Vegas, Round 3
BAD RAP Blog: No more excuses - Bust dogs are on the bus

Finding common ground on TNR

Going back to the ASCMV board's working meeting this week, one person in the public was arguing against No Kill on the grounds that TNR/community-cat programs are detrimental because loose cats are a nuisance and kill/torture birds and for reasons of public safety/rabies risks. The woman was very obvious in her near hatred of homeless cats.

I find it interesting that both TNR proponents like myself and opponents like this woman do agree on some bottom lines: there are too many homeless cats in our nation, cats can be a nuisance to some, unvaccinated loose cats can pose a public risk, and cats are natural predators whose victims are sometimes birds and other small prey. Where our viewpoints diverge is in the approach to this complicated issue. Those who still fight against TNR seem to be very misinformed or in denial about how the decades and decades of things going their way -- trapping and killing all visible loose cats -- has failed miserably. The proof is in the current numbers.

There are an estimated 80+ million cats in homes in the U.S. at this time. Cats have surpassed dogs as the most popular companion animal. But, the next number is the one that shows how our old approaches to controlling cat populations have failed. Aside from these 80 million cats with homes, there are an estimated 70-80 million MORE cats that are homeless/feral and running loose in our nation. In some communities, cats are still gunned down in the streets by police officers (sometimes only wounded and suffering great torture and a slow death)--yet as a whole, these resilient animals survive, thrive, and grow in number each year because for every cat killed, there are others hiding. If we could catch and kill them all, we would have done so already.

Only TNR has shown success in lowering the population of these loose cats. It may not be a perfect solution or system, but no other effective ideas have been offered. TNR helps mitigate some of the nuisances for people via caretakers and dispute resolution. What is most troublesome is that people who care about birds alone cannot see that in controlling cat populations via TNR, more birds will be saved--at least those killed by cats. Studies have shown time and again that birds' greatest enemy is human beings, not cats or other predators. Overall, we are responsible for torturing/killing the most birds with our urban sprawl, high-rise buildings in place of natural habitats, and pesticide use (for deliberate, unnatural torture of birds, what about boys with pellet guns?). Lastly, the rabies threat drops dramatically as well with TNR, which includes vaccination of cats that would not otherwise be given any shots. And, over time, that 70+ million feral population will slowly and naturally die down.

The bottom line is that it has taken decades for us humans to create this mess. Cats are unique animals in that they can survive as wild animals and thrive--unlike dogs. Therefore, it is going to take many, many more decades of human effort to fix the problems associated with free roaming cats. There is no easy, fast answer.

To read about some innovative cat programs, see the Best Friends campaign for feral cats. For those of you still opposed to TNR, maybe it is time to join the rest of us in the reality of our times and get up-to-date on this issue. There is a reason why the HSUS and National Animal Control Association also finally came around and changed their policies regarding ferals ... contact them or visit their websites to find out why the last of the hold-outs could no longer ignore the facts.

Apache's owner to sue the City

Rev. Scott, the owner of the wolf-hybrid (Apache) that was implicated in a biting incident in December 2008 and ordered to be immediately put down as a "wild" animal, is beginning the process of suing the City of Las Cruces over the wrongful death of her beloved companion, family member, and a well-known dog in the community that was a staple at our weekly farmer's market. Ultimately, the owner hopes that no one else ever has to go through the same fate with their family pet in the future and that the City will be more mindful and throughtful in any future case like this. Read the story about this in today's paper.

In the past, all an owner could hope to recuperate in suing over the wrongful death of their pet was the value of the "property", which is not a high dollar in our legal system. However, as pets become more and more a part of our family units and the bond is respected more by our legal system, damages are now being awarded for the emotional suffering incurred as a result of the owner's loss. But, the point of bringing such a lawsuit against a municipality or shelter is not to collect money -- it's about the principle; it's about fairness; and it's ultimately about changing a very broken system.

A memorial event is in planning at this time for Apache. It will take place at Pioneer Park on May 17th. The time has not been set, but I will post a notice about this event when more information is available. Please come out and show your support for Rev. Scott and her beloved dog.

Upcoming Conferences - HSUS and No Kill Advocacy Center

2009-04-05T23:15:00.005-06:00

HSUS Conference in Vegas - April 6-9

The HSUS's Animal Care Expo is happening now,and let's hope this is one instance where what happens in Vegas does not stay in Vegas! I know it is very hard for most animal-welfare people to understand how the HSUS offers political cover and support to shelters that are mired in the unnecessary, systematic killing of animals, but this sad reality is true. What HSUS does is often ignore those communities and shelter directors who are showing that things can be done differently because they are too busy covering up for those that kill in the face of alternatives.

However, this is the first year at one of these expos that the HSUS is bringing down a bit of that wall--if just a bit. For those arriving early and willing to pay an extra fee, they can attend the Maddie's Fund day at this conference, where staunch No Kill shelter directors Bonney Brown (of the Nevada Humane Society) and Suzanne Kogut (of Charlottesville's SPCA) will be presenting. This is very exciting--this slight shift in allowing No Kill directors to have a say at the HSUS conference.

Also exciting this week is the meeting of the minds between HSUS and Best Friends, Bad Rap, and many other organizations struggling to offer pit bulls confiscated from dog fighters at least an opportunity for individual, equitable assessment so those that can be taken in and saved have the same opportunities afforded to the Michael Vic dogs, many of which are in homes now and some of which are even therapy dogs! Let's hope these talks go well so that HSUS will stop their courtroom defense and call for the killing of all these fighting dogs, even puppies born after the adults are impounded. It's time to realize there are shades of grey in every situation and circumstance.

No Kill Advocacy Conference in DC - May 2&3

This conference is sold out, so the best way to track its progress is via The No Kill Nation -- a national forum I highly recommend to anyone interested in what No Kill is when put into practice. Myself and others in the No Kill movement will be offering daily updates about what we learn and our experiences at this conference.

Just last night, I was half-asleep and dreaming that it was less than a month away before I peronally get to hear my heroes and sheroes speaking ... everyone from No Kill powerhouse Nathan J. Winograd and Maddie's Fund president Richard Avanzino--who is also the first shelter director to lead a community to No Kill back when he was the director of the San Franciso SPCA in the 1990s.

I will also be blogging daily here as well from that conference, so stay tuned!

Meeting big challenges with small, targeted steps

2009-03-29T11:46:00.021-06:00

Looking at our community's big picture concerning animal welfare, it is common for many people to think we somehow have bigger or worse problems than most places in New Mexico and in the entire U.S. We blame it on not having enough funding or on our local "culture", but when you look at the big picture nationally, it becomes clear that most who say this are living in a tiny bubble and not looking outside of that.

There are many communities facing similar challenges to our own, and there are pockets of progressiveness in animal sheltering and control throughout the nation dealing with these issues in different ways and showing success because they have changed the way they do business. What we should be doing is looking to emulate these programs and efforts to help stop the cycles of abuse and catching/killing of homeless companion animals in our community. There is no reason we cannot do this.

The truth is that it is human culture and attitudes toward animals in general -- in this entire nation and worldwide -- that lead to neglect, abuse, abandonment and some people thinking nothing of this. Many animal-welfare advocates think nothing of the suffering and throwaway attitudes toward those that are not companion animals. The good news is that although it has taken decades, companion animals have now moved away from their mostly utilitarian uses and being seen as property into our homes and families and daily lives and especially our hearts. It is because of these changes that No Kill is now possible nationwide.

It should not shock or surprise us that antiquated views still persist among some; after all, humans beings are still prejudiced and cruel toward their own kind. These views persist among people of different social and racial backgrounds and in many areas nationwide--not just here. We see these old-fashioned views in those dogs tied out all their lives or not offered the basics in care and comfort and socialization. It's what also leads to cats being abandoned, abused and trapped/killed for any small annoyance or transgression. Unfortunately, not everyone progresses away from these views.

All we can do is chip away at these prejudices and attitudes slowly but surely, but because they still exist does not mean we cannot work toward No Kill. One does not follow from the other.

Evidence now shows that the vast majority of the 165 million companion animals in the U.S. are NOT abused and neglected. For every dog you see tied up and mistreated, you probably don't notice the other side of this coin -- people going places with dogs in their cars, dogs living with their families inside the home, and people out exercising with their dogs or spending quality time with them. That's why we spend millions a year on pet supplies and care and veterinary bills. We are actually in the majority now, and we can work together toward the day those pockets of antiquated views and treatment of animals become smaller and smaller and until we can guarantee every homeless animal has a good home.

Where we are now -- looking at our statistics

Successful communities and shelters look at the big picture nationally, then at the big picture in their community, and then they break that big local picture down into parts -- into definable, manageable issues that can be tackled one-by-one. Because most wheels have been invented in progressive animal welfare, it is easy to borrow ideas and tailor them to what you need. When and if you need to invent a new way to deal with an issue, you can do so as well.

In Dona Ana County, the big picture is a bit bleak. In 2008, our shelter's intake was 15,523, and we killed/euthanized 10,387 of these animals (66.9%). There were 2321 adoptions (14.95%), 2095 animals were returned to their owners (13.50%), and 249 animals were transferred to rescues or other groups (1.60%). Without break-downs of these numbers, it is hard to see where the issues originate. In order to tackle the big picture, we need to understand what specific issues and factors help paint it.

We need to ask ourselves questions and find answers, such as ... Are there ways we can reduce the intake numbers without putting people/animals at risk? Where and how are animals coming in? How can we increase the numbers of animals transferred out to rescue and other areas? Can we do something to successfully return more animals to owners? Which animals are being put down and why -- are there trends in these numbers that show specific problem areas or demographics? Can we do a better job of competing with backyard breeders in our area and adopt out more animals?

Our shelter uses a software system called PetPoint. It is essentially a database that can be culled for specific information and reports, and if the shelter shared this detailed information with other groups, that's how we could target our efforts first to the greatest areas of need.

For instance, the SNAP program is taking the DAC spay/neuter mobile clinic to outlying areas of the county, but if we knew more about which areas of the county those 60% of animals entering the shelter come from, the SNAP program could target those areas first and more heavily and even target specific kinds of animals, too (such as pit bulls). If PetPoint can produce reports by zip code and other categories for our shelter's intake, for example, that would be great information to share. This is why information transparency and sharing is vitally important.

At the last ASCMV shelter oversight board meeting, more detailed statistics for January 2009 were shared. These tell a more detailed story, to a certain extent. The intake for that month was 1143, with 489 animals coming from the city and 641 coming from the county. Of these, 694 animals were killed/euthanized (60.71%); 244 were adopted (21.35%); 134 were returned to their owners (11.72%); and 10 were sent to rescues (0.9%). On average, we put down 22.4 animals per day.

Looking at the kill rate more closely and in some of the categories our shelter provides, 146 cats deemed feral were put down, 183 cats with URI (upper respiratory infection) were put down, and 7 cats with ringworm were put down. Twenty-one dogs with kennel cough were put down, 20 dogs with parvo were put down, 1 dog was put down for distemper, 1 heartworm-postive dog was put down, and 20 dogs were put down for being pit bull type dogs. One-hundred and sixteen animals were deemed aggressive and put down, 4 were put down for being timid, 5 were put down after being hit by a car, and 77 were put down for other medical issues. Other numbers include 47 animals being put down at the owner's request, 25 put down for space, 3 put down for being too old, 1 put down for being too young, and 17 put down for a policy reason. There were also 18 that expired in the shelter and 42 that were dead on arrival.

These break-downs show us several things. The greatest numbers that are the most alarming are the numbers of cats coming in and getting URI/being killed. If there is an oubreak at our shelter, it's URI, which is hard to combat in stressed cats being held in crowded conditions.

That's why dealing with cats in a more progressive way through community education, community cat management programs (TNR), and targeted feral fix efforts would alone cut our kill rate in half. Seeing that TNR is now supported and advocated by every national animal group, and seeing the success of more and more communities using these approaches, and acknowledging our shelter's inability and lack of space in dealing with these high cat intake numbers, there is no better time than now to openly discuss and change the way we handle feral and other cats. Trapping and killing is not working for anyone nor lowering the cat population, and it is costly in so many ways. What is holding us back is our cat leash laws and ordinances in both the city and county that do not allow people to feed or care for outdoor cats. So, we need to change the ordinances first; when that happens, there are plenty of people who are willing and able and waiting to participate in modern approaches.

Some of the other reasons listed for putting animals down seem problematic, too. For instance, No Kill experts often say that it is usually about 10% of animals coming in that truly need euthanasia in the true definition of the word (to alleviate pain and suffering or for a poor prognosis); a fewer number are truly aggressive in the sense they are a public threat. Many animals fall into the treatable category, and this includes behavior issues. It is very rare for there to be this many animals that need to be put down for true aggression/viciousness. This points to our lack of behavior assessments and equitable, fair categorizing from professionals who understand animal language and behavior.

For instance, if a dog barks at you or growls from inside their kennel, this "cage aggression" rarely translates into a dog that will bite or harm you once that dog is outside of the territory or stressful environment or once you enter that territory with the dog. If a dog shows food guarding, that is an aggressive issue, but it is one easily rehabilitated. And, many cats behave aggressively in a shelter setting but not outside of it.

Going back in time to years past, there are only very high-level statistics to share. In 2007, our shelter's intake was 15,743, and 11,000 of those animals were killed/euthanized (69.87%). In 2006, the intake was 17,112, and 12,311 of those were put down (72%). In 2005, the intake was 15,355, and 11,451 of those were put down (75%). Most of this decade looks similar -- with an intake average of 15,000 and a kill rate average of 11,000 (70%+). In the 1990s, the intake in earlier years was about 11,000 and the intake increased to about 14,000 at the end of that decade. The kill rate was in the high 70 percentile and up to 80% some years.

In other words, our big picture over the years shows a similar picture. Most of the animals taken in at our shelter are being killed/euthanized. This has been the case for some time.

For statistics to be useful, and for shelters working toward reducing kill rates, standardization is a must and sharing of detailed information with others working in animal welfare is necessary. Many shelters are now using the statistical method recommended by Maddie's Fund, which also stress the need for statistical transparency. Here's a link to some other interesting shelter statistics and recommendations:

Maddie's Fund pet evaluation matrix
Shelters reporting to the Asilomar Accords
No Kill Advocacy Center's Lifesaving Matrix

Moving Forward with Targeted/Incentivized Efforts

Targeted, incentivized efforts come from being able to identify specific problem areas and targeting those areas with highly-publicized programs that will make a difference. For example, let's say our shelter sees a certain breed and their mixes coming in more than others (for us, it's chihuahuas and pit bull mixes). Spay/neuter efforts can be targeted to this specific breed and owner, and incentives can be offered to owners of these types of dogs who agree to bring them in for the surgery -- a cash "reward" or something they get for free, such as a gas card good for one fill-up.

Naysayers will probably argue that people should be doing the right thing for the greater good or fully from their own free will; however, how can it hurt to sway a person to fix their dog? Maybe someone has never fixed their dogs before and is scared of it or has some antiquated ideas; all they might need is one good experience to be forever swayed to do the right thing from this point forward -- for them to realize their fears were unfounded and to appreciate the benefits of having an altered dog.

That's how we chip away at the antiquated attitudes -- by substituting something progressive and modern for the antiquated. Whether it is helping owners of chained dogs to realize the benefits of a happy, socialized, trained dog or providing some support during bad times with free food from a pet food bank, all of these collective efforts are what will change our community and reduce those intake/kill rates at our shelter.

First, as a community, we need to figure out where the problem areas are, what the problems are for people and animals, and then develop a plan of action from there. We cannot do this without data collection and shared information from our AC departments and the shelter with all the non-profit groups and those of us stakeholders who can help target the areas of need. It's imperative we all work together and share information if we truly want to change the outcome for too many of our homeless animals.

Next Up: Targeted/Incentivised Programs

2009-03-23T22:08:00.006-06:00

I'm sorry it is taking a while to post my next addition to this blog. For some reason, everyone kept taking a different flu bug to work with them every day this past month, and one of those bugs follwed me home one day. However, I think I'm over it (cough, cough), and I'm hoping the next post will be worth the wait!

I'm going to talk about our shelter's 2008 statistics and our January 2009 statistics and how we can target the biggest areas of need in our community, or at least the ones we can identify from these stats. I also have some older statistics to show by way of comparison and for a bit of history.

One of the biggest issues for our area is how we deal with cats; 300+ were killed in January 2009 alone because they were deemed feral or had upper respiratory infections. We could reduce our kill rate by half of what it is NOW if many of us banned together and called for community cat and TNR programs supported by our Animal Control departments and shelter and ordinances. These programs are now endorsed by every major animal group in this nation, including the National Animal Control Association. We need to implement these programs instead of what we are doing--trapping and killing cats in a neverending, failing loop of insanity, as shown by our steady kill rate over the the years.

There was a great comment on The No Kill Nation recently describing how one community in Texas deals with this issue and has changed since 2007; for tonight, I leave you with this comment. By later this week, I'll post a more in-depth discussion and look at how our community can target our problem areas, do more to identify problem areas more accurately, and communicate more effectively with people to address the issues with incentivised, subsidized programs aimed at reducing shelter intakes and our high kill rate.

Comment By Gavin Nichols on The No Kill Nation on March 6, 2009:

"This is an answer that begs the question, but in San Antonio, the law was changed in 2007 to make it legal for free-roaming cats and cat colonies, as long as the cats are sterilized and vaccinated. Due to the new law, the City of San Antonio Animal Care Services no longer accepts cats in traps, nor do they trap cats themselves.
ACS has a pretty good relationship with the San Antonio Feral Cat Coalition and has assigned two animal control officers to providing education and public information. If a citizen calls in and complains about a cat colony, the ACOs will actually go out to the citizen, provide them information about the laws and feral cats, and give them some education on how a feral cat colony that is being cared for is actually a benefit.
Private property owners, such as apartment complex owners, and neighborhood associations can disallow free-roaming cats and cat colonies, but it is not the city’s problem.
Cats that are a true nuisance or threat can be taken, but that is very rare. Most, if not all, of the cats in the ACS shelter today are "owner surrenders."
One story to give people hope is the San Antonio municipal Olmos Basin Golf Course. A feral cat colony was being taken care of there, with feeders provided by the city. The golf course had a change in management and the new management wanted the cat colony removed. The acting director of ACS and the ACOs went out there and explained the laws and the benefits to the new manager. They convinced the manager to support the cat colony. The latest report is that the manager was able to discontinue his pest control service because the cats are taking care of it for him. He's actually saving a little money!"

Urge military to drop nationwide breed ban

2009-03-10T21:08:00.029-06:00

Breed-ban history

There are 300+ million people living in the United States, and 70+ million dogs live among us. Though some dogs suffer abuse and neglect at the hands of irresponsible caretakers, the vast majority of guardians love their dogs and regard them as part of their families. This is the case for many military families as well.

Each year, there are approximately 400,000+ tobacco-related deaths in the nation, and about 38,000 people die in auto accidents. Murder takes the lives of about 16,000 people per year as well. Conversely, there are about 25 fatal dog attacks in the entire country. Death by lightning strike is six times more likely to occur.

Needless to say, dangerous/vicious dogs are not an epidemic by any measure. What is a growing epidemic is the breed-specific bans and legislation that have resulted from irrational fears and what can only be characterized as modern media's sensationalism and poor reporting of the details that surround these attacks as well as people's general ignorance of dog behavior/bite prevention.

More often than not, breed is also wrongly reported in these newspaper/magazine/TV news sound bites, or only stories involving some breeds are reported. It's almost a cliche now how quotes from the irresponsible owners in these stories make it sound like a half-starved, unsocialized dog tied up to a post on a 6-foot chain or locked in a basement was a "family dog" that inexplicably attacked.

Tragically, children and the elderly are most often the victims in these fatal dog attacks. It is an undeniable tragedy each and every time, and most of the attacks are attributable to known risk factors, such as reckless owners encouraging aggression toward humans, even among breeds with no natural disposition to this (i.e., pit bulls), and three out of four attacks are related to neglect/abuse as well as unaltered dogs.

Following one of these tragic attacks in communities, there has been a rising trend to enact breed-specific bans and legislation in an attempt to control or predict future attacks. It is usually the most popular strong dog of the decade that is either involved in the attacks or misidentified as such (i.e., a pit bull-type dog). Attacks by other breeds or mixes besides pit bulls these days are downplayed in the media as well or ignored or misreported as this type or appearance of dog.

Maybe some years ago, one could forgive or understand why this knee-jerk, discriminatory reaction occurred. We could say that very little research and data about fatal/severe dog attacks existed, so people and politicians passing laws didn't know any better. We'll give them the benefit of that doubt for breed bans passed in the early 1990s.

Now, fast forward to years later and to our present time ... after actual research and data and books and online resources have emerged that overwhelmingly show that breed/appearance alone is not an indicator of viciousness ... after all leading national animal and veterinary groups have released position statements against breed bans ... after the Center for Disease Control and Prevention stopped tracking breed in their dog bite reports after 1998 because they found the information to be a misreported, useless predictor/indicator ... after breed bans in hundreds of communities have proven to be costly and ineffective and only offer a false sense of security while the usual dog bites and attacks by dogs of various breeds continue on ... WELL, now we should know better than this.

Maybe the general public does not, but anyone responsible for passing laws or establishing policies that may hurt and affect tens of thousands of dogs and responsible owners and families should make it their responsibility to do their homework before taking any action. Already, breed bans alone have attributed to the death and misery of millions of innocent dogs. It's akin to racial profiling and ethnic cleansing among humans; for the mistakes of few of their kind that they resemble in appearance, these dogs and their owners have paid a huge price and continue to do so. The bad guys/gals who ignore laws anyway just continue on with their business as usual, either using other strong breeds for bad purposes or ignoring laws and going into hiding with their illegal activities.

Military follows breed-ban bandwagon

By now, we should know better. Yet, the U.S. Army in January 2009 passed a nationwide breed ban on their posts and housing areas while many posts had already passed the ban the year before. This ban includes many big, strong breeds. But, the ban doesn't stop there. I also includes any MIXES of these breeds.

Let's take White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) as an example. I work there as a civilian, but I don't live there. I work with some people who do live there now or used to, including my boss, who is a retired Lt. Col. She owns a malamute from our local malamute rescue, a white pit bull-type dog, and another cute, fluffy mutt. She has a husband (also retired military) and two teenage boys, and she is a loving, responsible mom and dog owner.

When she lived on the post housing last year when their breed ban was enacted, her dogs were "grandfathered" into the system and allowed to stay. If she and her family had been transferred and relocated to another post, she would have had to give up both her malamute and white pit mix though the dogs have had no history of viciousness or violence toward anyone. She would have been allowed to keep the fluffy mutt that doesn't look like any powerful breed that suffers this breed prejudice. Lucky for her and her family, they now live in a house they purchased in Las Cruces.

In the next few years, tens of thousands of soldiers are moving to our area at both Fort Bliss and WSMR. How many of those families moving here have any pits or mixes, shepherds or mixes, danes or mixes, huskies or mixes, rotties or mixes, dobies or mixes, etc.? Who is going to make the determination of which can stay on these posts or not and determine these breeds and mixes, and where will all the rejects end up? If these families go to our local rescues and shelters to adopt, how will this limit their choices in dogs to adopt? What other options do these families have?

This breed ban is going to hit us hard here at home. It's going to hit our shelters hard, too. However, it will not hit us even half as hard as it will the families forced to give up their dogs/family members during these stressful times or figure out somewhere else to live or who in their family might be able to care for the dogs until their tours of duty are completed. Maybe this will lead many to not re-enlist when that time comes, and the last thing our military needs is to lose soldiers because of this.

The last thing these families need is another sacrifice they have to make, especially for any soldiers returning from the war. Some of those young men have no other family than their dogs, or they are matched up with dogs from programs like Canines for Combat Wounded -- to help them through post-traumatic stress disorder and to help curb the highest suicide rate among veterans following any war to date.

Alternatives to breed bans

Risks of dog bites and attacks will always exist as long as the human-canine bond exists. The smart, effective approaches to prevention are as follows:

-Enforcement of generic, non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws that target chronically irresponsible owners;
-Dog care and bite prevention education programs for adults/children;
-Restrict chaining and impose strict fines/penalties for abuse/neglect, including dog fighting; and
-Spay/neuter programs and incentives

Don't take my word for it

Instead of repeat the vast amount of facts and information regarding this topic available online, here are some links to the best information about breed-specific legislation (BSL) on the Web:

Best Friends Animal Society's Stop BSL Campaign

Animal Farm Foundation's expert opinions on breed bans and legislation

Defending Dogs website

What you don't hear in the news ... pit bull heroes and lifesavers

Various organizations' BSL position statements

"Troublemakers: What pit bulls can teach us about profiling", by Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker, Feb. 6, 2006

What we can do

This is not the time to enact ill-advised breed bans that protect no one and hurt so many. The federal government and military have no business going down this dead-end road. We need to lend our voices to help reverse this nationwide trend in general, especially now that it has spread to military bases and posts.

Write or call these leaders and departments to inform them why breed bans don't work, to encourage them to look at recent research/information, and to suggest alternatives that do help mitigate risks for bites and rare fatal attacks. Talk about the bad effects of these bans on the military's morale and potential loss of soldiers that might result. It is imperative to not alienate or punish our military family units, which often include dogs of various breeds and mixes. Morale is important, and taking beloved pets from soldiers who have been fighting in the war in Iraq for so many years is unconscionable. Please contact all those you can.

President and First Lady Obama
www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
202-456-1111
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee
http://armed.services.senate.gove/members.htm
(links from this site lead to contact and comment areas off each senators' website)
202-224-3871
Room SR-228
Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-6050

U.S. Army Family and MWR Command (in charge of morale and welfare)
http://www.armymwr.biz/commander.htm
E-mail all comments to: mwrWebmaster@conus.army.mil

State Representatives and Senators
To search for yours in New Mexico: http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/legislatorsearch.aspx

Last words

I read many materials in preparation for this blog. Some words and sentiments are just too good not to share. I leave you with some profound, notable words that are not my own.

"...also, the ban against certain breeds irks me. I get to keep my animals but when I move somewhere else ... my dog is banned, and why do we punish the breed and not the deed? Um, animal racism, don't ya think?"--comment posted by soldier on an online forum

"The strongest connection of all, though, is between the trait of dog viciousness and certain kinds of owners. In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dogs owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated, and they are vicious because the have owners who want a vicious dog. The junkyard German shepherd--which looks like it would rip your throat out--and the German shepherd guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog because they have owners with different intentions."-- Malcolm Gladwell

"I just heard about the new policy ... my problem with that is two-fold. First, why the hell would breeds be targeted? I have seen much more aggressiveness from chihuahuas ... every dog has a different personality and temperament directly related to the way it was raised ... Second, the ban caused many to give up their banned dogs to the animal shelter, which is filing up fast. How can one be made to give up their pet? I have three and would never do that. They are my family and to ask me to give them up is just crazy."--comment posted by soldier on an online forum

"Singling out and publicly demonizing certain breeds as dangerous is unfair, discriminatory, and does an immense disservice to those breeds and the people who care about them. Even more chilling, breed-specific legislation encourages the faulty public perception of other breeds being inherently safe. This can lead misguided individuals to engage in unsafe conduct with other breeds that can result in injury or death by individual representatives of those breeds mistakenly perceived as safe."--Association of Pet Dog Trainers

"A fatal dog attack is not just a dog bite by a big or aggressive dog. It is usually a perfect storm of bad human-canine interactions--the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation. I've been involved in many legal cases involving fatal dog attacks, and, certainly, it's my impression that these are generally cases where everyone is to blame. You've got the unsupervised three-year-old child wandering in the neighborhood killed by a starved, abused dog owned by the dogfighting boyfriend of some woman who doesn't know where her child is. It's not old Shep by the fire who suddenly goes bonkers. Usually there are all kinds of other warning signs."--Randall Lockwood, a senior vice-president of the ASPCA

Coming up ... fighting military breed ban

2009-03-08T11:48:00.012-06:00

My next blog posting will be filled with facts and stories about how breed bans and legislation hurt and punish vastly more good, responsible owners/families and dogs than those that don't have respect for the law as it is. For the mistakes of few, thousands have suffered and will continue to do so. These bans are political moves that give a false sense of security to an ill-informed public and do little to protect us from dog bites or fatal attacks. There are better and more effective alternatives to individually and equitably categorize and identify potentially dangerous dogs of any breed and irresponsible owners who create the monsters in the first place.

Sadly, the U.S. Army instituted a post- and base-wide breed ban in military housing on Jan. 2009 throughout the country that targets all large, powerful breeds AND mixes. Imagine trying to determine who is allowed or not allowed when mixes are included? And, who is making these breed and mix determinations? At the WSMR post, this includes pit mixes, shepherd mixes, rottie mixes, dobie mixes, dane mixes, akita mixes, malamute mixes, etc. The WSMR housing's list of breeds it has banned was released before Jan. 2009 of this year and names alot of breeds and their mixes. The U.S. Army memo that was released in January names fewer breeds.

This ban is already having devastating affects on the men and women and families that already sacrifice so much for our welfare, and it is also putting a burden on already overburdened animal shelters (which will also increase kill rates, especially here where our kill rate for 2008 was 66%). With the growth of soldiers moving to the El Paso Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range posts in the next few years to number in the tens of thousands, it is imperative we all pitch in to lend our voices to help change these bans.

When the breed bans went into affect on the WSMR post, anyone already living on post with any of these breeds was allowed to keep their dogs ... they were "grandfathered" into the system. The problem is that if this same person gets transferred to another location/post, and they want to take their beloved family dog with them, they'll be forced to give them up when they relocate to another post. This is what is happening nationwide, which is forcing families to relinquish the dogs at shelters, try to find relatives or friends to foster or care for the animals until the family can move out of military housing, or in some remote places where shelters are not nearby, dogs are being ripped away from families and killed. That seems like a strange way to maintain or lift morale for soldiers and their families, especially at a time when the suicide rate for those returning from the current war is higher than that of the Vietnam era.

This was the topic of this week's Criter Connection radio show out of Ruidoso (listen to this wonderful show online at 10 a.m. each Sat. morning off www.mtdradio.com, station 105), where host Sunny Aris had many guests talking about these issues, including Sgt Ron Portillo, a wounded combat veteran who runs the non-profit Canines for Combat Wounded , a legal expert from Best Friends's campaign to stop BSL and the founder of Pit Bull Rescue Central, whose husband is in the military now.

I will go into greater detail in my next blog post coming in a couple of days. I will also let you know what we can all do to help change this ban.

Get your letter-writing skills sharpened up! We need to inundate President and First Lady Obama and key Army officials with the message, as well as our state's representatives and senators.

Meetings this week

2009-03-03T09:26:00.005-07:00

There are a couple of important meetings this week for animal advocates.

APA, Wednesday at 6:30 p.m.

The ACTion Programs for Animals coalition meeting is this Wendesday, March 4th, at 6:30 p.m. at the Branigan Library's Dresp Room. We will be deciding which few programs and services to concentrate on first, such as launching a pet help line, getting a pet food bank going, and an update about a group of court monitors who are going to attend animal cruelty cases.

Please come join us with your own program ideas or to join an existing working group.

ASCMV Governing Board, Thursday at 9 a.m.

This is the second meeting of the animal shelter's new oversight board. They meet in the Doña Ana Commission Chambers, 1st Floor, Doña Ana County Government Center, 845 N. Motel Blvd., each first Thursday of the month at 9 a.m.

The agenda for the March 5th meeting is as follows:

I. Call to Order

II. Pledge of Allegiance

III. Minutes - approval of the Minutes from the special ASCMV Board Meeting held February 5, 2009

IV. Chair Comments

V. Public Input

VI. Presentation – Wilma Burch – Mutt Show

VII. Reports
1. Financial Report – Dr. Mark Sutter, CLC Fiscal Manager will discuss:
a. January 2009 Financial Report (report will be distributed to JPA Board members at meeting)

2. ASCMV Director – Dr. Beth Vesco-Mock will discuss:
a. Animal statistics report – 2008 (report will be distributed to JPA Board members at meeting)
b. Animal statistics report – January 2009 (report will be distributed to JPA Board members at meeting)
c. Activities at Shelter

Advances and Hope in Nation's No Kill Sheltering

2009-02-23T20:42:00.009-07:00

I received a comment from an anonymous person regarding No Kill and saying you are in the think of things in this struggle. That's how I feel as well, and I am not sure why we have not met if you are in this area. I'd love to hear from you directly; feel free to e-mail me at cheressemm@gmail.com.

You ask what I feel my greatest accomplishment is so far. Well, though there are days I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone in trying to advance the ideas and philosophies of No Kill to not only the general public but also other animal-welfare activists and volunteers, I can honestly say that now many people I work with do "get it" and understand there is another way to deal with the animals left behind by the irresponsible public. It's a start for our community, though the progress is slow.

Just two years ago

When I sometimes start going down the road of defeatism, I think to the nationwide accomplishments of this No Kill revolution, and I draw strength from that. I also remind myself that any and all revolutions, even peaceful ones, do not see complete success overnight.

I think back to myself two years ago, and I was much like many animal-welfare people I work with today. I used to think that shelters did the best they could with the enormous job they face and the numbers of animals they deal with. I made excuses for our system and didn't see any alternatives to the mass killing, though I was saddened by it and also understood why that love-hate relationship exists between the shelter and the general public. I didn't think that a paradigm shift could change things for the better for all involved.

My path toward progressive thinking came from a great amount of research I did for my own education and benefit and because this subject, for some reason, touched a deep chord in me. I was drawn to the story of sheltering and the strides of progress with each and every resource I got my hands on, and my eyes were opened to the possibilities of change. It made perfect sense to me that standard sheltering was geared toward killing in the face of alternatives, and sadly, most shelter leaders at this time are still stuck in that insane loop of doing things the same way but expecting different results and lashing against the very animal-loving public they should be embracing.

My transformation started with reading Nathan J. Winograd's "Redemption" as well as many hours of online research. If I could convince all people who care about companion animals to read one thing, it would be this book. But, No Kill information is also widely available online via the links I provide at right. It's all there for anyone to read and learn from ... information from The No Kill Advocacy Center, The No Kill Nation, Best Friends Animal Society, Maddie's Fund, etc.

I am reminded, too, that it was in April 2007 that "Redemption" was first published and released, and in two short years, more than a handful of communities in the United States have dramatically turned their shelters around by following this model of sheltering. As those stories are shared and success spreads, more communities will follow. I agree with Winograd that nationwide change is inevitable ... the question is will our community be in on the transformation sooner or later. Any community can ask itself the same question, and there are No Kill advocates nationwide fighting for these changes in their neck of the woods.

For current success stories, look to the online community of The No Kill Nation. A shelter near Shreveport, LA, is the current story posted here. This community (Caddo Parish), smack dab in the region of the country that saw the worst of Katrina, was progressive enough to ask Winograd's No Kill Solutions for a review of their operations in 2006, and they were wise enough to follow through with the recommendations. In just a few short years, they are seeing dramatic improvements; read about it here:

Caddo Parish No Kill Success

In Virginia Beach, VA, a shelter director job has been announced from within a police/AC department that clearly calls for a No Kill director to lead efforts to save every healthy and treatable animal in their system. Looking at what led to this change are reports out of that local government that are refreshing and inspiring. It stared with a City Council resolution, which was then supported by community-wide input from all animal-welfare stakeholders and a report that looked to other success stories in the nation to develop a plan of action, and the decision was made that this community would follow this model of sheltering. Those reports and documents can be found via this website:

Virginia Beach's Road Toward No Kill

Lastly, inspiration in this struggle comes most from Winograd himself, the revolution's tireless leader. In a recent blog posting where he talks about a shelter in Minnesota putting healthy and treatable cats to death from a hoarding case in spite of offers from area no kill shelters and others to take the cats, Winograd said of this tragedy:

"It is a time of anger and great despair for cat lovers in Minnesota. But it should not be a time of losing hope. We must never say, "What's the point? They will never change." Because quitting ends hope. Quitting fails the animals. And we must focus on the progress that has been made. There was a time in our history and not so long ago, when there would have been no controversy over AHS' decision. But there is now because we have found our voice. And we have discovered that we speak for the masses when we speak out against such atrocities because the public supports our cause. As one Minnesotan wrote,

[I]n my state of anguish I forgot to consider how the tragedy is compounded by wasting the public's good will. As many animal advocates are aware, when the public learns of a specific need they do rise to the occasion. If the AHS refuses to change their philosophy concerning this group of homeless cats and they choose not accept the help that is offered to them, the blood of these cats and kittens will be on their hands."

Winograd continues:

"Voices like this prove that our work is not as burdensome as we once believed, when we blamed the public and thought our challenge was to make the multitudes care as we do. In reality, we know they share our cause. And our goal, therefore, while at times seemingly insurmountable is, in reality, inevitable. Today, there are only a few thousand shelter directors like the one in Minnesota holding back the will of over 100 million dog and cat lovers in the United States. And we only need to point out—loudly and with conviction—the hypocrisy of organizations which claim with their rhetoric that they champion animals, but demonstrate, time and time again through their actions, how little concern they truly have for our animal friends. In short, we need to bring public scrutiny to them and place their actions in the open light for all to see and judge for what it truly is. To quote the wise words of Martin Luther King, Jr.:

We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with its ugliness exposed to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

We will win because, regardless of the social cause, those who champion compassion always do. Gandhi once said, When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants … and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall. Always. And so there can be no doubt: If we continue to demand it, those who ordered the killing at AHS will be forced to change or they will be swept aside. So speak up loud and strong Minnesotans. Make your voices heard. You will carry the day."

Change will come when more speak out

There is a distaste these days, even in these great United States of ours, against those that speak up against the status quo. I see it here when we are at supposed public-input meetings regarding animal welfare. Anyone who gets up to say anything critical, even if factually-based and well-founded and constructive, almost gets their heads cut off. Any shelter volunteer that dare ask questions or try to address issues is either fired or made so uncomfortable that they fear sharing their views and the truth. Personalities trump logical conversations or exchanges of ideas and solutions, etc.

It is also true that many in animal welfare are also still mired in the philosophies and views of the past or cannot themselves see around or past their blaming of the irresponsible public. Many smart and dedicated people that I greatly admire still say and think that our shelter is doing the best it can--despite the continued level of killing, despite the spending that has exponentially increased, despite news or stories to the contrary, etc.

Until more speak out and until more are outraged into speaking up and demanding better for our shelter and animals, we will still be administering the status quo of animal sheltering and killing the majority. I challenge each and every person who cares and wishes our community did not kill 70%+ of our homeless animals each year to open your minds up and take some time to learn about the No Kill revolution. I know it is time-consuming; it has become my passion, and I have spent countless hours learning about it. I would not trade those hours for anything now that I have seen the light. We need your help and voices so that we can collectively push for these changes in our community.

Putting No Kill Into Action

2009-02-15T23:33:00.014-07:00

Leadership Is Key

The last part of the entire No Kill Equation is the need for a compassionate director/shelter leader. I think often people misread what this means ... that it refers to more than a person who genuinely cares about animals, and that the compassion has to extend to people as well.

Overall, it speaks of a person who is not satisfied with repeating the failed missives of the past, such as "too many animals and not enough homes", and someone who does not hide behind the irresponsible public for the act of killing the majority of animals in the facility. It also speaks of a person with a proven track record of saving lives and working hard in order to get a plan into place and get the community organized around all the programs and services needed to fully implement the entire No Kill Equation at the lifesaving levels it calls for.

Leadership like this is hard to come by. First of all, few shelter directors with extensive sheltering experience fit this mold. Most directors come at sheltering from a very old-fashioned viewpoint. Conversely, those people that might do a good job as a progressive shelter director may not have direct shelter experience nor a proven record in saving shelter animals' lives. So, finding the right person is definitely a challenge.

Our own shelter has gone through several shelter directors in the past 10 years alone, some with a lot of experience and some with very little. However, the bottom line--to this day--has remained the same. We are still taking in 17,000+ homeless animals each year and still killing/euthanizing about 12,000+ of these, to a tune of about 55 animals killed per 1000 people or 70%+ of all the animals that come into the system. This is very much above the national average of approximately 50%, and at this point, our shelter is finally being funded at the recommended $6 per capita (at $1.2 million a year for a population of about 200,000 people).

If that funding is raised to more than $2 million, our per capita rate will be more than $10, which is above what many successful shelters in the U.S. get in funding. For example, the San Francisco SPCA's annual funding is about $7 per capita, and they are still saving 80%+ of both cats and dogs entering their system.

Nevertheless, some things have changed under the current leadership at our shelter. More animals are being housed under one roof, and it is clear the shelter's staff works hard to try to take care of these animals. No one can say they are not hardworking. But, the question is, are they working smart?

We have to work both hard and smart, and we have to engage the community and network within and outside of the area to get to the point where we are running programs such as rescue, foster, pet retention, behavior rehabilitation, comprehensive adoption programs, PR, etc., at the level required to save the most lives possible and keep animals moving through the system instead of stagnating and becoming diseased and depressed and ultimately killed as a result of this. Because we are still not working at the problem in an organized or cohesive way, our end result is still the same as years past. If this doesn't show that money alone is not the answer, I don't know what does.

It is no wonder, too, that we are having issues with disease. We have overcrowded conditions, animals living in a poorly ventilated building, and we are lacking the disease management mandated by shelter medicine protocols and procedures, such as vaccination at intake, isolation/zoned areas, and stress reduction for animals. Without enough outlets via multiple programs and services, animals end up with longer stays at the shelter, and a stressed animal has a depressed immune system. It is a vicious cycle.

With the newly-formed shelter oversight board, it is my hope that many of the areas where we lack leadership will be addressed. As in any industry, leadership is the key to change and success. I hope our oversight board members will become well-versed and well-informed about all areas of animal sheltering and will look to those in the community with this expertise. Our shelter still suffers from a lack of focus; it also lacks a vision, a mission, and a detailed plan of how it aims to succeed.

Lastly, two top concerns for our shelter at this time are to finally fix the ventilation system and bring it up to standard. This one issue has been vexing us for many years. In 2006/2007, there were capital outlay funds available to start fixing the system, but those funds were never utilized for this purpose. This should be a top priority because it alone will help cut down on disease transmission throughout the facility.

The second top concern is to come up with a shelter medicine plan. We have a newly-hired veterinarian on staff, and last year at about this time, the Albuquerque municipal shelter vet and team came to our shelter to share the review they got from the UC Davis Shelter Medicine group. The information and ideas this group shared with our shelter must be put into action if they have not started to do so already.

Without Leadership, Look to This Law

The No Kill Advocacy Center speaks to the challenge of finding the right leader for the job of saving lives in shelters. Because they recognize not every community will be able to find a progressive leader, they have written a Companion Animal Protection Act that communities can adopt to basically put the programs and philosophy of No Kill into law and hopefully into action. This alone could force regressive shelter directors into a more progressive approach.

To read this act, follow this link:
Companion Animal Protection Act

When No Kill is Not No Kill

No Kill is also made into a confusing, murky place when shelter directors who are geared toward high killing in either their philosophies or actions use the term to describe their work. Our own shelter has been bold enough to claim they are administering most of the No Kill Equation at this time. Yet, if that were truly the case, our kill rates for both dogs and cats would have dropped drastically in the last year alone.

No Kill is not about dabbling in the various programs and services needed to save lives; it is about fully and aggressively implementing these programs. It is about doing so for each and every one of them as well.

To do so usually involves all of the stakeholders in the community, hundreds of organized volunteers, and a community collaborative approach. It means not rudely closing doors in the general public's face nor in the faces of any individuals or groups who work in the realm of animal welfare. It means making the animal shelter a truly open, transparent, welcoming place. And, when legitimate issues are brought to light, it means not only admitting the issue is real, but allowing those who can offer support the professional respect and courtesy they deserve.

Lastly, it is nearly impossible to say you are working toward No Kill when all of your policies and philosophies speak to the opposite being true and show that you are administering standard sheltering services. If that is what you are doing yet claiming to be working toward No Kill, you are not only giving No Kill a bad name, you are misleading the public which you serve.

Thanks for comments

I appreciate all comments on this blog--even those I don't agree with. And, if VR or anyone else is interested in forming a chat area about this topic or any other animal-welfare topic, you are welcome to start it and invite others via a comment on this blog. You may also want to check out The Paw Post, a community pet forum available at www.lascrucesclicks.com and www.dogcruces.com.

Although I cannot address each and every comment via my blog postings, you are always welcome to e-mail me at cheressemm@gmail.com if you want a personal response. I am working on a comprehensive animal resources guide at this time that will identify pet-friendly rentals among many other resources in our area. It will be available to the general public very soon.

It is part of the ACTion Programs for Animals coalition. The next meeting for this group is the first Wednesday in March, at 6:30 p.m., in the Branigan Library's Dresp Room. Join us if you can!

No Kill Misconception & Future Challenges

2009-02-08T21:11:00.011-07:00

About Public Irresponsibility

One accusation lodged against No Kill advocates is that we don't believe in public irresponsibility. That could not be further from the truth. The fact that many in the public are irresponsible at best and neglectful/abusive to companion animals at worst is the very reason why shelters exist in the first place. Just because we lodge some tough love at shelter management for doing more killing of lives than saving of lives does not mean we don't acknowledge why animals got there in the first place. What we are saying is that to hide behind that public irresponsibility instead of look closely at the way you do business is irresponsible in turn.

We also think that irresponsible pet owners are FAR outnumbered by those that are responsible and that the vast majority of those in the public respect animal life in the least and downright love animals at most. We say that because those of us who do love animals outnumber those who do not, we have a vast and great ability to save more lives if we put our minds to that task and if we let go of the way things have always been done to explore new ways they could be done, and if we work together and communicate better as well.

Nathan Winograd answered this accusation in better words than I can muster in a recent blog posting off his website; he wrote the following:

"I have long stated that while irresponsibility sends animals to the shelters, what happens when they get there depends on the shelter. The fact that someone allows a pet to give birth to a litter doesn’t mean a shelter doesn’t have to put in place a foster care program to avoid killing those little ones. It doesn’t give the shelter the moral absolution to order their killing because they refuse to put in place a targeted program to stop it. Shelters exist to be a safety net for animals who are victims of irresponsible people, for homeless animals, and for animals when people have no where else to turn. But too many kill, rather than save animals. In fact, too many shelter directors refuse to implement alternatives to killing, acting irresponsibly themselves. And that is what I am critical of. While people surrender animals to shelters, it is shelters that kill them and one does not necessarily follow or excuse the other."

In my years of volunteering for shelters, I have noticed how stifling it can be to assume nothing can be done except kill most of the animals that enter the door. If you operate from that mode, what efforts will you make to look for or implement other options? Will you look at your operations with a critical eye to see what you could be doing to save more lives? If you assume that most people in the public represent irresponsible owners--even those who are going to your facility to adopt a new pet or look for a lost one--what impact does it have when you start each conversation from that point-of-view?

What hurts regressive shelters even more is their bunker mentality of "it is us against the world". This cuts all attempts to communicate with the public and with those who could offer assistance, such as other animal groups and even animal advocates who can sometimes be critical but who usually do so from a genuine interest in finding improvements when issues are discovered. Very few people who love animals operate from a malicious standpoint, yet shelters and their staff put up a wall that is hard to penetrate or get around in any form or fashion, and this hiding from the rest of the world makes it so that the networking needed to save more lives is not happening.

Lastly, the fact that public irresponsibility is to blame for all the animals under one roof should not provide political cover for shelters that are not following basic standards of care, are not administering modern sheltering medicine practices to mitigate disease, are not providing the kind of social interactions animals need to be healthy and happy while they are in the shelter, and are not being transparent and welcoming with the public. Many times, even those with legitimate complaints or observations are shot down without even a dignified nor intelligent conversation about the actual issue.

Ultimately, operating a shelter the same old-fashioned way hurts those whose welfare shelters are supposed to be putting first. Instead, it seems like human selfishness and pride always win out.

Long Road Ahead For Us All

After attending all of the public meetings last week, I realize that we have a long, tough road ahead to get to a time when we start to reduce our community's kill rate. The City Council working meeting where SNAP funding was discussed turned into a strange, melodramatic spectacle about choosing to help poor, downtrodden people vs. helping animals. This came about because a mistake was made last year, it seems, when the SNAP funding came out of an incorrect pool of monies (those designated for health and human services). So, in a nutshell, the council decided to cut SNAP's funding from this source, and now it is up to the City to see if it can provide even a meager amount to SNAP from another fund. They may not realize that low-cost spay/neuter non-profits must be supported by local government to be eligible for big, national grants.

Then the new oversight board for the shelter met for the first time. It consists of three voting members from the County (Sheriff Garrison, Commissioner Krahling, and Commissioner Vasquez-Butler) and three from the City (Councillors Silva, Small, and Connor) as well as two non-voting members, the city and county managers (Mrs. Moore and Haines).

They have a long way to go to learn more about the details behind every animal sheltering practice and the industry in general, and I hope they come up to speed very quickly. Some of the financial information presented at that meeting was alarming ... in the past year, our shelter has spent more money than ever before and is already over its allotted budget. The most spending seems to be from costly contract vet care and salaries for personnel. Yet, we are still in the same boat concerning the bottom line of how many animals were taken in and many were killed/euthanized. We are still killing about 1,000 a month, sometimes more, and about 200 of these are feral cats. An average of 200 are being adopted per month, and a recent try at reducing adoption rates had little effect--which goes to show that price alone is not what helps increase adoptions.

These statistics are averages from reports I have gotten verbally; I have yet to get ahold of the actual statistics for April 2008 to December 2008, though I have asked for them many times and re-submitted a formal request via the City Clerk's office. This information should be public information, and besides being a barometer for how the shelter is doing, it is an indication for many of us who volunteer countless hours a month trying to save lives to see if we are even making a small dent in the overall numbers--and I never forget that each and every number represents one dog or cat (or sometimes another kind of animal)--not a simple number.

Lastly, the kick-off meeting for ACTion Programs for Animals was the last meeting in a whirlwind week, and there were not too many people in attendance. So, I can see it is going to take more PR and more effort to attract people to this coalition and to explain its intent. We need a large group of people willing to lend their skills and some time and effort in order to start helping the sad situation in meaningful ways.

Needless to say, we have our work cut out for us as a community. Still, I for one am not giving up. There are many challenges ahead, and the smartest thing to do at this time is face one thing at a time and work collectively so that our efforts do start to make a difference on the bottom line.

Important meetings this week

2009-02-02T21:37:00.009-07:00

There are some important public meetings this week for animal advocates and anyone in the general public concerned about animal welfare to attend if you have the time. They are listed below with a brief explanation of each. You can also refer to the Animal Events Calendar on the www.hssnm.org website for similar meetings in the future. I try to input those that I know of on a regular basis.

City Council Working Meeting
Feb. 3rd, 1 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at City Hall (on Church St.)
The council will be making a decision that affects future City funding for the Spay Neuter Action Program (SNAP)

First Meeting of the Newly-Appointed Shelter Oversight Board
Feb. 5th, 9 a.m., at the Dona Ana County Government Center (on Motel Blvd.)

ANIMAL SERVICES CENTER OF THE MESILLA VALLEY BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Agenda for meeting

The following agenda will be considered at a Special Meeting of the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley Board of Directors to be held in the Commission Chambers:

I. Call to Order

II. Election of Officers

III. Establish Meeting Dates, Times, Venue and Notification Requirements

IV. Action Item(s)

1. Formal Appointment and Employment Contract Authorization for Dr. Beth Vesco-Mock, Executive Director.

2. Adoption of the Fiscal year 2009 Budget.

3. Direction to Establish Applicable Ad Hoc Committee and Membership.

V. Board Input

VI. Public Input (Three Minutes)

VII. Adjournment

Contact: Carolyn Horner
Phone: 541-2067

Kick-off meeting for the Action Programs for Animals (APA) coalition
Feb. 5, 6:30 p.m., Branigan Library's Dresp Room (on corner of Main and Picacho)

The following text is from the press release send out about this coalition. I am one of the people leading this charge, so I will be busy at work the rest of this week in preparation for it. I hope to see alot of people there, even if I do faint at the sight of all of you!

A few local animal-welfare advocates are kicking off a new action-oriented coalition to try to bring everyone interested in bettering the lives of our community’s companion animals together to take positive action and work toward implementing new programs and services. We will be focusing on proactive steps we can take to save/enrich lives—for companion animals and their guardians. This group grew out of the former Las Cruces No Kill Study Group, which after some meetings where research and discussions took place, it became very evident that what our community needs most at this point in time is program modeling and active inspiration—not another written report about successes in other areas of our nation that would probably go unnoticed.

After a short period of introductions and idea-sharing, we will start rolling up our sleeves and getting to work on progressive program and service implementation as individuals and networks of individuals. We want to form partnerships between all area non-profits, civic leaders, business owners, educators, and the animal shelter/control departments, etc. We will be starting with small projects first and then growing into larger ones. All are welcome to attend and become part of the action.

The goal and mission of this group is to bring all community stakeholders together for idea and resource sharing and forming working committees around shared goals and programs. It is our hope this sparks the formation of more non-profits and the growth of existing ones as well as partnerships in specific programs with our animal-welfare agencies. The ultimate goal is to work together as an entire community to reduce—year by year—the number of healthy/treatable companion animals that are killed for a lack of space at our shelter and a lack of alternatives.

The APA kick-off meeting is set for February 5th, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., at the Branigan Library’s Dresp Room. For more information, e-mail cheressemm@gmail.com. Come join this working coalition to share ideas/resources and implement programs for saving more companion animals’ lives and helping to enrich the lives of animals and their guardians. We will have monthly progress meetings the first Thursday of each month at the same time and location.

Next Blog Posting

The topic of my next post, which I will write this coming weekend, will be the debunking of the myths/misconceptions surrounding No Kill's philosophy. I'll also discuss and highlight (with examples) the faulty logic that is often used by those who are entrenched in the status quo to attack No Kill's progressive ideas and deflect genuine conversation and problem-solving of issues that are raised.

Humane Disconnections

2009-01-25T18:51:00.016-07:00

Why Humane Education Needs a Broader Outlook

In traditional animal sheltering and control philosophy, humane education and outreach usually boils down to visiting schools and trying to reach future generations (children) with a message of compassion and responsibility toward companion animals, and that message is usually very oriented toward the importance of spay/neuter. Usually not included in humane education is teaching children how to understand animals and their behaviors and reasons for these and issues that can arise and how to deal with them, nor bite prevention tips, nor the amount of work it takes to care for animals, etc. After decades of humane education, it is hard to tell how much of an impact this approach has had. There are no studies that have tracked its progress from a practical or statistical perspective, such as tracking how many children in a given humane education program have grown up to be more responsible pet guardians or if they have had an influence on their own families.

I grew up in a small, poor, predominately Hispanic community myself. I can say that many people were neglectful of their animals (or worse), and there are still issues with abuse/neglect, hoarding, dogs running at large, etc., in this town. Yet, I also witnessed transformations, starting with my own immediate family. I have personally influenced friends and co-workers to a more humane perspective in ways that were not accusatory/judgmental. I can say I have seen many people change from neglectful/irresponsible owners to responsible/caring guardians who have learned to accept and love animals as members of their families--bringing them inside the home instead of strictly outside, etc.

I think there is hope, but I think humane education and outreach has to grow and change to reach more people and to not just focus on future generations. I say that keeping with tradition in humane education cannot hurt anyone or anything, but I think we need to also think outside the box and expand the information we impart to the public. We need to come up with ways to reach adults through outreach, hands-on work in the community, stronger pet retention efforts with advice about the realities and strategies of day-to-day life with dogs and cats, as well as savvy and catchy public relations techniques. Advertising is a powerful tool from which animal welfare could benefit much more.

I have talked before about the huge disconnect between animal-welfare workers and volunteers and the general public. I have also pointed out that animal welfare suffers from a very elitist view oftentimes, with too much "othering" of people who are not perfect animal guardians or perceived as such. I think we need to mend these gaps--slowly but surely--and learn how to communicate with people and get past the judgments. How many times do we hear ourselves think and say things like the following: We find a loose dog, assume the worst, and we say, "I can't believe people let this dog run loose without a collar or tag", etc. We assume they are not worthy of the animal without knowing any details about the animal or his/her owner. Well, first of all, we should believe whatever we see because we see things like this every day. Instead of getting caught up in disbelief, we should be trying to sincerely understand WHY and HOW, and not only that, but how we can communicate and reach into a person to bring out more of their humane compassion and understanding or help them reach their own light bulb moments. Most people possess some compassion toward animals. We need to ask ourselves how we can help change their views toward animals or help them be more responsible. Maybe they need to be taught and educated about all the options that exist if they lose an animal or find one, etc. We think everyone knows this stuff, yet if you talk to the average person, many do not have all the information they need.

I have a "Mending Fences" idea that would target outlying/poor areas that show more animal neglect. We could provide supplies such as houses, food, better tie-outs if that is what a dog's life must be for the time being, etc. We could do presentations at community centers that focus on animal behavior, care, expectations, needs, the joy and accomplishment of properly walking dogs and leading them on a leash, etc. While helping people learn how to better contain their animals in their yards, for example, we can talk to them about the social nature of animals and why they need and thrive from human attention and how many of their bad behaviors stem from boredom and neglect. While there, we could interact with their dogs and cats in ways that are different from what they are used to ... teach them how to teach an old dog a new trick ... etc. These would be the building blocks for bettering the lives of those animals we pass by and look at from afar ... wishing we could do something to help them.

NACA article link

As I reported recently, the National Animal Control Association (NACA) and their president, Mark Kumpf, have come out with a complete new policy statement concerning cat management. One of the articles about this recent change is online at HSUS's Animal Sheltering.org: "Taking a Broader View of Cats in the Community."

In this article and interview, Kumpf shows some wonderful insight to what is meant by a more care and control model for animal control agencies. It's also about a complete philosophy shift in this industry, much like No Kill is a shift in how shelters do business and relate to the public. Kumpf says: "What we're saying is the old standard isn't good enough anymore. You need to be able to be flexible with your community animal management strategies for both cats and dogs. And if you continue to follow the old philosophy, eventually everybody else is going to pass you by. Progressive communities are seeing that being flexible in their strategy allows for economic savings. The cost for picking up and simply euthanizing and disposing animals is horrendous, in both the philosophical and the economic sense. So giving someone the alternative, and telling them it's OK to think outside the litter box ... it's an opportunity for those agencies to be able to sell that program to their administration and work on it. Our goal is to reduce needless euthanasia."

More refreshing words from the leading national animal control association could not have been spoken, and it is good to see them being spoken now ... it is never too late to get on the progressive train that all communities will someday get on board.

Ask SNAP

I wanted to urge VR to contact SNAP directly to ask all of your questions (at 575-524-9265). They do have answers and are always ready and willing to work with anyone in the community who wants to fix their animal(s). Low-income guidelines are put into place from the City and County grants that SNAP receives, and I don't know all of the details of these guidelines myself. I know that the income requirements are not as low as you might expect ... in other words, you don't have to be living at the poverty level to qualify. The same guidelines used for HUD and other low-cost public services apply to SNAP's services as well.

I understand your frustration at fees charged for some services or for adopting homeless animals whose fate could very well be death, VR; however, nothing is very simple. I think fairness needs to be the guide for how much of a fee is charged for any given thing, and not all people will agree with any one decision. For example, to compete with people selling puppies out of boxes in parking lots, your prices cannot be too high, but the other side of the coin is that when you pay for something, it holds more worth than if that something were given to you for free. That said, it behooves us all to revisit the reasons behind the decisions we make, and people need to have different services from which to choose. You also have to show flexibility and willingness to try new things and track the progress and all the factors that apply to success or failure.

When it comes to low-cost spay/neuter services in our area at this time targeted to low-income families, SNAP is the only organization working in that area. It is my understanding that the Animal Services Center, the shelter, is also going to start offering low-cost spay/neuter and possibly vaccination services to the public again if they aren't doing so already. They needed to hire a new vet to get back into business. To find out when these services will be available, call the shelter at 575-382-0018.

Action Needed for Animals

2009-01-18T21:48:00.013-07:00

This blog posting will address some recent questions and comments from VR and jacksonthornton as well as introduce a new action-oriented coalition we are calling Action Programs for Animals (APA). It is my humble hope that the latter will start the spark for multiple lifesaving programs and hands-on efforts for animals in our community. We need to take our collective love and wishes and ideas for animals and start putting these into action and addressing issues in targeted ways.

SNAP van details

To address some questions from VR about SNAP's run of our County's spay/neuter van, please visit their website again at www.snapnewmexico.org. The SNAP low-income qualification guidelines are described under the left-hand link titled "Criteria and Application Process". The fees are $25 for dogs and $15 for cats--the same co-pay applies to the van surgeries. For special circumstances or if you need help with a particular situation, please call SNAP at 575-524-9265 to see what you can work out with them. (I am only a volunteer and not a decision-maker in the organization.)

MORE volunteers are needed. If you can help one day out of your weekend, please contact their van volunteer coordinator, Julie Miller, at 405-2195. She can also offer the most accurate and up-to-date information about the van runs.

You can find the dates and locations for future van runs from the left-hand link on their website titled "Mobile Spay/Neuter Van Info". I know they will be in Hatch the last two weekends of January and in Chaparral the last two weekends of February. Depending on what funds are left over at that point, they will keep running the van in outlying areas of our community for as long as they can afford to do so.

One approach is not enough

No matter what portion of the No Kill Equation's set of programs and services you are talking about, one approach to each is not enough. This is especially true of low-cost, high-volume spay and neuter efforts in our community, which is the biggest way to get to the root of our evils. It is also the most cost savvy way of doing so. It costs our community about $85 per animal to catch and kill them, which is the fate of most. Estimations from 2008 point to about 17,000 animals taken in at our shelter with approximately 13,000 put down. In contrast, it costs SNAP about $45 per animal to alter them. With each animal altered contributing possibly multiple animals in the future to our shelter's intake, it is not hard to see the savings in cost and lives. This is only possible with multiple, targeted efforts and programs to increase our area's spay and neuter surgeries from here on out.

The demand is there. Each community that SNAP has taken the van to thus far has responded. Many people in these communities are still seeking services. Many people in the City are needing the help as well.

There is no way the van alone can address the numbers and the demand, just as there is no way our shelter can do so alone either. But, if we do all of the above--the van runs, the voucher program, and a clinic or the shelter offering low-cost services to the public as well--we can truly make a dent in our shelter's future intake numbers, starting with the coming Spring season when the shelter usually gets slammed with kittens and puppies. There are also other ideas we can explore in the future -- such as running MASH-type spay/neuter programs, projects targeting only feral cats, offering commuter help for those who do not have transportation, etc.

A No Kill Plan and Leader

From my brief time here, I have some observations about the animal-welfare groups in our community. First of all, we really have few groups and organizations in place to address the issues at hand or collectively run the No Kill Equation in the way needed. We have one open-admission shelter that is swamped and a very small sanctuary. Other than that, we have SNAP, fCamp, and a couple of humane societies that do not run or operate shelters and who offer little in programs and services at this time. We also have a handful of breed rescues.

All of these groups are off doing their thing and operating in their niche without much communication or cooperation cross-group. Many of the programs and services we need--run the No Kill way--require collaboration and inspiration that will bring everyone together. Unfortunately, the leadership in that direction is not there yet--not in our City/County leaders who are sitting on the newly-formed governing board of the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley and not in the shelter's director and not in our Animal Control departments.

Part of the issue is everyone is on a different page. No Kill means different things to different people and groups. Many of our animal-welfare group leaders and civic leaders have not taken the time to read and research animal welfare thoroughly to understand the differing philosophies and approaches to issues. That is the first step they need to take.

As for our shelter and its current leadership, jacksonthornton is correct to comment that a goal of No Kill was announced prematurely and without much detail given to the public on the plan to get there. The only plan of action that has worked in other communities in the U.S. is the No Kill Equation and the philosophy behind it -- a complete paradigm shift in the way shelters engage with the public and regard the public.

Unfortunately, we've seen only smoke and mirrors up to this point. At first, our shelter's current director was saying her plan of action was the following: 1. Responsibility; 2. Education; 3. Spay/Neuter; however, no one has elaborated on the details behind each. When I first heard this, I have to admit that I cringed a bit ... I was worried. It seemed to be a retooling of the old L.E.S. (Legislation. Education. Sterilization) model that shelters and animal-welfare systems have been operating under since the 1970s. All of those efforts are good, but they have not been enough for decades. This also entirely ignores the efforts that HAVE led to success, which are all very well-documented and described if you choose to look for that information.

Later, when challenged by animal-welfare advocates and questioned about the proven No Kill Equation model, our leaders fed the public more misinformation. At the last Joint City/Council meeting where shelter issues were supposed to be addressed, we were given a presentation that led everyone to believe the shelter is NOW implementing the entire No Kill Equation model except TNR programs because those are against the law.

Anyone who has been in the shelter for any amount of time and knows what the No Kill Equation model/philosophy is about was not fooled by this claim. It was clearly a way to deflect the questions and constructive criticism at that time and mislead those that don't know better. It was also a way to NOT have to engage with the public or groups in meaningful ways.

For example, we were told the shelter is working with rescues and advancing rescue efforts. That is true to a small extent but not to the extent necessary to treat all animals equitably and save the most lives possible. Aggressive, open networking and an organized approach has not been put into place to ensure that all those animals who can go to rescues are getting there. There are stories of a few animals being driven for hundreds of miles to rescues, and that is noble. The shelter now works with Safe Haven Animal Sanctuary to send some dogs there, and that is great, too.

But, this is still not the No Kill way of working with ALL the individuals and groups that can assist you to save the most lives possible -- not just a token few per month. From not utilizing the PetSmart Rescue Waggin' that takes animals from areas like ours to shelters in the country that are lacking in animals to not taking advantage of the Internet to network with all those that you can to a lack of a consistent process for all local rescuers to walk through and rescue animals--we are just not administering rescue efforts in the way we need to, and that goes for the entire efforts described in the No Kill Equation that our shelter claims to have under full operation and control.

It is my great hope that all of our local leaders who have been chosen for our shelter's oversight board will first educate themselves on No Kill efforts and especially success stories in our nation to learn these nuanced differences and set policy and guidelines that can open our shelter up for more support and efforts from our community groups and the public. It is my hope that their ears and hearts and minds will be open to constructive criticism and the spirit in which it is given -- a hope for improvements and for saving more lives. We cannot do this if we cannot sit down with each and every aspect of our issues and talk about them openly and honestly and share ideas for tackling them.

If our leaders, for example, get repeated complaints and reports of people getting turned off at the shelter's doors before they ever look at animals, then you would hope they'd look into this issue in more detail. If 10 animals are put down in a day that 5 people were turned off at the door by the negative attitudes of the staff or having to wait for more than 30 mintues to fill out a full application or whatever the case may be, the best course of action should be to start keeping track of some of these statistics to make sure your policies are not driving people away before you've even had the chance to administer true adoption counseling. In other words, if practices are leading to more lives lost, it behooves you to look into these practices more closely. Oftentimes, in trying to mitigate a few animals being returned, shelters turn off more potential good homes. It's a common problem in regressive shelters.

In successful No Kill communities, there is one bottom line: leadership in the right direction. In many successful communities, there are two big shelters--one operated as a municipality and one operated by a humane society. These two work together to implement the No Kill Equation, and when they do so well and collaboratively, they are able to save 80+% of the animals that end up in their systems.

We cannot mimic that exact system or model at this time with only one shelter. However, that does not mean we should shrug our shoulders and give up. No Kill is a community effort. If all of our current animal-welfare groups communicated more and shared more of their resources and knowledge and efforts and recruited more people from the public to assist in efforts and fund-raising, we could start implementing many programs and services our community needs outside of the shelter. We can even start and form more non-profits around common goals and programs.

For instance, you don't need the shelter to run successful pet retention efforts; you don't need the shelter to increase the volume of spay/neuter services; etc. On the other hand, the shelter will have to collaborate on efforts to send more animals to rescues and to develop programs and services to give more animals in their care the opportunity to make it out of there alive (more foster homes, better PR, medical/behavioral rehabilitation, etc.).

The good news is it is not too late for this leader to emerge. Many good shelter directors of today were operating in regressive ways in their past lives. To read some inspiring words from a director who saw the light and changed her ways of doing business, see Sue Cosby's recent posting at TheNoKillNation.com: Rising from the Betrayal of Animals: A Phoenix from the Ashes.

Action Programs for Animals

That leads me to the new action-oriented coalition that myself and others are beginning in February. We want to bring each and every individual and group in our community together to start looking at actual programs and services we can start putting into action starting today. Instead of looking at the No Kill Equation and feeling overwhelmed with it all, let's start to tackle each portion that we can--one at a time. We can start small and build from there. As we show success, I have no doubt it will snowball into opportunities to provide more and more avenues for saving lives.

If you are interested in joining this coalition and starting some hands-on work, please come to our first meeting on Feb. 5th, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., at the Branigan Library's Dresp Room. For more information or to share ideas about this coalition, contact me at cheressemm@gmail.com. All are welcome -- all groups, all individuals, local leaders, shelter representatives, etc.

Annoucements and "the No Kill way"

2009-01-11T23:28:00.014-07:00

DAC/SNAP van run this weekend

This weekend's run of the Dona Ana County Sheriff Department's mobile spay/neuter clinic--thanks to the support from the Las Cruces Spay and Neuter Action Program (SNAP)--was very successful this past weekend. On Friday, Jan. 9th, the van was at the Community of Hope in Las Cruces, and 36 animals were altered that day. On Saturday and Sunday, the van was in Radium Springs, where there were many volunteers from that community on-hand to help. On Saturday, the 10th, 33 animals were altered. Today, another 27 animals were altered -- that's 96 animals in our community that will no longer be adding to our issues of unwanted litters of kittens and puppies in coming years.

Congratulations to all involved, and keep up the good work! However, our work in high-volume spay/neuter is just beginning. The difference between providing spay/neuter services when you do so "the No Kill way" vs. what we have been doing in the past is that in order to make a real dent in the number of homeless animals coming into our shelter/rescues/sanctuary, we need to alter about 400-500 animals per month for quite some time.

In the past few years, SNAP has done a good job with their voucher program in increasing numbers each year since they began. In 2008, they helped with about 1800 surgeries via vouchers used at local vet offices, which is about 150 surgeries per month. As we can see, though, a voucher program alone is not enough. The No Kill way requires many options and services for spay/neuter and targeted efforts as well in order to get the volume up.

If you add a couple of weekends of running a mobile spay/neuter van in outlying areas at about 30 animals done per day, you begin to see how the numbers increase. That adds another 150-180 surgeries per month, with a total of approximately 300+ each month. The one other area in which we are lacking is having at least one stand-alone, low-income clinic somewhere in our community as well and/or for the shelter to step up to provide this service to the public as they used to in the past. That's the only way we can reach the kind of volume that has been successful in other communities, and many of these low-income clinics can also offer other vet services that some people cannot usually afford.

From the limited knowledge I have, SNAP seems to operate on roughly $26k a year in City/County funding, some small national grants, and local contributions. The cost of running the van alone is about $1500 per day. At those numbers, even with collecting co-pays, SNAP is going to run out of money to fund the spay/neuter van pretty soon. We need everyone in our community who supports these efforts to donate when they can.

SNAP is still needing volunteer support as well. If the same group of a few volunteers tries to keep up this kind of a schedule each month for the long-term, they will burn out. More volunteers are needed to share the load, and more outreach in each community is needed to recruit local volunteers from each area.

Please help however you can. You can reach SNAP at 524-9265, and visit their website at www.snapnewmexico.org.

Once we get up to the volumes we need in spay/neuter surgeries, then we also need our two Animal Control (AC) departments to revisit and take a constructively critical look at their policies as well. We will still be killing too many cats in our current system, for example. And, if and when our community ever does adopt a spay/neuter ordinance, it has to do so from a No Kill perspective, too. That means that our AC departments should not simply use the law in order to impound and kill more animals; instead, they should serve notices and warnings and give people the time and opportunity to comply with the laws. Having multiple low-income options and services in place, this will make things easier for everyone.

NACA supports TNVR

The National Animal Control Association's November/December 2008 issue of their bi-monthly news magazine was entirely dedicated to the subject of community cat programs, and for the first time, the NACA came out in support of TNVR (trap-neuter-vaccinate-return) for feral cats. They openly admit that what AC departments have been doing for decades is not working and will never work (trying to catch and kill all loose cats), nor does it protect the public or wildlife from any real or perceived threats. This is wonderful news, and I hope both of our AC departments have read through their copies of the magazine.

Whether some like the idea or not, it is one whose time has not only come but an idea that is passing our community by each and every day that we don't seize the opportunity to change the way we deal with this issue. With more and more communities showing success with this model (including the NMSU fCamp program), it is only a matter of time until these programs are the norm, much like many shelter programs we have today are the norm when they were not so in the recent past--such as off-site adoptions, Home for the Holidays campaigns, foster programs, rescue efforts, etc.

If you are in support of our community getting with the TNR program, the biggest step you can take at this moment is to contact your state representatives and push for our state laws to change. Also contact your local city/county representatives and urge them to pass cat-friendly local ordinances that allow non-profits and volunteers to organize efforts for feral cat management and care. Lastly, urge our two AC departments to also support these efforts and show the flexibility in the way they do business that it will take for us to be successful as well.

Coming Soon: Action Programs for Animals

Myself and a few others are starting an action-oriented group called Action Programs for Animals (APA) in February. If you are interested in not only exploring ideas that can help companion animals and their caretakers but also putting them into action, please join us for our first meeting on Feb. 5th, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., at the Branigan Library on the corner of Main/Spruce-Picacho. We'll be in the Dresp Room.

More about the APA will follow!

PETA and the Pitties

2009-01-06T21:36:00.022-07:00

First of all, thanks for the comments. Good or bad ... I sincerely welcome and appreciate them all. For tonight, I am going to address a few of them.

Although I cannot nor will not agree with any comment on my No Kill blog that tells us to "kill all the animals" to solve the issue, this comment from i hate animal control does open a door to say: Isn't that what we're doing already? It is impossible to do away with animal control services (there's the little pesky business of having to protect the public's health and safety involved here), but I advocate for a care and control model instead of a strictly control and punishment one.

Thanks also to VR for the insight on where our current cat leash laws originated. I have not lived in Las Cruces that long to know all the history, but this does show how one person's decisions--if he/she is a lawmaker or influences lawmakers--can have such lasting and disastrous effects for many years. Putting animal-welfare into law should never be taken lightly or based on personal feelings; our local lawmakers need to be well- and fully informed before voting on each law they pass. Those local lawmakers that will make up the oversight board for our shelter should also do what many of us do: become well-read and informed about all aspects of sheltering before you put policy and procedures and programs into practice.

We see the disastrous effects of laws passed for years to come in other communities as well--not just here. Look at Denver's anti-pit bull laws. For me, reading "The Pit Bull Placebo" by Karen Delise is teaching me things I never knew; it is a must-read for anyone interested in how sensationalism and misinformation can grow into discrimination and prejudice and laws put into place that do more harm than good and don't address the true nature of canine aggression nor how to prevent bites and attacks in the first place.

VR also asked about the possibility of asking PETA for assistance. I'm sorry to say that the likelihood of that is very low. Unfortunately, some powerful animal-rights groups do not all have the same progressive views about animal welfare nor companion animals as I wish they did. (Yet, if they did, imagine how much closer to No Kill we would be right now with the backing of not only their power and reputations but also their multi-million operating budgets?)

If you have not read my blog post entitled "Old Guard vs. New Guard" from August 14 of last year, please do so. It explains the long history of sheltering in our country and how many of the powerful groups in the nation divide up into different philosophical camps. Unfortunately, PETA not only supports the high-kill, old-fashioned model, that organization actually kills many of the animals they "rescue" as well.

In 2006, they got into some very hot water over this issue. PETA does have a shelter, but they are not like Best Friends ... at PETA, they don't spend their funds on lifesaving ... most animals go there to die, I hate to say. In 2006, their kill rate for animals they took in was over 90%. If you Google "PETA kills animals", the newspaper articles might still be available that also talk about some PETA workers getting caught throwing away dead cats and dogs in public dumpsters.

For the most part, the only assistance PETA offers for companion animals is for spay/neuter. It is not a secret that Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's president, is looking forward to the day that dogs and cats go back to being only in the wild and not in people's homes. Ultimately, I think they truly believe that people have no business having animals in the home.

There is alot of detail about this at Nathan Winograd's No Kill Blog (also a must-read). He says it best and provides all the details about PETA. In doing so, he has earned their wrath, and PETA has been coming out with anti-No Kill literature and false claims that all No Kill shelters are equivalent to animal hoarders. What a shame this is the road PETA is taking.

Nathan Winograd's entire website has just been revamped recently as well. Please visit it again if you haven't done so recently. Go to www.nokillblog.com to read his No Kill recap of 2008 -- the winners and losers and what we can expect from this new year.

Thanks also to jacksonthornton for the insight that referring to any and all criticism as pointing fingers is a smokescreen our leaders often hide behind and the way they keep many of us at bay. It is very rare for there to be real dialogue about actual issues with our leaders. Many of us have tried for some time now. Unfortunately, the best reason to be open and have such honest dialogue is lost in our community as well, which is to come up with solutions and partner with everyone who can help to reach some No Kill goals.

Petey is looking for a home

This cute pittie pictured in today's post is named Petey. He was rescued from life at the end of a chain by a rescuer in Hobbs for Dogs Deserve Better. He is young, friendly and playful with everyone(including other dogs), and he is in desperate need of a foster home at this time and a permanent home as well. This rescuer, as many in small towns, is overwhelmed with the lives she works to save on a daily basis. I have met and known many a small-town rescuer. What they do with zero infrastructure and support is amazing.

To find out more about Petey or if you can offer any assistance, please contact me at cheressemm@gmail.com, and I can get you in touch with Petey's rescuer. She also has another sweet female pittie named Sunny who was hit by a car, has an amputated leg, but has a heart of gold.

You can learn more about Dogs Deserve Better at their website:
www.dogsdeservebetter.org.

Comments and Next Topic

2008-12-30T22:30:00.012-07:00

ORV not used in TNR

cambstreasurer posed in interesting question regarding use of oral rabies vaccinations in feral cats. The oral rabies vaccine (ORV), from what I understand, was developed for use in wild animal populations and has been used to great success for raccoons, skunks, coyotes, and other animals to prevent the spread of rabies to domestic animals and humans since the late 1990s. It is administered via baiting stations.

From what I have read, the use of this vaccine is not recommended for cats and dogs nor in TNR efforts, but I am not sure why. I think it is not effective for domestic animals or maybe it has not been developed with them in mind yet. ORV use is discussed in the documents available from these links, and the first link also provides feral and rabies facts from Alley Cat Allies:

Rabies Control in Feral Cats

Feral Cats and Public Safety

One of the top veterinary leaders in our nation regarding feral cat management is Dr. Julie Levy. She is usually at the forefront of any new developments and is part of the Maddie’s Fund Shelter Medicine team. If anyone knows about the possible development of other ideas for rabies control in ferals, it would be this excellent researcher. Her information is included in the following link:

Dr. Julie Levy

A note about pet limit laws

The No Kill philosophy agrees with Have a Heart about the dark side of many animal laws, and this includes ridiculous pet limit laws. The number allowed in the City of Las Cruces is ridiculously low for sure. There are many people willing to provide a home to more than two pets and do so responsibly, and why should they have to apply for a yearly permit and home inspections to do so?

Animal Control’s role is to step in and help when something is wrong; otherwise, I agree they have no business in our homes … but, this is part of the Old Guard mentality in our region that punishes everyone for the sins of the minority. Because some people are neglectful, abusive, or animal hoarders, the rest of the pet-loving population (the majority) suffers.

For more about the dark side of pet limit laws, see this article from the No Kill Advocacy Center:

Pet Limit Laws

Coming up next: Programs and services administered the No Kill way

It never occurred to me that even a shelter that is doing sub-standard work can point to the No Kill Equation and claim to be doing it all. My next posting will compare and contrast programs and services that are run from a genuine No Kill perspective to those same programs being run by an Old Guard shelter.

In other words, not all programs are created equal or run from the philosophy and paradigm shift that No Kill requires for success … for instance, you can say you are doing “rescue”, but what does it take to run a rescue program that truly saves the most lives possible? The same can be said for all of the programs and services of the No Kill Equation. Even doing only one or two well will not lead to the kind of save rates we all wish we had.

TNR answers and resources

2008-12-29T19:48:00.013-07:00

This blog is pretty up front in its philosophy and belief system regarding animal welfare, including that of the humane treatment and management of feral cats. Say what you want about me personally, Anonymous, but you cannot say that I do not try to report facts and that I am not well-informed about animal welfare and its trends in this nation. You can also not say that I am someone who never lifts a finger to help animals in real ways; I spend most of my time off from my real job doing volunteer work for animals.

My last blog posting was filled with rabies facts that I was careful to research. I agree with you that rabies is serious and deadly and should not be taken lightly, but we also need to regard it realistically and from a place that acknowledges the ACTUAL threat it poses in our day and age. That was my point in going over those facts, especially in regard to ferals. Unless you are a sadistic wacko who is out every night cornering and harassing feral cats, the likelihood you'll get bit by one is extremely low. For your own safety, don't mess with feral cats; they don't mess with humans at all.

I am not sure why the recent comments from you keep coming nor why you keep reading this blog and saying your questions are not being answered. I am guessing it is for the same reason that I read everything that I can get my hands on that comes from the Status Quo and Old Guard. It's the old adage of keeping our friends close but our enemies closer. More power to you, Anonymous. I have nothing to hide or apologize for ... after all, this is just a blog!

However, I do not wish to make this a forum for endless argument that gets us nowhere. To answer your questions again regarding TNR--it is the feral colony caretakers that both keep track of the cats in their care as well as their medical records, including the rabies vaccinations. Since you think rabies is such a huge threat in our area via these cats, then it makes sense that homeless cats who are vaccinated and cared for are much less of a public threat than cats who have no caretakers and are not altered nor vaccinated, which is the sad outcome when TNR is against the law--as it is now in our City and County.

Caretakers are also responsible for keeping feeding stations discreet and clean. This includes cleaning up any of these messes to which you refer and being responsible for dispute resolution in the neighborhoods where the cats are trying to coexist peacefully and safely. If there is a true issue that cannot be resolved and the cats have to be relocated--though this should be done as a last resort--that's what barn cat programs are all about. In addition, any kittens that are born are caught and socialized so they can be adopted into loving homes. Again, it is the colony caretakers that handle all of this hard work ... bless all the feral caretakers out there, as far as I'm concerned!

I am not sure what other answers you are seeking, Anonymous. My guess is that you are an AC officer who firmly believes in the current catch and kill policies and how they are now administered. Maybe you have been successful in killing any and all cats in your neighborhood.

But, if you do work in the realm of animal welfare, surely you know that catching and killing cats has NOT been successful in our community nor nationwide. Homeless cats are still there, they are still multiplying, and without proper management, they are making messes, mating/multiplying, fighting, marking, and running around as rabies threats faster than anyone can trap and kill them all. The few that are trapped are sent to the shelter and immediately killed. This has not solved the issue and costs taxpayers a lot of money in traps, AC manpower, and the needless, daily killing that shelter staff are forced to do. Plus, most people in the general public do not wish death on these animals.

Yet, the other side of that coin is that successful TNR programs here on our college campus and across the nation show that managed colonies cause less problems, die off naturally, and that the cats in them live long and healthy lives. In the long run, they cost less in tax dollars and waste of life as well. Any that are accidentally trapped and taken to the shelter are identified by their ear docking/microchip and returned to their colonies; oftentimes, caretakers are called to pick up the cats themselves.

As I said, these are the two options at this point in time for ferals. If anyone can come up with a better solution that is both humane and protects the public, then I will be the first to bow down and kiss that person's feet! In the meantime, we can all make our personal decisions on which road we want to take regarding ferals. Anonymous and anyone else who opposes TNR are free to do so and fight your battle. I am not sure this is the place for it, though. I can assure you that you will not sway myself or others who see this issue differently, and I am posed to fight the battle from the other side of this issue.

As for the wolf-hybrid case, my point was that these animals--like ferals--inhabit a very gray area as well in our nation as pets/wildlife. Even if the City AC department did properly ID this particular dog, Apache, as the one who bit the neighbor, that does not erase my other valid points on how and why I think the case could have been handled differently.

In the confusion over the animal's proper identification as the dog who did the biting and as his status as a wolf-hybrid, I was reporting what the owner told several people who were trying to help her in her hour of need. She was frantic and trying to save her beloved dog's life, as any of us would do in that situation. I do think that before a beloved pet is forced to be put down, it is our AC department's responsibility to ensure that sacrifice is being made for a legitimate reason/threat. I also made it clear that I fully think this particular animal was not a rabies threat nor was it fair to classify him as some uncared-for wild beast.

Dogs bites occur in this nation of ours on a regular basis; in most cases, the bites are not serious nor lead to rabies for the humans involved. Also missing from most bite stories in the media these days is the full and entire circumstances of how and why the bite occurred. Usually, there is an understandable reason, and most of the dogs who bite are not vicious and do not need to be put down.

In this particular case, I was careful to do some research about wolf-hybrids before making my mind up or considering how I might have handled the situation if I did hold a position of power in animal welfare. Unfortunately for all involved, I do not.

My obvious intent with this blog is to call others to action in the area of the lifesaving philosophy and programs I believe in (The No Kill Equation) and which have been developed and implemented by others in our nation since the 1990s. I also want to tell people that as citizens of this community and as taxpayers, we have every right to ask the questions and make comments about how our money is being spent in our animal-welfare systems. These are public services we collectively fund, and we should not be chastised for speaking up, being constructively critical, nor silenced for advocating for that in which we firmly and passionately believe.

You are free to continue posting negative comments, Anonymous, and I will always publish them because I believe any reader of this blog has the right to comment and be heard. But, I do wonder why you are wasting your time reading this blog at all since you come at this subject from the opposite end of the spectrum? No matter ... that is your business and your own time to spend as you wish.

So, I have tried to sincerely and carefully answer your TNR questions and concerns again. I hope that, this time, I have succeeded! If not, as I said yesterday, please take the time to read some of the excellent TNR literature out on the websites of leaders in our nation regarding feral-cat management: Alley Cat Allies, Best Friends Animal Society, SpayUSA ... even many of those powerful Old Guard organizations are pro-TNR now, including the HSUS and ASPCA. That was not always the case.

Roads less traveled

2008-12-28T18:49:00.035-07:00

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."

--Robert Frost

-------------------------------------

Rabies: Fears vs. Reality

I feel like I have to talk about this subject first before I address a comment I received about TNR and also in discussion of a recent case in our City where an owner of a wolf-hybrid was forced to kill her dog. Both illustrate how many of our fears far outweigh the reality of the threats and how the laws we have in our books are many times behind the times and not based on recent, scientific information.

For instance, the threat of rabies from a domestic cat is so rare that the last case of a cat transmitting rabies to a human was registered in 1975. There are several sources that cite this fact (including the recent book Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff, page 379). Even more significant than this, there has never been a case of a cat transmitting rabies to a human as long as that cat received at least one rabies vaccine in its lifetime. (All cats in any reputable TNR program are fixed and vaccinated against rabies, at the minimum).

According to Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff, in the chapter titled "Feral Cat Management", more than 90 percent of rabies cases occur in wildlife, primarily in raccoons, skunks, coyotes, foxes, and bats. Yet, rabies vaccinations for wild animals have not been extensively tested or administered, including for wolf-hybrids. Since 1981, rabid cats have outnumbered dogs in the U.S., with 249 cases reported in the year 2000 and 281 in the year 2004. Still, with an estimated 60 million ferals and another 90 million house cats, that's still only 0.00002 percent of cats found to be rabid.

The likelihood of a human getting rabies from a domestic dog or cat is almost as rare as the likelihood of getting mauled to death by a dog (yet our fears of both are grossly exaggerated by the media and others). For example, the odds you or anyone you love will get killed by a "vicious dog" are 1 in 11.5 million, which is also not very high considering the 80+ million dogs in our nation. We are more likely to get hit by lightening ... that number is 1 in 4 million. For those of us who get in cars to commute to and from work each day, that literal road is a far, far scarier place!

Two roads for feral cats

I received an anonymous comment from someone who said that I cannot answer how TNR addresses the threat of rabies from cats and that no one else can answer that either. Well, I don't mean to be rude to this person, but if you are online reading this blog, the answers you supposedly seek are readily available regarding feral cat management from most reputable animal-welfare websites. As I explained previously, the threat of rabies from feral cats is extremely rare, and this is especially true for any cat in a managed colony.

These cats are cared for and managed by a caretaker who traps the cats, takes them to a vet to get tested/spayed or neutered/vaccinated, etc. When returned to their colony, these cats are now less likely to engage in the behaviors that annoy people, such as roaming, fighting, mating, marking, hunting, etc. They are given discreet feeding stations and given fresh food and water on a daily basis as well as areas for litter boxes, which are also cleaned by their caretakers. Usually, these colonies are healthy and thriving, and their numbers start to decrease by attrition.

This is true for the cats being managed right now on the NMSU campus. There is a link at the left for this program's website (fCamp), and those cats get a full line of services: they are altered, microchipped, tested for the standard diseases, vaccinated, and then cared for on a daily basis. That program also has a database that shows the numbers! That means our area has a successful TNR model right here from which to get answers to questions.

The only other alternative to dealing with feral cats is to trap them and send them to the shelter to be immediately killed. This is the system that has been in place for decades and which has failed for decades because it is literally like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping, fatal, bleeding wound!

The problem is that a vacuum effect occurs when you remove some or most cats from an area. More feral cats quickly move in to take their place, and the cats mate to make up the numbers lost in the colony from those trapped and killed. That's why we've never had an overall effect over time with this old catch and kill method. Not only are the numbers of cats not decreased, but none of these cats are vaccinated, none are fixed, and the threat to both the human population and wildlife from unmanaged cats is greater than threats from managed colonies. Most studies now show that the threats to birds from cats are also small in comparison to the threats to birds from humans!

This should sufficiently answer your questions up to this point, and there is far greater and better detail available from the following sources online, all of which are linked to at the left-hand side of this blog: Alley Cat Allies, Best Friends Animal Society, SpayUSA, and the No Kill Advocacy Center. I suggest that anyone who is blindly against TNR who has not read a word about it needs to do that first ... have enough of an open mind to visit these sites and learn the facts. The answers are out there, including a busting of many myths you probably have regarding cats. These false beliefs are what leads to millions of cats killed in our shelters nationwide each year and thousands killed in our community.

Lastly, no one is saying that the lives of feral cats are ideal or the situation is wonderful, but when it comes to the two roads animal welfare can take to address cat colonies and overpopulation, it seems clear that one alternative is far superior to the other. What stands in our community's way is not that there aren't any people willing and able to manage the feral colonies ... I get calls all the time from people wishing to do it. What stands in our way is our antiquated laws and that neither our local government nor our AC departments are willing to change the laws for the better. That's one roadblock we all need to work to remove.

The foggy road of the wolf-hybrid

In a recent case in our City, a woman who owned a wolf-hybrid and was a very responsible owner to this animal whom she also loved dearly, was forced to put down her dog when she came home one day to find the dog got out of the yard and AC officers were accusing the dog of biting a neighbor. It is still unclear to me whether the wolf-hybrid was attributed to this bite because he was found running loose at the same time or if the dog himself was specifically identified. (Some reports I got were that the hybrid did not even match the description of the dog given by the bite victim.)

In any case, the wolf-hybrid was attributed for the bite for whatever reason. So, what our City decided was that this fell under a law that requires that any "wild animal" that bites a human must be immediately killed and its head sent off to a lab for rabies testing. This was the law that our City enforced in this case, and if you think of it in these simplistic terms, it seems pretty cut and dry--i.e., there is a law, so enforce it and apply it. (By the way, the test came back negative for rabies.)

Yet, nothing in animal welfare is simple or black-and-white, even the application of our laws and ordinances. There are gray areas and choices that can be made, and this case shows that there were many mitigating circumstances that should have given our leaders pause.

Wolf-hybrids are popular in our country as pets (no matter if we personally agree with this or not), and in our area alone, the laws differ. Hybrids are prohibited by the City (an ordinance of which many are unaware), yet they are permitted in the County with the proper permit. Nationwide, some states require permits to keep a hybrid, some states prohibit them, and then many others do not regulate them at all.

What makes this road even more foggy is that it is impossible to tell that a dog is a wolf-hybrid unless the owner says that their dog is a wolf-hybrid or has documentation from a breeder showing this. It is not a simple thing to identify by just looking at a dog, and it is unfair to the animal to do so by sight alone. DNA testing is now available, and in this case, the owner requested that her dog be allowed to be tested and agreed to pay the cost of the test. She was denied this request, but she was "allowed" to take the dog to her own vet to have him killed.

Even more fog appears on the horizon when animal control departments state that rabies vaccinations are not proven for wolf-hybrids and other wild animals. That is true ... but, they are unproven because no one sees the need to go through the expense to do these tests. (Does anyone else see the irony here? What does that say about the true threat of rabies to humans/domestic animals from wild animals?)

Then there is the human toll and emotion in this case. This dog was not some neglected yard dog. The owner had cared for this dog since he was a puppy, and he was taken to the vet regularly for his shots, yearly exams, etc. He was even a beloved staple at our Farmer's Market and said to be a very well-behaved and trained dog.

In other words, he was not some "wild animal" that was running loose each night with the threat of getting bit by another wild animal--which would have been the only way he could have contracted rabies. Also, in the case of the canis genus--wolves being canis lupus lupus and regular dogs being canis lupus familiaris--99% or more of the genotypes of these two species are alike. In this case, common sense would dictate that though untested and unproven, a rabies vaccination would probably work in a well-cared for hybrid! He could also have been checked over thoroughly by his vet to make sure he didn't have any recent bite wounds, etc., in order to protect his bite victim.

My point here is that our City leaders and AC department could have handled this case much more responsibly and compassionately and still protected the dog's bite victim. First, they should have been 100% certain the dog was the one that bit the neighbor; an ID in person should have been required. Second, the dog could have been put under strict home quarantine or under his vet's observation and a thorough exam given as well as the DNA test. If the dog had not shown any signs of rabies in the past year, then the only other way he could have gotten the disease was from a wild animal biting him. Lastly, when given a clean bill of health for both dog and bite victim, the owner could have been given a chance to comply with the City's ordinance. She could have re-homed the dog or sent him to a hybrid rescue or perhaps she might have chosen to move into the County and acquire the required permit.

(Remember the cat Buddha, who was put down shortly after being trapped and taken to our shelter because the pet cat was deemed feral? His owners were so disgusted by what happened, they have since moved from the area.)

When in doubt, our City should have looked to others for advice before making a final decision in this sensitive case. They could have put in a call to UC Davis, Best Friends Animal Society, or any other leading experts in this nation that could have offered sound advice. Instead, they chose to hide behind a "wild animal" law and apply that law in a case that was not as cut and dry as many would think.

Bad SNAP decision

It has been one case of bad news after another these days in the area of animal welfare in our community. Though the details are still murky, there was talk from the City of cutting its meager yearly funding ($14K) to SNAP (the local Spay and Neuter Action Program)--be it immediately or after the next fiscal year. Given that SNAP is the only low-cost spay and neuter program that administers vouchers and also has been funding the County's new spay/neuter van to run in outlying areas, this decision is very short-sighted.

Some reports were that some City leaders felt that since they just hired a new vet at the shelter, that the full demand for low-cost spay/neuter services in the City could be handled by the shelter. Anyone who works or volunteers at the shelter knows this makes little sense. Already overwhelmed with the number of animals coming into the facility, there is no way one vet can do the kind of high volume of surgeries that we need to start making a difference in the shelter's intake numbers and subsequent kill rate.

That said, the shelter does need to get back into the business of offering same-day spay and neuter services, but this should not replace SNAP's voucher and other programs and efforts. We need all of the above and more to get to the kind of volume in spay/neuter that will truly make a difference in the numbers of animals we kill each year.

As taxpayers, we have the right to speak up about this issue and how our City and County apply our tax dollars in our public animal-welfare systems. Prevention of cat and dog litters is money well-spent and costs less per animal than housing and killing them. The City is not doing any of us, including SNAP, a favor by funding these preventative measures. It is a sound fiscal decision to do so as well--they either decide to spend less money today to prevent animals being born or they spend more money in future years in the continued catch and kill systems our tax dollars now fund.

Let's hope our City leaders reconsider this decision. Let us also hope that any of our City and County leaders that are going to serve on the animal shelter's oversight board will feel that it is their duty to become very well-informed about all facets of animal welfare.

Comment for VR

I must say, this is the first time in a long time that anyone has accused me of being too nice in my criticisms of our animal-welfare leadership! I think that although I am tactful and respectful in what I say, I am probably the most vocal and frank critic of our system and not the most popular person because of this.

I agree that the decisions made by our leaders directly lead to our high kill rate and that decisions to implement modern, progressive programs would make a world of difference. I have been saying that so much that my face has turned blue!

However, I think it takes more than one person to speak up with the same message to finally be heard. If anyone out there feels even remotely the way I do, then please get your voice out there, too. Do so via letters to the editor and calls/letters to your local representatives and State representatives.

If you are upset about the cut of funds to SNAP, then say so. As another comment stated, let's go over our local leader's heads to the state level to see what funds might be available from other places. We can all do a small part, and the coalition we are forming next month will try to do just that -- organize ourselves into action groups that make a difference for our homeless animals starting NOW.

Today's last road

Ending on a good note, I've added a new link to the list of progressive animal welfare sites at the left-hand side of this blog--the Missing Pet Partnership site. Please visit the site to learn about Missing Animal Response and how this organization is making a big difference in how people who lose pets search and rescue their loved ones. There is also great advice on how our AC departments and shelters can play a better and more successful role in this as well.

Our recovery numbers are dismal, and as you'll learn, this is not solely because lots of animal owners do not care about their pets (which is what we've been brainwashed to believe). With only 2 percent of cats and 20 percent of dogs recovered from shelters each year, clearly our system is also lacking in how it deals with missing pets.

There are also great tips on this site you can share with your family and friends if they ever lose a dog or cat. Looking at the list of certified pet detectives on this site, there is one Missing Animal Response Certified Technician in Las Cruces who is also available to help. (I know Renee from my volunteer work, and she's smart and always willing to help people and their animals; I didn't even know she was a certified pet detective--modesty is another great quality she possesses!)

For the article about Missing Animal Response from the No Kill Advocacy Center, please follow this link: Missing Animal Response