Group items tagged

In this post, I look at the statistics and come to the conclusion that the answer to the question “Is no kill more difficult in big cities” is “no.”

So why do we keep hearing people say that no kill is a small-town phenomenon that cannot succeed in big cities?

I could just as easily come up with a list of factors that could make no kill easier in big cities

These laws are not having the desired effect i.e. a reduction in kill rates in local animal shelters.

One of the programs of the No Kill Equation is high volume, low cost spay/neuter services:  "Low cost, high volume spay/neuter will quickly lead to fewer animals entering the shelter system, allowing more resources to be allocated toward saving lives."  

increased voluntary sterilization does help reduce the number of animals entering shelters

To claim to want to shut down puppy mills, but to ignore or fight reform efforts to stop shelter neglect, abuse, and killing (as groups like HSUS and PETA do) is not only ethically inconsistent, it is morally bankrupt.

Neglect is neglect, abuse is abuse, killing is killing regardless of by whose hand that neglect, abuse, and killing is done.

To look the other way at one because that neglect, abuse, and killing is done by “friends,” “colleagues,” or simply because the perpetrators call themselves a “humane society” is indefensible.

I don’t begin to pretend that I know the culture of South Korea. But I also cannot deny that the world is a lot smaller than it once was because of technology and human mobility. I also cannot deny shared human experience. We are people, and despite the ugly things that people are capable of, we are also capable of great compassion. I agree with abolitionist Theodore Parker that the arc of history may be long but it bends toward greater compassion. So, my initial caveat aside, I do not see why a model that works in the U.S. and works in Canada and works in Australia and works in New Zealand cannot work elsewhere.

It is also hard for me to see how the absence of “large, well-funded animal charities” in South Korea would be a bar to No Kill success. In the U.S. No Kill began and continues as a completely grassroots effort. In fact, in the U.S., the “large, well-funded animal charities” have been a roadblock to success. Without exception, the large national organizations like the Humane Society of the United States, the American Humane Association, the ASPCA, and PETA have been hostile to No Kill, championing killing and fighting reform efforts. Today, the biggest barrier to more widespread No Kill success in the U.S. is not “pet overpopulation.” It is not an absence of spay/neuter. It is not the “irresponsible public.” It is not a lack of funding. The single biggest barrier to No Kill is the fact that 3,500 shelter directors are mired in killing and they are legitimized, protected, and promoted by the large national organizations.

Does it matter that so many people still believe these myths? I think the answer to that is a resounding “yes,”

because these myths seriously undermine the message of no kill.

Both of the myths take the responsibility for shelter killing off of shelter management (where it belongs) and put it on the “irresponsible public.”

in Norfolk, Virginia, seven out of 10 cats and almost half of all dogs are still being needlessly killed. Why? Because shelter officials are mired in the 19th century model of animal control based on an “adopt a few, kill the rest” mentality.

And we aim to change that.

We’ve requested that the City Council pass an ordinance requiring Norfolk to run its shelter in line with those of the most successful communities in the nation, by requiring simple, commonsense and cost-effective alternatives to killing that most animal lovers would be shocked to learn are not already being comprehensively implemented voluntarily.

At a well run No Kill animal shelter, there are a variety of ways to respond to animals, depending on the reason that animal is in the shelter in the first place. There is not a one-size fits-all strategy of impound, holding period, adoption or killing, as is common in traditional, poorly run, high kill shelters. Each animal is treated as an individual, and the needs of every animal are addressed and met on a case-by-case basis.

When their animal control officers find lost animals in the field – they knock on doors or call the numbers on tags so that they can take the animal home instead of impound him/her.

If the animal is impounded, shelter staff is efficient at cross checking lost and found reports, so that the number of lost animals that are reclaimed by their people is much higher, and they have hours that allow people with lost pets to conveniently visit the shelter to reclaim them.

An HSUS/Maddie’s Fund survey has determined that 23.5 million Americans will take in a dog or cat next year. 17 million have not yet made a decision where that pet will come from.

the killing stops.

about half are euthanized.

intends to phase out euthanasia and progressively increase the pet “live release” rate from 61 percent to above 90 percent sometime next year. Only terminally ill, injured and suffering pets as well as vicious dogs will continue to be euthanized.

Manatee pet rescue and animal welfare organizations aim to boost pet fostering and adoption and promote free or low cost spay and neutering programs.

Thus, it would be illegal for shelters to kill animals when a qualified non-profit rescue organization expresses a willingness to spare the creature.

Parvo is preventable and treatable and every animal shelter has an obligation to both prevent and treat this disease.  Parvo in shelters is prevented through the practice of vaccination prior to or immediately upon intake, good housing practices and standard disease prevention cleaning protocols.  The disease is further prevented by ensuring the community’s dog owners have easy access to low cost vaccinations for their pets.

Treatment options for parvo dogs include in-house care if sufficient resources exist to provide isolation and appropriate veterinary care.  If the facility is not equipped to provide treatment, parvo dogs may be transferred to another shelter with appropriate facilities or to a private veterinary clinic.  Donations may be solicited from the public if necessary.  The media can help in educating the public and spreading the word about the shelter’s efforts to save lives.  The days of blanket killing of shelter dogs for parvo or exposure to the disease are over.

Killing dogs who have tested positive for parvo without providing treatment is unacceptable.

it is because of this irresponsibility that shelters exist in the first place.

it is often the practices of the shelter itself that lead to killing.

[The No Kill movement] debunks the myth of pet overpopulation and puts the blame for the killing where it belongs:

Ed has established the ASPCA as a leader in providing sheltering expertis

Under Ed's leadership, the organization's membership base has tripled to more than 1.2 million

revenues have quadrupled to $148 million in 2011

PETA Defends Slaughter Speaking of liars, PETA defended its 2008 animal slaughter by posting photographs of irremediably suffering animals and saying that all the animals they kill are suffering. Don’t believe it for a second. As I noted in my post, The Butcher of Norfolk: PETA has argued that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” … But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because the numbers historically come from the State of Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody “for the purpose of adoption.” It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETA’s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster. And it is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much. In a December 2, 2008 interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Stroumboulopoulos asks Newkirk: “Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?” To which Newkirk responds: “If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.” In short, Newkirk admits that PETA “absolutely” kills savable animals. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. In 2008, PETA found homes for only seven out of 2,216 dogs and cats, killing 96%.

They were cut down by so-called “environmentalists.” They were killed by those whose mission was supposed to be their protection. According to the local chapter of the Audubon Society, the trees were not “native” and had to be destroyed.

Invasion Biologists

believe that certain plants or animals should be valued more than others if they were at a particular location “first.”