Group items tagged

Thus they state "we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of 'pet keeping'-i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'-never existed."  They also go on to say, "This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering".

The crux of their argument against pet keeping seems to be that we are "depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to." I must admit that I found this to be particularly puzzling and unsatisfying. My wife and I have raised five children, and have nine grandchildren, and when they were young they were taught to obey simple commands and requests as part of their socialization. Our children were only given the opportunity to eat and drink according to our scheduling, and certainly were not allowed to urinate anytime and anywhere that they chose during the period of their toilet training. We certainly did not feel that we were engaging in child abuse by utilizing these basic child-rearing practices. To treat a dog in much the same way that we treat our own children, including providing the love and support that they need, does not appear to me to constitute animal abuse, or an argument against the keeping of pets.

It seems to me that their actual desire for banning crating is that in so doing they would make keeping dogs in the house more difficult and the housebreaking of puppies less reliable.

This advances their anti-pet agenda by taking away some of the pleasure of pet keeping and in that way it would further their programme aimed at denying us the companionship of our dogs and cats.

Tying a dog out for a few minutes on a shopping trip does not constitute dog abuse, but legislating against such a common practice could discourage people from having dogs since it would mean they could not take their pets with them when they move around town. This appears to be the kind of thing that PETA really wants to advance— to bring about an end to the keeping of dogs and cats as pets—not the protection of animals.

requiring public animal control agencies and shelters maintain a registry of private rescue groups willing to take animals earmarked for euthanasia.

An additional benefit is a savings for taxpayers as shelters lower operating costs by releasing animals to rescue groups.

helters have a variety of rescue access policies, with half the respondents saying the criteria sometimes depended on the whims of staff on duty

That is poor public policy.

Animal advocates point to a No Kill Nation statewide survey of rescue groups that shows 63 percent of the organizations encountered a government shelter that rejected a collaborative approach and killed animals instead.

Bennett cites both those savings and the additional shelter revenue from adoptions as rescue organizations would be charged a fee for saving animals.

The city and county of San Francisco saved almost $500,000 in animal control costs with a similar rescue access law and transferred 4,000 additional animals to private groups, according to Florida-based No Kill Nation.

One of the keys to increasing pet adoptions is marketing

writes a popular weekly column for the Bradenton Herald titled “A View to No-Kill” t

One of the most popular features on www.braden ton.com are the image galleries of available pets.

Animal Services posts images of adoptable animals at www.mymanatee.org/pets

a group of volunteer photographers is joining forces to boost the no-kill movement by shooting more becoming images and posting those at a new website, www.picture themadopted.com,

Although there was an initial decrease in euthanasia from 85% to 50% between 1999 and 2001, after 2001 the AAC (the only open admission shelter in Austin, Texas) consistently took in over 23,000 animals and euthanized an average of 50 - 55% of the animals admitted each year.

In fact, AAC euthanized over 14,000 animals in 2007, which was a decade record and showed me that my efforts were not decreasing shelter intake or euthanasia like I had hoped.

Using Data to Identify and Fill in the Gaps

Using Data to Re-Assess and Fine-Tune Programs

The second strategy

Using Data to Develop Programs: Filling the Gaps

The first strategy

the medical help that I provided did not help the sheltered animals leave alive in any larger numbers.

off-site adoption programs

These were animals with mange or kennel cough, minor behavior issues like being scared, or animals with minor injuries. APA created a large-scale foster program to provide short-term foster for these animals as they overcame their minor problems.

neonatal nursery with all the supplies needed for around-the-clock kitten care

again built up a large-scale medical foster base for all the injured and ill animals.

large breed dogs with behavior problems.

The Austin community's demand for adopting a pet is higher than the supply from AAC

By bringing in animals from other shelters, APA is able to prevent adopters from becoming pet store pet buyers and thus save a whole lot more lives.

adult large breed dogs with behavior issues are adopted each year because of improved customer service,

pet-matching practices,

behavior modification

APA rescued over 5,000 animals last year. No cat, kitten, small breed dog, puppy of any breed, or large breed friendly dog, including pit bulls, died in the City of Austin in 2011 simply because it didn't have a home.

increase the number of adoption venues

additional exposure.

These organizations have built a dependency model where you give them money and they promise to take care of things, rather than empowering the grassroots to actually go out and solve the problem.

community education and protest

make it easy for people to do the right thing, and they will

we must expose these organizations for what they really are

legislation that prohibits puppy mill dogs from being sold either at pet stores or online,

, when we work to reform local shelters, we are also working to impact the puppy mill trade.

When shelters turn away good homes because of poor customer service or arbitrary rules, we fuel the pet shop trade

when shelters go head to head with the competition, they win.

uring the 1990s, at the height of its adoption success and popularity, the San Francisco SPCA had seven offsite adoption locations throughout the city seven days a week. Consequently, the number of pet stores which sold puppies was reduced to zero.

T]he more animals dying in a given community (which traditionalists claim means lack of homes), the greater number of pet stores that sell dogs and cats (which shows homes readily available). Generally, pet stores succeed when a shelter is not meeting market demand or competing effectively, and because animal lovers do not want to go into a shelter that kills the vast majority of the animals…

we can file civil lawsuits and push for criminal prosecution.

we can attempt to regulate and/or eliminate puppy mills directly through legislation, as several states have done

severe lack of state inspectors

Protest, educate, litigate, legislate, push for enforcement, and reform the shelter. And oh yeah, don’t buy from a pet store, sign my pledge, and send me money. (Just kidding.)

the bill will require commercial breeders to provide each dog with sufficient food and clean water, necessary veterinary care, housing, sufficient space, regular exercise, and limits on how many times per year a dog can be bred.

It continues the breeding, buying, and selling of dogs.

It specifically excludes dogs in animal research labs. It excludes breeding operations who sell “hunting dogs.” And it excludes animal shelters

the opposition is using the support of groups like the Humane Society of the United States to claim this is part of a radical animal rights agenda.

Compromises must often be made to achieve piecemeal success which can be built on over time.

For example, I would support laws banning the killing of animals in shelters altogether. But given tremendous opposition from the shelter killing industry, and the support of that industry by powerful groups like (ironically) the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, and Best Friends, local and state governments are not willing to do that at this time in history, so I work on legislation like the Hayden Law and Assembly Member Micah Kellner’s rescue access bill in New York State to reduce the number killed. T

Historically, HSUS has a disturbing pattern of raising money on an issue, and immediately moving on, just as they did when they raised $30 million on Hurricane Katrina rescue, spent $4 million, shipped the animals off to kill shelters, announced “Mission: Accomplished,” and went  home $26 million richer with two criminal investigations on their fundraising practices in their wake.

we need local and other national groups to act less like simpleton cheerleaders of HSUS and more like what they should be—groups whose mission is to advocate for dogs.

HSUS taking some of its $110 million annual budget (of which only ½ of one percent goes to shelters)

ASPCA taking some of its $120 million in annual revenues,

Best Friends taking some of its $40 million per year it takes in to rescue only 600 animals per year (at a whopping $70,000 each

If HSUS and others fully commit resources and energy into creating a safety net for dogs currently in puppy mills who will be discarded when Proposition B passes, any potential downsides resulting from this legislation would be eliminated.

In truth, I believe people are ready for laws banning puppy mills altogether and that would make sense, so long as we do not inadvertently open up markets to puppy mills from places like China, where medieval levels of barbarity would likely be the norm and they would remain out of regulatory reach.

they have evolved biologically as omnivores, meaning their systems can derive nutrients from a wide variety of sources, including fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes and animal products.

Vegetarian pet foods require the addition of synthetic amino acids to fill nutritional gaps or a much higher overall protein level to supply all of the essential amino acids.

She feeds them a prepared blend of dried vegetables, fruits and herbs that she mixes with water and either tofu, beans or textured vegetable protein.

2011 study from Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit found that growing up with pets cut kids' risk of developing pet allergies by hal

MSNL do not decrease the number of animals entering or being killed in shelters.

MSNL have resulted in more abandoned animals, higher shelter admissions, higher kill rates, lower compliance with licensing and rabies vaccination laws, and radically increased costs for animal control. 

People become afraid to get pet licenses because proof of sterilization is required. 

They are afraid to go to a veterinarian for rabies shots or medical care because veterinarians are required to report them

People abandon their pets because they fear fines and penalties.

Numerous studies have shown that the primary reason people do not sterilize their pets is costs

When the result of not sterilizing is an unaffordable fine or confiscation/impoundment of the pet, animals die.

more than 80 percent of owned cats in the US are already sterilized

This means that the majority of unsterilized cats are unowned strays.

MSNL would do nothing to increase the sterilization of unowned cats and would not reduce their deaths in shelters.

Also, MSNL are a nightmare to enforce.

hey burden already underfunded, understaffed animal control departments with more responsibilities.

Each community must hire more animal control officers to enforce them so an enormous amount of additional money is spent to enforce a draconian law when a much better use of those funds would be to provide low cost or free spay/neuter services.

immediately after passing MSNL, kill rates began to rise in L.A.

successful no kill shelters have stopped the killing without these laws.

Even though the author claimed that the economic downturn has caused kill rates to rise in L.A., clearly this isn’t the correct explanation.

All of these shelters dropped their kill rates without MSNL.

It is obvious that Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws are not a factor that helps to stop the killing in shelters. 

hen the result of not sterilizing is an unaffordable fine or confiscation/impoundment of the pet, animals die

80 percent of owned cats in the US are already sterilized

the majority of unsterilized cats are unowned stray

MSNL would do nothing to increase the sterilization of unowned cats

and would not reduce their deaths in shelters

n fact, MSNL would increase the killing of unowned cats,

MSNL are a nightmare to enforce