I was reading last week that H$U$ filed a complaint with the FTC against Rose Acre Farms (our great egg producer here in Indiana). It seems that H$U$ thinks that Rose Acre Farms is giving misleading claims about conditions at some of their farms. Rose Acres K.Y. Hendrix says
“They’re claiming we falsely advertise on our website, but it boils down to this — we take care of our animals and our animals are performing to standards,” Hendrix said. “If we weren’t taking care of our chickens, our chickens wouldn’t be taking care of us.”
Of all the folks in the world who should not be talking about misleading statements is the worlds largest Animals Rights group. We often see references to how little the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) spends on shelters – less than 1/2 of 1% (.45% to be exact) of their annual budget.
HSUS finance records show that after you’ve made that [$19] monthly donation for a year, a grand total of $1.03 will reach a pet shelter.
Since math is not my strong suit, I got out my calculator:
$19/month X 12 months = $228
.45% of $228 = $1.03
How different the HSUS commercials would appear if they said “With your gift of just $19 a month, we’ll make sure almost 9 cents of that donation reaches a shelter somewhere every month…” It does seem to me that H$U$ makes many misleading statements in their advertising. Aprroximately 71% of the United States populace believes that H$U$ is an umbrella organization for our local shelters. Nothing could be farther from the truth,
If you really want to help Stop Cruelty to Animals in Indiana donate to your local Dog Adoption Shelter or a reputable Indiana Dog Rescue. Maybe if we all started to do that we wouldn't have to worry about being mislead anymore by the crazies at H$U$.
Oh, and before I forget "Where do we go to complain about Wayne and the H$U$ and their misleading statements?" Because in this particular case Wayne does need to get a little "egg" on his face.
Animals Rights Activists groups, the Humane Society of the United States and the Indianapolis Humane Society have been pursuing the elimination of Indiana Dog Breeders for quite sometime. In the last couple of years they have urged a few Indiana legislators to introduce bills making it difficult to breed dogs for profit and have conducted raids on several properties within the State of Indiana. Up until now, the Indianapolis Humane Society along with the Humane Society of the United States has succeeded in closing down several Indiana Dog Breeders.
After the failure to end all Commercial Dog Breeders in 2009 by, among other things, trying to impose ridiculous cage restrictions that even a college professor couldn’t decipher, they are now using a different tactic by attacking the Indiana Pet Stores to eliminate buyers for puppies. How much longer is this behavior going to continue?
If the Humane Societies believe Indiana Dog Breeders don’t care about their dogs and the quality of life for their animals, they are making a huge mistake. Commercial Dog Breeders could have put up privacy fences and left things as they were. Or, they could have sent some of their breeding stock to friends and other family members thus reducing the quantity of dogs at each kennel. They could have forfeited their licenses and sold their puppies to other states that have recently fallen victim to their new regulations and are now screaming for puppies.
But, the Indiana Commercial Dog Breeders didn’t play games or try to pull any sneaky tricks. The breeders willing paid the USDA license fee and/or the Indiana Board of Animal Health fee. They joined the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare (ICAW). The Indiana Dog Breeders, Indiana Puppy Breeders, Commercial Dog Breeders and anything else you want to call those who raise puppies are spending thousands of dollars to upgrade their kennels. Some are building brand new facilities while others are remodeling their existing kennels with materials recommended in the bill signed into law by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and in effect as of Jan. 1st, 2010.
Raids have been conducted on kennels and private citizens for several years now. Lonely, elderly people have been a prime target. Scared and helpless, these people had to stand by under the watchful eye of law enforcement officers and while their beloved animals were carted off under false pretences. They never get their animals back. The animals were sent to shelters and put up for adoption. According to media reports, the animals were “rescued” because they were “so sick and so abused” and had to be relocated. Relocated means sent to shelters and adopted by the public, sometimes within as little as three days.
If the animals were so sick and so abused, why are the shelters adopting out these sick and abused dogs? Some animals were transported to shelters in other states. How are these animals getting across state lines without health certificates? If they had health certificates, they weren’t really sick were they? It seems to me there is a little more work to be done by the Senate and House of Representatives of Indiana concerning animal welfare.
I have been sitting here thinking about all of the things that an Indiana Humane Shelter has said when getting your dog from a pet store or some type of retail establishment. Repeatedly they say: "Ask them where did this dog come from?", "What is the temperment of the sire and dam?", "Does this dogs parents have any genetic problems?" More to the point here is a list of questions.
Where do the puppies come from?
Is that a licensed USDA dealer?
Does the kennel or breeder insist on genetic clearances for breeding stock?
What health problems are common in this breed?
What type temperament does this breed have?
Does the breed have a tendency to bark a lot?
How much socialization do they need?
How much exercise does this breed need?
How much grooming is required?
How badly do they shed?
What happens to the puppies you don't sell? Are they sent to rescue groups? Euthanized? Returned to the breeder?
Some of these questions are only looking for the commercial breeders to only help disqualify them. Most of these questions are absolutely great questions. When getting your dog from any Indiana Humane Society do these same questions get asked, or more to the point is there ever an answer to those questions. How do those Dog Adoption Shelters respond when asked these same questions? I keep sitting here trying to answer that question and simply can't do it. We all want to Stop Cruelty to Animals but if the shelters and/or rescues are not answering the same questions as the retail establishments. And in some cases they are requirements, isn't that hypocritical on some level.
Over the coming weeks I will be giving you some other questions to ask when getting your dog. So remember the above questions are not the only questions to ask. Please give me some of the questions that you think should be asked when getting your next dog.
Someone sent us this video last weekend. It just made us think more and more about the reasons for euthanasia at Dog Adoption Shelters. We can not come up with any reason that any Indiana Humane Society or any Indiana Dog Rescue would not embrace the No Kill mentality of Nathan J Winograd. Nathan has written a book called Redemption, we highly suggest that you read it. Nathan explains the history of how our relationships with shelters came about. How many of you know who Henry Bergh was?
How did we as a country or a state get so twisted in our thinking. How did we allow the Animals Rights folks to pit us against each other? Could it be about money? No matter where you look it seems that is what it is all about. Why can't we sit down and work out our differences together?
The more we think about it any Indiana Humane Society or Indiana Dog Adoption Shelters should be regulated by the Indiana State Board of Animal Health (BOAH). If someone can give me a rational, logical reason that they should not, we will listen. Let's make it fair and equitable for all parties. Let's leave no stone un-turned and maybe then and only then we can Stop Cruelty to Animals.
I ran across a picture the other day that absolutely shows the hypocrisy of HSUS. I was reading an article by John Dillard a student at the University of Richmond Law School. In his article was this graph a plain old bar chart. ICAW has been writing, talking and presenting the hypocrisy of the Animals Rights movement. Some folks get it some don't. The following picture is the HSUS budget of 2008 in a graph. Please take a moment, in fact take as long as you need to digest what you are seeing. When Indiana Dog Adoption Shelters or any Indiana Dog Rescue jump on the HSUS bandwagon please explain to me WHY!
The HSUS budget in 2008 was well over $100 million dollars. According to their (2008) Annual Report, only $6.7 million dollars (5.4%) of their $125 million dollar budget that year was spent on animal shelters. The bulk of the balance was spent on fundraising, campaigns, lawsuits, propaganda, and salaries. Divide that $6.7 million dollars by 50 states and you get $134,000 given per state on average. If we divide that average amount of $134,000 by the 92 counties in Indiana you get $1456 per county. If HSUS really wanted to Stop Cruelty to Animals they would give more. Why does any Indiana Humane Society or Indiana Dog Rescue ever want anything to do with HSUS.
If the citizens of Indiana donate their money to help Indiana animals should it not be used to directly help Indiana animals? So the next time you write a check or pull out that credit card, think local, very local. Please urge your local Indiana Dog Adoption Shelters or whatever Indiana Dog Rescue you want to help, to please think about their association with a group of Animals Rights folks like HSUS.
I could go into so many details on why the animals rights activists are wrong in their endeavors but I’m going to try to keep this somewhat simple for this moment.
I see and hear about adopting an animal from a shelter all of the time. While I don’t see anything wrong with this. I don’t see how it’s any better than buying from any Indiana Puppy Breeders, Commercial Dog Breeders, or Indiana Pet Stores.
First of all I think that the adoption fees of most shelters have become outrageous. It’s no longer an adoption process it’s a way to make money. I understand it takes money to run these shelters but where does a not for profit organization get the not for profit if they are obviously profiting off the dogs they adopt or sell out? Does anyone really think that they’re not making money when they adopt dogs out for $250 to $300 a piece while still receiving donations from fund raisers, animal’s rights activists, and advertising? This raises the question where EXACTLY is the money going?
Having said that let’s get into a few other aspects of Indiana Dog Breeders and dog ownership. I have had experiences with dog adoption shelters and so far none are positive. Out of the few nicely run dog adoption shelters I visited I have adopted twice.
The first dog was a wonderful boxer mix that would have made a great addition to any home. Being led to believe that he had been vaccinated and recently neutered I took him home to meet the rest of the family. Within the next two days he seemed a little sluggish which I associated to having just been neutered. I was shocked when my new found friend started having diarrhea and stopped holding his food down. I quickly rushed him to the vet.
After testing was done he was found to have Canine Parvovirus. Something he could not have picked up and became ill with in the two and a half days he was in my care. At the time I wasn’t worried about the dog adoption shelters or cost, I just wanted to save my dog! After extensive treatment and care by my veterinarian, I still lost my new found friend to this highly contagious disease.
After going back to the shelter I found that there was no refund policy. In fact there was NO policies in which the shelter would help with the vet bills that had mounted up… and for the price I paid to “adopt” this dog $200 and the price I paid my vet $300, I could of bought a dog from one of many Indiana Puppy Breeders or Indiana Pet Stores that would offer me a health guarantee, registration papers, shot records, replacement policy, and a background of the dog.
Did I learn my lesson? Obviously not… being an animal lover I just hate to see those dogs sitting there waiting to go home. So after a few years I got brave enough to try the dog adoption shelters again. This time I was introduced to a female bull terrier that took to me immediately. This time the shelter gave me a background on where the dog was “found” and a history on how she behaved socially with the other animals and it sounded great! I was even told that they would guarantee there was nothing she had caught from the kennel. I would just have to pay the small fee of $250 and sign a spay/neuter agreement. Which yes, put me in the position to pay for her surgery? This didn’t sound too outlandish. So I agreed. Who wouldn’t alter an unregistered dog? Then they got to the part that I had to use their vet. Okay, well I bit the bullet knowing it would probably cost more than my vet would have charged me, but it’s their policy. Well I waited over the weekend for my new bully friend to have her visit to the vet so that I could take her home that Monday.
I showed up at the vet’s office to pay my bill and to take little miss bully home with me. Just to find out that she had been pregnant at the time of the surgery which put her at high risk, made them abort the litter, and jacked my price up to a total of $260 dollars!!!
Oh well… I had a healthy vet checked, neutered, well behaved dog. So I took her on home. Well to put a long story short. I’m not sure what socializing she had at the shelter but there was not a true evaluation of her. She had food aggression, child aggression, separation anxiety, and an overall dangerous dog if left in the wrong hands.
The shelter would have gladly let me return her for another… and they would have waived the shelter adoption fee. However, I would have been paying to have another dog neutered, and taking the same risk of behavior issues! So by this time I guess you could say that I had wised up to what was going on… and no, I didn’t try a third.
Since then I have had the pleasure of meeting many Indiana dog breeders, commercial dog breeders, and owners of reputable Indiana pet stores. I have bought from these people and been totally satisfied.
Not only did I receive a well bred dog every time, I received registration papers, health papers, shot records, and the ability to call and ask any question that pertained to that particular dog or breed.
I’m not saying there aren’t good dogs in dog adoption shelters… I’m sure there are, but if you think about it. Most of them find their way there for a reason. Some reasons are the dogs; some reasons have been created by the previous owner. Either way you don’t truly know what you’re getting or how to be prepared for it.
So if your going to own a dog I think you should be aware of what you’re getting into and not tricked by false advertisements and promises. Financially the adoption or sale cost of a dog is pretty much the same. It is also very little compared to the price you’ll have invested long term in food, pet care, annual veterinarian visits, and later life issues. If you can’t afford to purchase the pet, you probably have no business owning one to start with because you’re not going to be able to offer the quality care that owning a pet entails.
So I would advise anyone interested in dog ownership to ignore the ridiculous harping of animal’s rights activists and to educate themselves properly. Don’t fall for the lingo of adoption or re-homing. It’s no different than a purchasing or buying, other than you have to watch out for the FINE PRINT! Having a pet can be a joy or a heart ache. Why choose heart ache over joy when you don’t have to?
I recently scrolled through the pet section of Hoosier Topics on the internet and discovered that many people don't buy or sell a puppy anymore. Dogs and puppies are now "re-homed" or "adopted". Years ago, people went to do their "trading". Trading became "shopping", shopping became "buying" and it appears buying has now become "re-homing". I wonder if this new language makes people feel like they are performing an act of kindness by "re-homing" or "adopting" a pet instead of "buying" one for their family? Or, could it be a way to out smart the Animals Rights Activists by using their own language? Well, good luck! A Yorkshire Terrier puppy with an adoption fee of $800 is not fooling anybody.
There were beautiful adult cats in Indiana Pet Stores with adoption fees of $150.00 or more. The cats appeared to be healthy and friendly. I may have considered taking these cats home with me if they weren't trying to cover the fact they were selling them. I would have appreciated a straight forward sign on the cages such as "3 yr old neutered cat, up to date on shots, $150.00". I felt like this Terre Haute pet supply store thought their customers were too stupid to understand they need compensation for their products. I left the store without buying anything and doubt if I will ever go back.
Some of the Indiana Pet Stores occasionally have dogs and puppies but they are for adoption only and usually accompanied by an employee from an Indiana Humane Society or the Dog Adoption Shelters. If your sympathy lies with a dog from a shelter, you may want to personally check out the shelter. Some shelters are clean and have well lit kennels with animal caretakers who love animals and enjoy taking care of them. But, there are also shelters that have horrible, filthy conditions and disease running rampant with uncaring employees who can't, can't get a job anywhere else. It’s almost comical when the bills are introduced at the State level banning convicted felons from having any contact with dogs when sometimes they are the only employees a shelter can get to work there!
After testifying in the House Committee for HB 1258 last week. I am even more confused. I personally heard more lies and untruths in one hour about Indiana Pet Stores than I have in a solid year. If the portion about Indiana Pet Stores actually had one scintilla of language that actually helped animals maybe I would understand. Unfortunately it doesn't. It is so painfully obvious that the Animals Rights activists have an agenda and they think that nothing can or will stop them.
Repeatedly the committee was told, shown and given documents that proved that the others testifying about Indiana Pet Stores were just plain wrong. HB 1258 is just a ruse to try and smear commercial dog breeders in the State of Indiana. ICAW since its inception has condemned sub-standard kennels. We travel around the state to clean up or eliminate the bad actors out there. It just doesnt matter to these folks they refuse to listen to anyone.
It amuses us when we hear "No reputable breeder would ever sell to a pet store". If the truth be known many reputable breeders do sell to Indiana Pet Stores they just don't want to be antagonized by their so called animals rights friends. How sad it is that in Indiana today ordinary people are afraid to tell their own friends the truth.
We also find it morally reprehensible that many Dog Adoption Shelters and Indiana Dog Rescue (s) believe that they are not obligated to be regulated. Many Indiana residents believe that those folks are perfect and never ever do anything wrong. Check your facts again you might be surprised.
Just for a moment we want you to think about posting or openly giving ALL of your personal information to be seen by all. Would YOU do it? The United States has enacted many laws to protect our identities yet a few in Indiana don't seem to think that matters. So the next time you go to the Doctors office just tell them your not worried about that HIPAA stuff it doesn't matter.
We want you to take the time and follow some links that show what is possible when the Animals Rights activists and extremists have their way. One of our sister states in the midwest (Iowa) has been trying to get to the bottom of a animals rights attack at the University of Iowa animal laboratory. Six years later take a look at who is being questioned.
Remember that John Goodwin, the HSUS Manager of Animal Fighting Issues is a self professed former member of the ALF brought into the HSUS by Wayne Pacelle who absolutely knew his history. Mr. Goodwin now and then. It seems to us that this is just the pot calling the kettle black.
We want you to read some of the issues that came up from this type of legislation when it happened in Florida. What we are worried about the most, is that someone doing something totally legal and constantly trying to improve will get physically injured or worse.
God forbid this should ever happen. If it does please remember these same legislators short sightedness when they want to help YOU in the same way!
When ICAW was started after April 29th 2009 we all knew that the organization needed to be inclusive not exclusive. We have Indiana Dog Breeders, Dog Adoption Shelters, Commercial Dog Breeders and yes Indiana Pet Stores. No matter where you turn today in the United States, someone is trying to tell you that you are not good enough to take care of animals. We have told you many times in the past, yes there are bad breeders, bad shelters and even bad pet stores. We always ask you to carefully take time when making decisions and not throw out the good with the bad.
In this years session Representative Linda Lawson has decided to once again attack the pet people of Indiana. She and Representative John Barnes co-authored HB 1258. The particular section of this bill that concerns us is Article 22. Pet Store Regulation. It seems to us that when Rep. Lawson did not get exactly what she wanted with HB 1468 she decided to go another route and try to get back at the Commercial Dog Breeders by attacking Indiana Pet Stores this time.
We ask you to read HB 1258 and ask yourself this question. What other types of small businesses in Indiana have to do what Rep. Lawson and Rep. Barnes are asking Indiana Pet Stores to do? This is just a thinly veiled attempt to follow the Animals Rights agenda that is proliferating in the rest of the United States of America. Pet Stores have a right to be in business just like appliance stores, car dealers, grocery stores, gun stores and so on.
The sad truth here is most pet stores are small family run businesses. And yes, sadly they are dying a slow death from over regulation, higher fees and taxes. Most pet store owners are just trying to do what they love and make a living for their families and the families of their employees. It seems that trying to do that is a horrible thing. How dare anyone sell an animal and make money doing it! We hope you will take the time and read HB 1258. It is time for all of the animal lovers of Indiana to let Rep. Lawson and Rep. Barnes know what they truly think about this type of legislation.
You can do this in many ways. Call Them, Fax Them, E-Mail them and most importantly in an election year speak to them at the Voting Booth. We are providing you with Rep. Lawson's and Rep. Barnes contact information please let them know what you think about HB 1258.
By Mail...
Rep. Linda Lawson
Indiana House of Representatives
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2786
By Phone...
Call toll-free (from anywhere within Indiana):
1-800-382-9842
or directly at (317)232-9600
By Internet...
Representative Linda Lawson's email address is h1@in.gov
By Mail...
State Rep. John Barnes
Indiana House of Representatives
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2786
By Phone...
Call toll-free (from anywhere within Indiana):
1-800-382-9842
or directly at (317)232-9600
By Internet...
The email address to use in contacting State Rep. John Barnes is h89@in.gov
ICAW wishes all of the Indiana Dog Breeders and Indiana Puppy Breeders in the state of Indiana a very Happy New Year. HB 1468 Enrolled is now completely the law. ICAW wants to express their appreciation for all of the hard work done by so many people and organizations to get this feat accomplished.
We now look forward to working with all of the different groups around the state to make things even better for all animals. Whether it is an Indiana Dog Rescue or a Dog Adoption Shelter. We truly want to help all parties envolved to Stop Cruelty to Animals.
Please contact us with any concerns you may have with any of the above issues. We truly want to help.
All of the members of ICAW want to wish every one a very, very Merry Christmas. We are looking forward to 2010. It remains to be seen what events, discussions and new issues will come up. We can assure you most assuredly we will be prepared for any of them.
We especially look forward to any dialogue or discussions about our favorite topics. Whether it be Indiana Puppy Breeders or Dog Adoption Shelters. The most important one we think is being able to Stop Cruelty to Animals.
We certainly hope at some point we can all sit down together and air out all of our points of view. Just remember it's not just about the Animals Rights it's also about Humans Rights as well!
ICAW was on the road again this past Thursday night on December 17th, 2009. We were invited to Northwestern Indiana to be on a panel of speakers talking to AKC Indiana dog breeders, dog adoption shelters and another Indiana Humane Society. The people that invited us were all very concerned about any new legislation that might be coming in the next session of the Indiana Legislature.
All of the people in this meeting had watched with a keen eye how HB1468 had progressed in the previous session, and wanted to know what they could do to help ensure their rights as pet and animal owners moving forward into a new year and a new session of the legislature.
ICAW is so humbled that all of these organizations around the state have asked us to come and speak to them about what can they do to protect their rights. In the case of the dog adoption shelters, every one that we have talked to is struggling to make ends meet. We keep wondering why none of the animals rights organizations do anything to actually help the animals.
Please help us to keep helping these types of organizations by contributing to us here at the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare. We truly want to stop cruelty to animals and will always work to do so.
Vigo County animal control officers, county deputy sheriffs and health officials will have enforcement authority to enter property under a revised animal control ordinance slated for a vote in December before the Vigo County Board of Commissioners.
The ordinance authorizes those officials, after presenting credentials, to inspect a property to ensure compliance with the ordinance. It also imposes a fine of $100 on any person who “forcibly assaults, resists, obstructs, prevents, impedes or interferes with any ordinance enforcement authority.”
If a property is unoccupied, the officials are to make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other people having control of the property, explaining the need to enter the property. Commissioners are scheduled to vote on the ordinance in a public meeting at 9 a.m. on Dec. 22 in the commissioners’ conference room at the Vigo County Government Annex at 650 S. First St.
When ICAW members read about this they were stunned. The article states officials only need "credentials" to inspect a property. In the rest of the country it would be called a "search warrant" that was obtained with Probable Cause. We absolutely agree that everyone should stop cruelty to animals. However, we are just as concerned about the rights of humans. There are too many types of government agencies taking more and more of our rights away. When will it stop? Do the residents of Terre Haute and Vigo County want their officials to be able to have this type of power at any time of the day or night?
ICAW has watched at how many cities and counties across our great country have enacted these types of ordinances. One ordinance that we paid special attention to was Louisville Metro Animal Control ordinances, and so did a lot of other people. These ordinances were challenged in court and ultimately heard in Federal Court under The Louisville Kennel Club Inc. vs Louisville/Jefferson County Government. ICAW wonders if any one in Terre Haute and Vigo County Government has read the ruling from The Honorable Charles R Simpson III, Judge United States District Court. We especially hope that the good citizens of Terre Haute/Vigo County have read this ruling as well.
ICAW has always stated, "Be careful what you enact because you may be one lawsuit away from bankruptcy." We believe that this time the residents of Terre Haute/Vigo County need to pay special attention to what their County Commissioners are about to vote on. Indiana dog adoption shelters should be just that. We all need to be diligent to stop cruelty to animals. In our opinion this ordinance goes too far. We encourage you to contact your local county officials before the vote and go to the meeting on Tuesday morning December 22 at 9:00 AM for the vote.
ICAW has found out that the Mayor of Muncie Indiana says she is planning to close the city animal shelter because budget cuts would leave it understaffed.
The City Council on Monday declined Mayor Sharon McShurley's request that it reconsider a decision to eliminate one of two full-time animal control officers next year. Under a union contract provision, that job cut would cause the firing of five part-time workers and leave the shelter with two staffers to oversee about 75 animals.
ICAW wants to know what has happened in Muncie, Indiana for such a dramatic action to take place. We know that whether you are an Indiana Humane Society or an Indiana Dog Rescue that everyone involved with animal welfare are struggling to make ends meet. We wonder how much discussion has happened with all of the animal parties involved including constituents.
Dog Adoption Shelters seem to be taking the brunt of the current recession. We here at ICAW want everyone in Muncie and Delaware County to know that we would love to come to talk with the Mayor and the City/County Council on what we all could do to help.
We were all wondering the other night while talking about the firing of IACC Director Doug Rae in October of 2009... how does Indianapolis move forward in creating a No Kill animal mentality in the IACC?
Public Safety Director Mark Renner spoke upon Rae's firing saying that Mayor Greg Ballard's administration wanted Rae to focus more on public safety. No one at the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare would ever want to put any animal's health or safety at risk.
However, if none of the Indianapolis city controlled shelters move towards a No Kill mentality, we here at ICAW believe they are missing the boat. In our last two posts we have focused on the successful programs that Calgary and Washoe County, Nevada have had in adopting No Kill animal policies.
We know Mr. Rae is not perfect, but no one is nor will ever be. A true community leader needs to be identified who would be able to pull from every avenue available. We are sure that any Indiana Dog Rescue would agree, and any of the Dog Adoption Shelters would agree as well. We already know that the Indiana Humane Society agrees that animal rights are of the uptmost importance.
Just like at ICAW, all of the parties that would ever be involved need to sit down and work out their differences. They can agree to disagree! For the sake of the animals and the reputation of Indianapolis Animal Care Control, we hope they do.
We would like to leave you with a quote from Nathan J. Winograd: "Likewise, just six months ago, I held a two day seminar on Building a No Kill community in Indianapolis, attended by virtually all the rescue groups in the city and shelter administrators from surrounding states. But even though it was in Indianapolis, no one from the private Humane Society of Indianapolis came and only one person from Indianapolis animal control showed up, who privately told me she / he would get fired if the boss found out she / he was there - fired for trying to learn how to save more lives."
"I also made unannounced visits to the two shelters. The Humane Society was keeping over 40 empty cages to reduce costs and was importing animals from outside Indianapolis while animals were being killed at animal control. In 2008, the director resigned. Meanwhile, Indianapolis Animal Control was filthy and 2008 saw a series of scandals of poor care and unnecessary killing that forced the resignation of its own shelter director."
For the sake of the animals, what do we do? You can start out by becoming a member of the Indiana Council of Welfare for Animals. Help us help the animals and your rights to own them.
As mentioned in our last post about dog adoption shelters, we here at ICAW have been telling you about our travels around the State of Indiana visiting Indiana dog breeders, Indiana pet stores and dog adoption shelters trying to educate and inform them of what is happening in our state and our country concerning animal welfare issues.
We promised you in our last post that we would talk about the No Kill Advocacy Center. First we should begin by briefing you about the Nevada Humane Society. Bonney Brown, the Executive Director of the Nevada Humane Society said, "In early 2007, Nevada Humane Society committed to making Washoe County, Nevada into one of the safest communities for homeless dogs and cats in the nation. The results have been dramatic. Many people have asked how we have made such remarkable improvements in the county-wide save rate for dogs and cats over the past year. So we have put together the game plan we used in hopes that it will help others produce similar results in their communities."
"In 2007, the Nevada Humane Society launched an ambitious no-kill initiative to make Washoe County, Nevada one of the safest communities in the United States for homeless animals. And we are succeeding. Despite a per capita intake rate higher than many communities nationwide, we were the safest community of our size for dogs in the United States and one of the safest for cats. By year’s end, 92% of all dogs and 78% of all cats found loving new homes, were reclaimed by their responsible caretakers or, in the case of feral cats, were adopted as barn cats or returned to their habitats."
By the Numbers*
Dogs
Total Impounds: 8,036 Total Saved: 7,366 Killed: 670 Percentage Saved: 92% Percentage Killed: 8% Change in Kill Rate (2006 vs. 2007): -51% Change in Adoption Rate: +53%
Cats
Total Impounds: 7,819 Total Saved: 6,067 Killed: 1,752 Percentage Saved: 78% Percentage Killed: 22% Change in Kill Rate (2006 vs. 2007): -52% Change in Adoption Rate: +84%
How They Did It...
Their 10 Guidelines for Success
1. Establish priorities and align actions with them to save animals immediately.
2. Get “the right people on the bus.”
3. Invest time and assets in lifesaving.
4. Inspire and involve the community.
5. Increase adoptions.
6. Spay and neuter animals.
7. Actively work to keep animals out of shelters.
8. Provide a safety net for feral cats.
9. Partner with other groups.
10. Stay Flexible
Once again, take a moment and digest the statistics above. Washoe County Nevada's Population in 2008 was 410,443. We believe that these statistics are possible in our Indiana communities as well, and Indiana Dog Rescue or Dog Adoption Shelters in Indiana feel the same way. However, we are not sure if the Animals Rights groups believe this is possible in Indiana and other states. Find the Opportunities in Challenges.
With animals, people and human nature, unexpected things will always come up. If animal control busts a hoarder, if there is a natural disaster or if an injured animal needs expensive care, ask the public to come forward to help. They will adopt the animals, make donations to provide care, volunteer to help, or provide foster homes – all you have to do is ask.
We here at ICAW have been telling you about our travels around the State of Indiana visiting Indiana dog breeders, Indiana pet stores and dog adoption shelters trying to educate and inform them of what is happening in our state and our country concerning animal welfare issues. Last night we visited another one of our key constituents, an Indiana Humane Society. We are continuously amazed at how hard people work to do the right thing. Every shelter that ICAW has visited is struggling to get funds, volunteers and the basic essentials to just stay in existence.
You might be surprised by this next statement, ICAW absolutely believes in No Kill Shelters (No-Kill defined as no healthy adoptable pet euthanized). Last night we presented the Calgary, Alberta Canada model and The No Kill Advocacy Centers point of view to one of our local animal adoption shelters. We discussed and presented a way for this particular shelter to be self sustaining. The dialog was absolutely amazing.
The Calgary Shelter receives no money from any government agency in Canada. It is hard to believe, but true. Their statistics are stunning and we would like to share a few of them with you. First of all, Calgary's population in 2008 was 1,042,892 people. The 2008 census of dogs and cats estimated there were 110,242 dogs and 107,514 cats. Calgary humanely euthanized 274 dogs in 2008. Of the 274 euthanized dogs, 204 of the dogs were euthanized for behavioral issues, 56 dogs for health issues and 14 dogs for other reasons. Calgary humanely euthanized 145 cats in 2008, 69 for behavioral issues, 33 for health issues, 28 ferals and 15 cats under the category of other. If any of the dogs or cats had been licensed under the By-Laws of Calgary, they could have been returned to their owners.
Take a moment and digest that last paragraph. A city of over one million people with no government money coming to them, that humanely euthanized less than 350 dogs and cats. In Calgary it is a partnership of all the parties. Everyone sits at the table and no one is left out. They came to understand that the heavy handed enforcement approach reduces buy-in from the community and therefore reduces available funding. The community came to understand "What's in it for us and the animals?" more than "It's the law". Why don't we take some time and try to do the same thing here in Indiana?
The longer we have been involved in all of these issues it seems to us that dog adoption shelters in America have become the "Kill Shelters," not "Humane Shelters". It even comes down to the semantics of the whole issue. Why is it "Animal Control" and not "Animal Care and Control?" Euthanasia in animal shelters is bad for the people working there and worse for the animals!
Anyway, stay tuned and tomorrow we will talk about The No Kill Advocacy Center and the fundamental principles laid out by Nathan J Winograd.
As most of you know, the new law for Indiana Commercial Dog Breeders and Brokers becomes effective January 1, 2010. Everyone who worked tirelessly "for" or "against" HB1468 will now have the ability to see if we as a state can make things better for the animals. I know how much ICAW has done the past seven months to ensure that whatever we can do to keep our part of the bargain has been done.
As an organization we have traveled statewide to ensure that Indiana Dog Breeders are legal, properly maintained and prepared for the new law. Through ICAW, Indiana was the sixth state in the nation to condemn sub-standard kennels. We have a strong commitment to improving animal welfare and animals rights. If any breeder cannot or will not abide by these standards we will partner with the State of Indiana to make sure these sub-standard kennels will be shut down.
We are in the infancy stage of determining how to re-home retired dogs to selected dog adoption shelters. How to improve the image of the industry in general, and many other practical and proper projects for our industry. However, our primary mission is to protect and preserve the right to own our animals. I truly hope that our cause and mission has not gone unnoticed.
Please let us know if you have any ideas or suggestions to help improve animal rights and welfare.
This past weekend November 6th & 7th the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare held it's first pet breeders seminar. We had Indiana dog breeders discussing how to create better breeding programs, nutrition and how to change public perception about their industry. Everyone that belongs to ICAW absolutely wants to do the best that they can do when breeding and raising their animals.
Our breeders do not want to see their animals end up in dog adoption shelters! They truly want the animals that they breed and raise to go to good loving homes. We all believe every little boy and girl deserves the right to have a puppy. No one should have the right to just arbitrairily take their animal or animals just because they can.
It was so amazing to see Hobby Breeders and Commercial Dog Breeders sit down with each other and talk "to" each other not "at" each other. I am energized and ready for The 2nd Annual Pet Breeders Seminar right now.
If you have any suggestions that you would like to give us please do. We look forward to your comments.
If it wasn't for all of the "Labeling" and "Your This" and "I am That" we all could probably agree on the real cause for concern "The Animal". Our friend Nathan J Winograd recently wrote this article that I want to share today. Whether it's commercial dog breeders or Indiana dog rescues, we can all agree that what Nathan writes about should not happen.
I hope we get some comments about what YOU really think about these type of issues and where will the money come from to help.
As scandals involving abusive animal control officers and shelter workers erupt nationwide, HSUS calls for “National Animal Shelter Appreciation Week.”
Dedicated to abuse and neglect? HSUS demands that we appreciate the “dedicated” staff of shelters who cause this, and then turn around and fight efforts when animals lovers call for reform. At this shelter, state inspectors found: “severe fly and maggot infestation,” “overwhelming malodorous smell,” “large amount of blood was found splattered on the floor, walls, and viewing window,” sick and injured animals “not being treated.”
Last week was “National Animal Shelter Appreciation Week,” the Humane Society of the United States’ celebration of animal shelters and the “dedicated people” who work at them. According to the press release, HSUS is “the strongest advocate” for shelters.
At the same time as HSUS was proclaiming itself the Number 1 cheerleader for shelters in the country, there has been a significant amount of nationwide media coverage revealing widespread animal neglect and outright abuse at these very institutions. These exposes show a strikingly different reality than the fantastical and mythical description of shelters portrayed by the very agency that is supposed to be their watchdog. These stories include:
In Memphis, TN, shelter workers not only intentionally starve animals to death; they take animals who are still alive to the incinerator where they burn the bodies of the animals they kill.
Puppy when he entered the Memphis shelter.
Same puppy after being intentionally staved by shelter workers, before he died.
In King County, WA, an animal control officer turns whistleblower and not only confirms the neglect and abuse uncovered in three independent assessments (click here and here and here), but that things are worse than ever for the animals, despite the denials of the guild/union that blindly defends itself and its members. The whistleblower describes “cats dying in their cage for lack of treatment, a dog so sick [he] nearly drowns in a stream of water in its kennel and animals of all types in need of veterinary attention, but not getting it.”
A sick cat in the infirmary goes without food, water, or litter during a holiday weekend. Take a photo tour of King County Animal Care & Control by clicking here.
These stories describe shelter workers and Animal Control Officers, who kick, beat, baton, and kill puppies.
Blood splattered on kennel in this San BernardinoCounty shelter after an animal control officer beat a puppy with a baton. He was not fired.
Those who cause animals to suffer and die.
Those who cause animals to cannibalize other animals in their cages because they go unfed.
And the very animal control officers who cause this suffer no repercussions because they are “supervised” by their fellow union and bureaucracy-protected shirkers.
The Status Quo
All of these scandals beg the obvious question raised by HSUS’ “National Animal Shelter Appreciation Week”: What is it about animal’s shelters that we are supposed to appreciate? As I argued in Redemption, underperformance, neglect, uncaring and even cruelty have long been epidemic and endemic to animal control shelters. And while the last several weeks have seen much abuse uncovered, it isn’t necessarily because such abuse is on the rise. More of it is making headlines these days because more people are now aware of the neglect, calling attention to it, and demanding change—even in the face of absolute entrenchment by the animal sheltering industry and their allies in the large national “animal protection” organizations. Organizations which continue to ignore the obvious and parrot tired and disproven clichés that these shelters are doing the best they can, the killing is inevitable, no one wants to kill, and that we should regard the animal control officers and other shelter staff with respect and gratitude.
HSUS’ latest public relations gimmick is part of a larger attempt by the very animal control officers responsible for this neglect and abuse to reform their image from one of “dog catcher” to “humane law enforcement.” They are trying to change the image of their agencies from “pounds” to “shelters,” from “animal control” to “animal care and control,” even while they refuse to reform their regressive and abusive practices which—were they to end—would naturally lead to the respect and gratitude they claim to be seeking.
True Accountability
The issue was brought into stark relief for me at a recent city council meeting I attended on a matter related to the local shelter. Before the issue I was there to discuss came up on the agenda, the fire chief spoke to the city council. He talked about the goals for his agency during the coming fiscal year. He spoke of his agency’s response times compared to the best performing departments in the country. He admitted that his Fire District lagged behind the very best. He spoke of how he was going to close the gap, by implementing a series of short, medium, and long term goals with measurable results. He was aspiring for his department to be the best, he admitted they fell short, and he had a plan to correct that. It was the mark of the true professional.
In sheltering, we have the exact opposite: animal control “professionals” denying reality, shunning accountability, aspiring to mediocrity and failure, all while betraying the animals (and the citizens) they are pledged to serve.
In the Minneapolis, Minnesota area, the director of the large humane society which performs animal control for the region defends her 42 percent killing rate for dogs by saying it is better than the national average. It is, in fact, actually worse than the national average, but the question is the same: why do she and her agency aspire to mediocrity?
In one of the largest cities in the United States, applicants who apply for a city job are placed in the animal control department if they score the lowest on the city aptitude test, proving that animal control in many communities has become a jobs program for those who are unemployable in either the private sector or any other government agency deemed more important, despite the fact that these under-achievers are given the power over life and death by being put in charge of the most vulnerable of victims. Why?
As I was listening to the Fire Chief, I was struck by the contrast between how staff in his department approached their responsibilities by being accountable to results, and how shelter staff continues to avoid accountability at all costs, even in the face of rampant neglect and abuse. It is this very attitude that is at the heart of why our nation’s sheltering system is so tragically broken: How can you fix a problem you refuse to admit exists? How can animal control officers reform their practices when they refuse to have standards and benchmarks that would hold them accountable to the best performing shelters in the nation? How can they be expected to be taken seriously, to be respected, when they refuse to acknowledge failures and refuse to correct even the worst of their deficiencies? How can an agency dare to demand respect when they not only refuse to keep pace with the dynamic and innovative changes in their field as a result of the No Kill movement, but actually fight those changes? And how can they do a good job when they are staffed by those who have no skills, training, or desire to do a good job even as they are entrusted to do so by an animal loving public which pays their salaries?
They can’t. Indeed, to be a firefighter often requires a degree in Fire Science, rigorous training, a competitive process, and a sound psychological profile. The same is true of police officers. Even librarians, public servants we rely on to deliver professional, high quality service to the community which funds them, require a bachelor’s degree in Library Science. But “animal control officers” require none of this. Many are not even certified. Others take a one week certificate course from the National Animal Control Association, a regressive organization whose members kill millions of animals every year. Then, they put on a tin badge and a store bought uniform, and give themselves titles like “Sergeant,” in an attempt to demand a legitimacy and stature they do not deserve, nor faithfully represent.
Cheerleaders Instead of Watchdogs
How did this happen? And why do the large national organizations continue to defend these regressive agencies, to be the “strongest advocate” for these agencies, but not the actual animals mistreated and abused by the animal control officers who staff them—even as animal activists in virtually every U.S. community deplore the state of their shelters and find them hostile to change?
As I write in my upcoming book, Irreconcilable Differences, the reason groups like HSUS support the status quo in animal shelters:
Is not based upon any coherent philosophy but arises from the simple fact that some of the leaders of these organizations worked at shelters that killed animals. In fact, many of them killed thousands of animals themselves. HSUS leadership often comes from animal control organizations that kill animals, and these individuals carry that mindset to HSUS, even though it claims a different mission. And so they denigrate the animals they are supposed to protect, and use HSUS to veil their reactionary animal control agendas under the cloak of “animal welfare.”
The result: unregulated, regressive shelters that are defended at all costs by HSUS and others with a series of excuses (pet overpopulation, public irresponsibility) to defray criticism from the public who would otherwise demand better.
They neither work hard to protect animals from abuse, nor do they care about saving their lives. In fact, too many offer only an extension of the abuse these animals faced before entering the shelter. And much more often, the first time animals entering shelters experience abuse and neglect are at the hands of these officers who are supposed to be their protectors.
Standing Up to Bullies
Thankfully, many animal activists and No Kill advocates are well past the point where they believe that just because these agencies come with the name “Humane Society” or “Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals” or “Animal Care & Control” that they are staffed with animal lovers. Activists also realize that given that many of these shelters are committed to remaining little more than assembly lines of death, animal lovers would not work there, and those that do are quickly driven out by the institutional inertia and uncaring that prevents them from reforming practices and saving more lives. They are also driven out under threats:
In Philadelphia, just a few short years ago, reformist-minded staff had the tires on their cars slashed, sugar poured in gas tanks, windows smashed, and were threatened with physical violence by union thugs who were aided by health department bureaucrats intent on protecting shirkers.
In Indianapolis, the reformist director had the window smashed and dog food smeared on his car before union thugs colluded with politicians and others to drive him out.
A reformist director is greeted by shelter thugs with smeared dog food, then a smashed windshield, and finally threatening letters on his car.
In King County, WA, those who come forward to reform the abusive shelter are the subject of character assassination, aided by a corrupt county executive. The whistleblower—whose conscience apparently got the better of him/her—sought “whistleblower protection” because of fear for his/her job and safety.
In a rural Georgia pound, cats were found dead (a necropsy determined they had been poisoned by antifreeze and only staff had access to these animals), which outspoken volunteers who had convinced the county to investigate conditions at the shelter believe was retaliation for their going public.
While the recent exposes are less and less surprising to animal activists and No Kill advocates, they are helping to inform the larger animal-loving American public of this widespread abuse and neglect, which cuts through the fog of misinformation peddled by guilds/unions, bureaucrats, and the large national organizations that shelters are humane and that their staff are caring. As I write in Irreconcilable Differences:
Most people believe that animal shelters find homes for as many animals as they can, and gently “euthanize” the rest because there is no other choice. Many people believe that if there were alternatives, shelters would not kill because they are staffed with benevolent animal lovers, laboring against overwhelming odds and offering a humane death only when necessary. Because we could not do it, we assume they do it because they have no choice.
These shelters and their large national allies—the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, and the National Animal Control Association—encourage this belief. Accordingly, they claim that leadership and staff at every one of these agencies “have a passion for and are dedicated to the mutual goal of saving animals’ lives.”
It is this portrayal that silences criticism of shelters, the vast majority of which have a paltry number of adoptions and staggeringly high rates of killing. The public is told, “We are all on the same side,” “We all want the same thing,” “We are all animal lovers,” and criticism of shelters and staff is unfair and callous because “No one wants to kill.”
The facts, of course, tell a tragically different story. But there is light at the end of this long, dark tunnel. HSUS knows it. NACA knows it. The guilds and unions know it. Even the abusive staff knows it. We—animal activists, and increasingly, the media and your average animal loving American—are on to them. We see through their tin badges, store brought uniforms, and their made-up titles. And together—whether they like it or not—we will bring these agencies kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.
Then—and only then—will we have something authentic to appreciate during what is now, nothing more than a thinly-veiled sham.
ICAW has found out that the Mayor of Muncie Indiana says she is planning to close the city animal shelter because budget cuts would leave it understaffed.
Powered by Compendium Blogware