-
Toohot4u24 04/22/2012 1:59:00 PM
That's disgusting, there has to be another way. The people that work there claim they lOve animals that's why they work there, as an animal lover myself, I disagree!!! How can you watch the innocent animals be murdered?? Where are their hearts... A law needs to be passed demanding the spade and neuter of animals. Nomore back yard breeding allowed!!! As for the worthless piece of shots jamming poison into the arms of innocent animals for a paycheck... Two words,,, judgement day, I'll continue to pray for you rotten bastards!!!
-
Laydierosie 08/17/2011 10:21:00 AM
The problem is not the animal humane society it is the people that do not take responsibility for there pets. To many people a pet is disposable anyway so they do not care what happens when they drop it off. I live in the country and there are always dogs and cats that are dropped off on the side of the road like a peace of garbage. The humane society only has so many resources and if an animal is not adoptable it will spend months or even years inside a cage just waiting for someone to adopt it. I think that putting them to sleep is better than living in a cage.
-
Peasantrising 06/01/2011 8:51:00 PM
I'm searching for numbers. What number of animals sterilized are homeless?
-
123123 04/04/2011 4:27:00 PM
sad
-
Cindy 05/23/2010 2:09:00 AM
The humane societies, shelters and animal control don't want to euthanize any animals unless they're in pain and suffering and can't be helped. The problem is not with the shelters, it is with the breeders and owners who don't spay/neuter. Where do you think all these animals will go? The disgusting thing is watching the puppy mill breeders pump out tons of puppies for money. Sell them to anyone, for money, without regard to the welfare of the animals at all. Where are all these animals going to go if they aren't euthanized? There is an un ending supply of animals coming in and nowhere for them to go. For everyone's health and safety, there is no option but to euthanize this disgusting oversupply of pets. You're looking at the wrong place.
-
not necessary 04/30/2009 7:02:00 PM
Trust me - I am all for saving every animal possible and I do in fact work for a rescue group, but I think the anger is displaced here. It is not the humane societys fault they have to euthanize so many animals. It is the irresponsible pet owners faults. The ones that don't spay and neuter. Or buy puppies and kittens because they are cute but then no longer want them when they are older. The ones that treat animals as disposable and drop them on the humane societys (or other rescue groups) doorstep and walk away leaving it as someone elses problem. Start at the source of the problem - not with the ones that are left to clean up stupid human beings messes.
-
advocate 04/30/2009 6:14:00 AM
This petition is asking for the resignation of the top directors at AHS in Minnesota.
Please sign and send on to others to change this facility and bring awareness to 14,500 animals that have died in their care.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/14500-unnecessary-deaths-by-ahs-in-minnesota
PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL OF YOUR CONTACTS
-
Gina Pizzo 01/28/2009 1:29:00 AM
No kill is not a possibility if you want to be a responsible rescuer. Some animals need to be humanely euthanized because of behavioral problems. Any group that knowingly adopts out aggressive animals, especially dogs, is not doing rescue any favors. There are very few homes in the general public that can accept the responsibility of managing an aggressive animal and very few homes that want the responsibility of managing an aggressive animal.
I am definitely in the middle ground of this war. I don't belive that either side is correct. Some people need a dose of reality and some people need a dose of compassion. We need to meet somewhere in the middle.
-
K.D. 11/12/2008 9:51:00 PM
This article doesn't suprise me. I worked at Coon Rapids Humane Society/ Golden Valley Humane Society. I watched a baby potbelly pig get euthanised because he didn't fall under the society's pet standards (dog/cat/bird/rodent). It wasn't a wild animal either,in which it would of gone to the wildlife rehab. So, instead of finding a home for it, they killed it. I tried hard to get them to let my friend take it, she had a hobby farm.
I watched them euthanise a dog because he didn't like his nails trimmed. They euthanised a ragdoll cat for hiding under his litter box. He was causing too much of a mess. They euthanised a trio of frightened poodles who came from a home where the lady passed away. They were too timid. I thought Golden Valley had a dog rehab center!
We pour money into their facilities, not realizing alot of that money doesn't go to the pets. They employ some 150 people. The year I was there, we were told in a meeting that we were to receive an 800.00 holiday bonus. I asked if the money wouldn't be better spent on getting animals adopted rather than killing them. It wasn't well received and I was "let go" a week later because I "didn't fit in".
They may be doing a great service to animals that wouldn't otherwise have a merciful death, but I saw alot of animals that WOULD have gotten a home if they only spent a little TIME on them. Shame on the Humane Society.
-
Ginger 09/24/2008 6:17:00 AM
Spay Mike Fry.
-
Allison 09/11/2008 12:08:00 AM
Spay your Pets!
-
Liz 09/07/2008 12:20:00 AM
A great article - I used to work at the Golden Valley AHS for a summer camp for kids. In the lower floor, I saw many sweet-looking dogs being taken to their demise. I usually had tears in my eyes as I was the last person on Earth to pet them before their death. I just think the article could have placed more responsibility to the public for not spaying or neutering their animals. And, if someone cannot afford to spay/neuter, they do not have any business owning a pet. They are a big responsibility, financially-speaking.
City Pages - how about doing an article on the millions of animals put to death for people to consume? Or - what happens to your dog when it is euthanized - it goes to a rendering plant, and "recycled" to be put in dog food. Now, that would be a great article.
-
Mike Fry 09/06/2008 12:48:00 AM
One final comment:
I just found this article posted online:
http://network.bestfriends.org/jacksonville/news/28476.html
If a shelter in Jacksonville can achieve these results through spay/neuter initiatives, we could, too.
There is just no excuse for humane organizations banking millions of dollars, maintaining high kill rates, and NOT implementing these sorts of programs.
-
Mike Fry 09/05/2008 6:27:00 PM
To Kellie from Oakdale,
I agree, to a point, with part of your message. The source of "pet overpopulation" is a general public that is irresponsible with their companion animals. There us no doubt about that.
At the same time, this fact does not let animal welfare organizations off the hook. It is the job of animal welfare organizations to implement the programs and services that have proven to end the killing of savable animals. The fact that so many animal welfare organizations have solved this problem in their communities is proof that it can be done.
I would also add that, given that it can be done, and the method for doing so is well documented, if animal welfare organizations fail to do so, then they are responsible for perpetuating "pet overpopulation".
As a result, a portion of the responsibility for this problem rests squarely in the lap of animal shelters. If they simply sit back, fail to accept that responsibility and blame "the public" for the problem, things will never change.
For these reasons, I believe that your belief that this problem is simply the fault of "the public" is overly simplistic. In fact, I would argue that City Pages did a better job researching this topic than is usual in the press.
-
Mike Fry 09/05/2008 5:41:00 PM
To Mark Re: Pound Seizure:
You have some good info about pound seizure. There is only one point with which I would argue. You say that AHS is a privately funded shelter. That is only partially correct.
Though AHS says they receive no money from government sources, that is not correct. AHS provides impounding services to approximately a dozen or more municipalities in and around the Twin Cities metro area. The dog referenced in this article, Tootsie, was brought to AHS by animal control in Hudson under an impound agreement they have with that city. AHS has similar agreements/arrangements with Woodbury, Oakdale and many other cities. So, it would appear they get a fair amount of money from government sources. It also means that the animals held by AHS under these agreements would be subject to pound seizure.
It is also worth pointing out that when AHS demanded that Animal Ark pay $200 for the privilege of rescuing Tootsie, their costs of housing her (and then some) should have already been guaranteed to be paid by the city of Hudson. Typically, under these agreements, municipalities also pay for the "euthanasia" services, as well as the disposal of bodies.
-
Mark 09/05/2008 12:02:00 PM
To Yeah, I Support AHS and Esther:
You've both got the wrong information about the source of companion animals used in experiments at the U of M. Minnesota is one of only three states in the country that still has a pound seizure law, which says that publicly funded pounds and shelters MUST turn over unclaimed animals to registered research institutions if requested. The key concept here is "publicly funded." AHS as a private non-profit organization does not fall into this category and would not be required to turn over animals to the U.
To Yeah, I Support AHS - you state that "The U of M purchases its animals from breeders who breed them specifically for that purpose." Your implication that the U only purchases purpose-bred animals is not accurate. The U purchases companion animals from both USDA Class A (purpose-bred) and USDA Class B (random-source) dealers. And Class B (random-source) dealers are the scum of the earth. These dealers often purchase animals at gun and dog auctions, steal dogs, and answer "free to good home" ads under false pretenses. One of the Class B dealers the U used to purchase from was put out of business by the USDA for falsifying paperwork about the origins of the animals he sold; i.e., the dogs were obtained illegally by the dealer, most likely stolen. The U has also regularly taken animals under the pound seizure law, as recently as a few years ago, but now claims to have stopped that practice. The U declared in a letter written in the mid 90's that they were going to stop purchasing random-source animals within five years - it's now about 13 years later and they're still buying from Class B dealers.
-
Kellie 09/05/2008 7:03:00 AM
When John was reading this article to me at Champ�s, we both started laughing...not because we thought that euthanasia was comical, but because of how naive the author is at what the real issue is. Uneducated, thoughtless, lazy pet owners are why so many animals are brought to their death every day. Everyone wants the cute little puppy or the bird that can talk right then and there. They don�t take the time out to research what it takes to own that certain pet and how they can prepare themselves once taking in that animal. It makes me sick to know that so many healthy, wonderful pets are euthanized each year. But my anger is directed towards those to decide to surrender their pet(s) to the people who have the unfortunate job of having to end that pet�s life. I couldn�t imagine having to be the person that ends that animal�s life knowing that if only the owner had been more educated and dedicated. Most humane societies (kill or no kill) do such great work with client education and housing animals. The author of this article should really open his eyes and see the big picture. If he wants to make a difference with animals, he should really focus his anger on those who don�t take the responsibility of their pet(s). And if he or anyone else who wants to preach about how awful kill shelters are, maybe they should ask themselves how many animals are they willing to take in to their home to reduce the numbers of euthanasia.
-
Mike Fry 09/05/2008 5:40:00 AM
To Colleen:
Excellent post! I agree that the way AHS has represented their outcome statistics has been misleading. In addition to failing to report the numbers "euthanized" (note: I agree that the appropriate word, according to the dictionary definition would be "killed"), they have also historically presented very skewed statements that I think mislead people.
When I first began working for Animal Ark I was shocked at how many people I would meet that believed the humane societies in our area were already no kill. I started looking into why they would believe this. If found several old newsletters, and letters written by their former CEO making statements like, "We place 97% of our adoptable animals."
The end result of this research was the filing of a formal complaint with the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. I forget if this happened in 1999 or 2000. In any event, a group of people, including myself, filed the complaint.
After a significant amount of research, the Minnesota Attorney General agreed that the Animal Humane Society mislead their members in the way they presented their outcome statistics. Their decision was based on the failure of the humane society to define what they meant by "placed" or "adoptable". They believe the definitions of those terms used by the humane society were likely very different than the definitions most of their donors would ascribe to those words. They, therefore, believed that by using those terms, AHS was creating a false perspective of their operations in the minds of their donors.
As a result of this complaint, changes have been made to the way they present their statistics. While the current method used by AHS to report their outcome statistics may not be as misleading as it once was, it is certainly not forthright.
It would be wonderful if they would spend as much energy focusing on making the needed changes as they spend on hiding their current activity.
-
Mike Fry 09/05/2008 2:48:00 AM
To "Yeah, I Support AHS",
I have a have to admit that I have a hard time following your logic. It seems a little convoluted to me.
First, you acknowledge that AHS could have a low-cost/no-cost spay/neuter program, but that they do not. This was the point made in the article. Such a program has been proven to be a key program if a community hopes to achieve no kill. Shelters need to, yes, spay and neuter their own animals. But they have to do much more than that. They need to provide spay/neuter services to animals in the community, so they can reduce the numbers coming in.
Spaying or neutering the animals adopted from AHS IS a positive thing, it is just not the thing being discussed.
When it is pointed out that AHS does not have a low-cost/no-cost spay/neuter program, the first response is to say that such a program is illegal. When it is shown that is not true, then suddenly they deflect and focus on the 14,000 shelter animals they sterilized, which was never the discussion in the first place.
As of about 20 years ago, it was recognized as standard operating practice at virtually all established animal welfare organizations that spaying/neutering animals prior to adoption is not only more cost effective for the shelters, it also saves the adopters the costs of these surgeries. That AHS finally started doing this about 5 years ago is a good thing.
But, again, that was not the program being discussed.
AHS has no low-cost/no-cost spay/neuter program for owned pets in our community. That is a big problem, because such a program is one of the critical portions of the no kill equation. And, if AHS resists each program in the no kill model as aggressively as they have resisted low-cost/no-cost spay/neuter, the Twin Cities will not see an end to the unnecessary killing for a very long time.
-
Colleen 09/05/2008 2:10:00 AM
To Ms. Dixon and AHS Board Member:
If, as you say AHS doesn't make a secret of its euthanasia rates and that it has been forthright in releasing these numbers, then why is the article biased? Because you don't agree with the opinions of the people interviewed? A reporter is not obligated to interview every animal welfare organization and avid AHS supporters to write an honest, informative article. This is investigative reporting, not AHS marketing. We've heard your side of the story and some of us are tired of the explanation (excuses) for killing. Ms. Dixon can use words like "disheartened," "disappointing" and "misrepresented," but that doesn't change the body count. I beg to differ about how forthcoming AHS is. Intake and adoption numbers are listed in its newsletter, but not kill numbers. Obviously, AHS would rather the public was not aware of the numbers of cats and dogs killed. Clearly, that information is not good for marketing/fundraising for a humane society whose mission is saving animals. That is the cause many of us are supporting with our donations after all.
Let's not forget the definition of euthanasia which is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Much of what AHS is doing is by definition not euthanasia, but killing, despite how caring the process is or how terrible AHS feels about it. Obviously 30% of the animals killed at AHS are not hopelessly ill, though Ms. Dixon seems to suggest that, though she calls it "significant health problems." Is there NO hope for these poor animals? No medicine or rehabilitation? And what about the past secretive use of the gas chamber? Was that process caring and relatively painless or did it just save AHS money? Clearly, there has been deceipt and misrepresentation perpetrated by the AHS about its practices.
I am not disputing the good work of AHS or the people who work there. I understand that you are there because you care about animals, and I know the work is very hard and the solutions complicated. However, a million good deeds do not change the fact that many thousands of cats and dogs are killed every year, year after year. If you are "always working to reduce euthanasia rates," then why don't those rates ever seem to go down at AHS? What I am disputing is the antiquated arguments and excuses given by the management for so much killing despite successes elsewhere in saving animals. Ms. Dixon, if you want an honest diaglog, then forget the rhetoric and open your mind to new ideas for the sake of the animals. Talk is cheap. Let's see some action - PLEASE.
-
Yeah, I support AHS 09/04/2008 10:11:00 PM
Esther Mazurek,
There is no mention of animals being sold to the U of M for research because it doesn�t happen. The U of M purchases its animals from breeders who breed them specifically for that purpose. Animals purchased from humane societies would not make good research animals due to their unknown histories and varying degrees of health. Research animals need to have continuity in breed, health and history. I don�t know where you got your information from, but it�s absolutely wrong. You could probably call the U to confirm this if you really wanted to.
-
Esther Mazurek 09/04/2008 9:19:00 PM
I see no mention of all the cats and dogs that go to the UofM for "medical research". As I understand it, UofM receives most all of their research animals from AHS.
Also, why is it not a law that animals are neutered before sale or several months later ? Especially the males, who are cheaply and easily neutered. This is a HUGE problem in my area where several male cats roam the neighborhood and inpregnate young cats who are not yet neutered, and even attempt older cats. The males are a nuisance as they spray houses, bushes, doors, low windows, sliding doors with their musky unneutered smell. It's fowl and should be illegal and the owners held accountable.
-
Yeah, I support AHS 09/04/2008 8:11:00 PM
I actually wasn�t saying that it would be illegal to offer low/no cost programs, I was saying that currently it is illegal for AHS to actually perform the surgeries themselves. I thought that would be clear to you since it�s been stated several times. Yet you want to paint it as though I, and others, are misunderstanding. We are not misunderstanding. We are stating a different point than you are.
The fact that they did perform 14,744 spay/neuter surgeries is an amazing number, and does a huge part in helping with pet overpopulation. Imagine if it were legal for them to help out owned animals�it would go a long long way in helping to solve the overpopulation problem.
You portrayed (not stated�but gave the idea) in your post that this huge number of animals sterilized does not help our community, outright criticized AHS in fact when the number was brought up�why? How can you not see 14,744 spay neuter surgeries as anything but positive? These animals are going back out into our community--sterilized- and all you can say is �its important to note that AHS is only sterilizing their own animals� And I will say again, yes, because that is what they do. I realize you have a problem with them not doing even more, I get that. But again, there is a very clear statement in Janelle Dixon�s post regarding working with veterinarians to accomplish these programs�which you did not seem to read or acknowledge, which suggests to me you were not paying attention.
-
Mike Fry 09/04/2008 9:03:00 AM
Again to "Yeah"
You said, "That is a huge positive in my book. No one ever claimed those were owned animals. Its been stated a billion times they can't legally do that anyway--haven't you been paying attention?"
Yes. I am paying attention. And I continue to be a bit surprised by the fact that people continue saying that it would be illegal for AHS to offer a low-cost or no-cost spay/neuter program. Has was pointed out in the article, multiple other organizations in MN offer these services. The largest one is call Pet Fix. It provides low-cost and no-cost spay/neuter services to thousands of animals every year. Pet Fix, and other similar programs, operate in full compliance with MN state law.
Clearly, AHS could implement a similar program, or join forces with other groups implementing these programs to help make those programs bigger.
But, to state that AHS cannot implement such a program due to MN law is factually incorrect.
-
Mike Fry 09/04/2008 8:43:00 AM
To "Yeah, I support AHS":
The focus of this article was on AHS kill rates, and their failure to embrace proven strategies for reducing them. The "redirecting" of the discussion I spoke of was AHS representatives talking about the good work they do.
No one has ever suggested they do no good work. They do. The writer of this article even went out of their way to emphasize that fact. However, that is not the point of this discussion, from my perspective. This is a discussion about the programs generally referred to as the "no kill equation". These are not simply programs *I* want AHS to implement. They are the programs that have been documented, since at least the mid 1990's, to end the killing of savable companion animals in shelters.
When I say AHS works against our efforts to be successful with these programs, I mean that in very real terms. For example: in spite of repeated attempts to get AHS shelters to stop killing feral cats, they continue to do so, even if those animals are part of feral cat programs being implemented by other animal welfare organizations in the area. By doing so, they are actively working against our efforts to control feral cat populations. At the same time, they are hardly working in the best interest of the felines they are unnecessarily killing.
If you do not understand what happened in San Francisco, maybe you should do some reading on the subject. It is pretty well documented. When SF SPCA went no kill, they signed a "adoption pledge" with SF Animal Control. The figures quoted were the combined statistics for both SF SPCA and SF Animal Control. You may find it hard to believe. I don't see why, given that the success in San Francisco has been duplicated in several other communities around the USA.
I have, and continue to quote and reference many people, including Abigail Smith, Bonnie Brown and others. I tend to rely on data from the folks who have "been there" and "done that" rather than trying to reinvent things on my own. For a more complete list of people you may want to research in an effort to explore this topic further, I recommend that you contact these people:
http://www.nokillconference.org/speakers.html
And lastly, you stated that "there are always multiple ways to accomplish the same goals". That could be true in this case. The evidence for in support of another path to no kill has yet to materialize. If there has been a documented path to community-wide no kill in shelters that has been known since the mid 1990's (at least), and that path can achieve no kill in about a year, yet AHS has not yet followed this path. Your statement suggests you believe they are trying to achieve the same goal. However, Dixon's own statements suggest otherwise. She is frequently quoted as saying that no kill is impossible, unachievable or unattainable. They currently have an article on the front page of the AHS web site suggesting that no kill is simply "limited admission" which, as has been demonstrated, is not true.
In light of all of this, it would appear that AHS is not trying to take a different path to the same goal. The goal does not appear to be on their radar screen. Alternatively, if it is their goal to end the killing of savable animals in their shelters, and they refuse to follow the road that has been successful elsewhere one would have to ask a whole series of questions about why.
And, lastly, Winograd has never said that there is no "problem" of pet overpopulation. His premise is that the way we have been told to think about it is a myth. Too many people view this as a problem with the public, thereby releasing animal welfare organizations from any responsibility for solving it. But, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, animal welfare organizations can solve this problem. Therefore, if they fail to do so, they are responsible for it continuing.
If you would like to better understand what Winograd actually says about pet overpopulation, you should read his whole book, rather than just the title.
-
Yeah, I support AHS 09/04/2008 8:27:00 AM
One last thought:
Mike you also said in your last post,
"Dixon boasts of spaying/neutering 14,744 animals in 2007. It is important to note, however, that the overwhelming, vast majority of those animals are the animals in their own shelters."
Yeah, and what is your point? Thats what they do! 14,744 spay/neuter surgeries is an amazing number, and only proves that they have the ability to do high volume, low cost spay/neuter safely and efficiently. That is a huge positive in my book. No one ever claimed those were owned animals. Its been stated a billion times they can't legally do that anyway--haven't you been paying attention?
Continuing your quote, "Achieving a 100% pre-adoption sterilization goal was something other shelters achieved decades ago. In 2008, sterilizing animals prior to adoption is not something for a very wealthy organization to be boasting about"
Why not? You talk about the things you do at animal ark-- whats the difference? Again, you seem to just be saying things just so you can be negative about them. They have been sterilizing their own animals for several years now-- so what? What are they supposed to do to make it up to you that they didn't start earlier? It seems odd that you would want to criticise them for doing what they SHOULD be doing.
-
Yeah, I support AHS 09/04/2008 8:02:00 AM
In response to Mike Fry�s above post:
1. You state that both women from AHS were trying to �redirect the focus of the discussion�. The focus of this whole discussion is the City Pages article. They were discussing the City Pages article. You and others have gone off on many a tangent on this forum about things not related or mentioned in the article. Their statements were actually ABOUT the article. I don�t get it--your statement seems to have been thrown out just to be negative.
2. Just because AHS has not implemented the programs YOU want them to does not mean they are not trying to reduce the rate of euthanasia. There are always multiple ways to accomplish the same goals. Sure, if they were REALLY committed, they�d do it your way. What? One of the primary programs you mentioned you would like to see was low/no-cost spay neuter. There was actually a specific reference to working with veterinarians to accomplish low/no-cost spay neuter programs in Janelle Dixon�s response. Your claim that they �systematically work against these efforts in our community�, also sounds like you are just throwing it out there to be negative.
3. The statement that the city of San Francisco took only 1 year to become no-kill�If you are talking about the San Francisco SPCA only, I might buy that it took only 1 year. But the entire city went no-kill and stayed open admission? I wasn�t there either but that�s pretty unbelievable�maybe, if they shipped the majority of their animals out of the city to be some one else�s issue. But then that�s not really true no-kill is it?
4. Can you draw from, or quote someone other than Nathan Winograd? Are his arguments the only you can draw from? There must be other �experts� in the field out there if the �myth of pet overpopulation� and the high successes of the no-kill movement are so prevalent. By the way, the notion that pet overpopulation is a �myth� is, in my opinion, probably one of the dumber things I�ve heard in my lifetime. If it was indeed a myth, we wouldn�t need shelters or rescue groups or foster homes etc. There are a hell of a lot of those. And we need them all.
-
Mike Fry 09/04/2008 1:54:00 AM
Dear Ms. D'Amato and Ms. Dixon,
I very much appreciate your willingness to post in a public forum like this. I am sure that doing so is not easy. A rational, open discussion about the unnecessary killing of dogs and cats in animal shelters is long overdue in our community. Therefore I applaud your willingness to participate in this dialogue.
At the same time, I feel that much of what you said seems designed to redirect the focus of the discussion. For example, Dixon wrote, "for perspective, a recent Pioneer Press article showed that euthanasia rates at AHS are 39% ..."
Though she knows the 39% number includes wildlife that are immediately transferred to wildlife centers and counted as "adoptions". She also knows these figures include farm animals immediately transferred to farm animal rescue organizations that are counted as "adoptions". She also knows that, fundamentally, since this was a story about pet overpopulation, that wildlife and farm animals should not be factored into the equation. The relevant data, the dogs and cats, primarily, are the numbers that matter. Ironically, when Dixon references the national average euthanasia rate of 50%, she is talking about the national average euthanasia rate for dogs and cats. In effect, she is comparing apples to oranges.
Dixon knows that when we look at only the dog and cat data, that her organization's euthanasia rate is worse than 39%, and pretty close to the 50% average, in spite of being one of the wealthiest shelters in the nation.
Both D'Amato and Dixon suggest in their posts that embracing a no kill model at their facilities would, somehow, jeopardize their open admission policy, even though they should know better. The shelters and communities in other parts of the country discussed in this story are open admission. Some are actually animal control centers. They achieve save rates of 90+%, and without putting their community at risk by placing dangerous dogs into homes. This is something Dixon suggests would happen if they changed their policies when she writes, "We make every effort to ensure that animals adopted from us will be good community citizens, safe for families and, as a result, life-long placements that are bonded family members."
Dixon boasts of spaying/neutering 14,744 animals in 2007. It is important to note, however, that the overwhelming, vast majority of those animals are the animals in their own shelters. Achieving a 100% pre-adoption sterilization goal was something other shelters achieved decades ago. In 2008, sterilizing animals prior to adoption is not something for a very wealthy organization to be boasting about.
Additionally, I feel obligated to point out that when Dixon writes"Animal Humane Society is always looking for opportunities to do a better job and reduce euthanasia" it seems a little bit hollow, given that AHS has not implemented any of the primary programs that have been proven to end the need for shelters to kill savable animals. These programs include low-cost/no-cost spay neuter for pets, TNR programs for feral cats and others. If AHS were really committed to reducing or eliminating unnecessary kill rates, they would use their vast resources to embrace these programs. Instead, they have systematically worked against these efforts in our community.
The question of whether or not the Twin Cities can do better is no longer a question. The only question is "how long will it take Minnesota's largest animal welfare organization to embrace the programs proven to save animals lives?"
One other point: D'Amato says that "it took San Francisco nearly 20 years to get to a 20% euthanasia rate." This statement is completely false, and demonstrably so. It took the San Francisco SPCA about 1 year. If you have any doubts about this, you can listen to an interview with Nathan Winograd on this subject here:
http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ShelterLife.nsf/Daily+Journal/9A0D6290505FEAA9862574A100763872
Nathan was the Director of Operations at the San Francisco SPCA when that transition occurred. In that interview, Nathan says, ". . .this notion that it took San Francisco 20 years to get to where its at - first, John [the Pioneer Press reporter] interviewed someone who wasn't there when the great transition occurred in the mid 1990's, and certainly wasn't part of the decision-making. . . It took one year. From 1993 to 1994 the deaths of healthy dogs and cats in San Francisco dropped 100% to zero. And the deaths of sick and injured dogs and cats dropped by over 50%. Tompkins [County] did it in a year. Charlottesville [VA] did it in a year. Reno did it in a year. And that's how long it should take in the Twin Cities."
-
Kerry D'Amato 09/03/2008 11:08:00 PM
After reading the recent article on animal welfare I feel I must write a response.
In the last year, I joined the Animal Humane Society Board of Directors and am proud to have done so. I have a long history working with animal rights groups in the U.S. and England, including work with limited admission �no-kill� facilities, foster groups, rescue groups, trap/neuter/release and the ASPCA. I have been witness to the horrors of humane investigations, search and seizures of puppy mills, and �the dog swap meets� where breeder dogs are sold at auction like used goods. I have been in the trenches of the animal welfare business and it is a challenging scenario whatever your personal belief is about �unnecessary� or �necessary� euthanasia.
I moved to Minnesota in 2004 and began my search for a rescue group where I could commit my time and resources. That search took me two years. I looked at Home for Life, Forgotten 4 Paws, Animal Ark, the different humane societies and others. When I heard of the Animal Humane Society merger and the organization�s ability to place so many animals in loving homes, I knew that was where I wanted to be.
The Animal Humane Society was my choice because I strongly believe in an open-admission policy that turns no person or animal away and truly serves the community and has the best interests of the animals in mind. I chose AHS because of its strong humane investigations focus and its ongoing commitment to prosecute animal abusers. I chose AHS because of its commitment to work to change legislation to improve the quality of life for many animals. I chose AHS because of its community outreach and education programs aimed at preventing the number of companion animals ever coming to the shelters. Lastly, I chose AHS because of its strong funding foundation and the way it uses its resources to do a greater service for the community and its animals.
We at the Animal Humane Society recognize that the amount of animals euthanized at AHS is terribly sad. Believe me, reducing this number is on everyone�s agenda. In my encounters with staff and volunteers there is not one person at the Animal Humane Society that wants something different. The goal of never having to euthanize an animal is a wonderful ideal but the reality is there are times when this is a necessary event for the humane treatment of the animal.
Unfortunately, many of these animals we receive are beyond the help of medical care and need to be humanely euthanized to end their pain and suffering. Other animals have severe behavioral issues which prevent them from safely coexisting with other animals or humans.
The Animal Humane Society has always been forthright in releasing its euthanasia rates. We feel it is important to shed light on the extent of the problem in the hope that we all can gain a better understanding of the issues affecting unwanted animals and ways in which we can enact solutions. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
I am very familiar with the San Francisco model of significantly reduced euthanasia. I believe we can get there and we have ongoing programs to help that. AHS�s �Adoption Preparation� program which works with shy and fearful animals to ready them for adoption has had a 91% success rate and the �Mission: Meow� program, piloted this summer, placed more than 100 cats in foster homes during the busy summer season. And this year alone, AHS has taken in 1,589 animals from external agencies throughout the Midwest that have been filled to capacity. AHS continues to work on legislation that will regulate puppy mills and to develop a partnership with veterinarians that provides low cost spay/neuter programs throughout Minnesota.
It took San Francisco nearly 20 years to get to a 20% euthanasia rate. It is my hope that it doesn�t take us that long in Minnesota. My fear is that as long as the animal welfare groups in our area keep pointing fingers at one another instead of working together to solve the issues�we will never get there.
The City Pages article was biased, riddled with inaccurate statements and did not tell the complete story. I hope you as a reader will read between the lines, do your own investigating, and support the work that all of us in animal rescue do.
Kerry D�Amato
Member of Animal Humane Society Board of Directors
-
Janelle Dixon 09/03/2008 11:07:00 PM
As the CEO/President of the Animal Humane Society (AHS) I was disheartened by the recent City Pages article�s inaccurate portrayal of our work. Contrary to what was presented in the piece, we care a great deal about the animals. We are not content with the number of animals that are euthanized and are always working to reduce euthanasia. We come to work each day to make a real difference. And that is exactly what we do.
Euthanasia was the primary focus of the article. Rather than showing it to be the national and community problem that it is, it was portrayed as solely an AHS problem. For perspective, a recent Pioneer Press article showed that euthanasia rates at AHS are 39% and euthanasia rates for the other combined animal welfare groups in the Twin Cities area featured in the article are about 33%. Nationally, euthanasia rates reach 50% and more. We recognize that this is too high. We have been and continue to be focused on making a change. We can�t do it alone and that is why we are grateful for our partnerships with some 90 animal welfare organizations in the Midwest as well as the support of thousands of individuals who have put their faith in us to do right for animals.
With the vast array of animal welfare organizations in our community, why were only two organizations included in the article? The disparate size and scope of the two were not highlighted. AHS has a broad range of services and cares for more than 36,000 animals that come through our doors annually. The other organization selectively receives fewer than 800 animals on an annual basis. There was no discussion of Minnesota�s other animal welfare organizations and the incredible work for animals that they are doing.
I feel City Pages did not take on the challenge of a complex issue. There was a clear bias in the story that did a great disservice to AHS staff and volunteers who work so hard to help animals. It was very disappointing to see how Ms. Walton took the multiple opportunities she had to find out about our work and did not use them�an extensive interview with me, a thorough tour of the Golden Valley facility, observation of a euthanasia procedure, observation of our behavior evaluation process, and full and open access to any information she requested. It is my belief that our organization was misrepresented along with the breadth and scope of our services. Details about the careful and thorough evaluation done in behavior assessments were not conveyed. The emotion involved and caring manner of staff when ending an animal�s life was not represented. So much of what we do was absent from the picture that was painted.
We�ve made no secret of our euthanasia rates�it is heartbreaking for all of us and, unfortunately, one of the harsh realities of animal welfare work. Our donors are well aware of our numbers and all of the programs and services we provide that are essential to the well-being of animals in our community. Some things left out of the story include:
� Of the animals euthanized, 19% were end-of-life at the consent/request of the owner, 30% were due to significant health issues, and 43% were due to behavioral/aggression issues. None we euthanized because of breed which was incorrectly reported in the article
� AHS spayed and neutered 14,744 animals in 2007
� AHS has a wildlife program that supports rehabilitative services for more than 2,700 animals each year
� 4,528 animals received special care in foster homes in 2007
� 14,833 medical treatments were provided to animals in addition to vaccinations, microchipping and sterilizations
� AHS has the only paid and trained agents that provide humane investigation coverage for the entire state of Minnesota
� More than 40 behavior, socialization and training programs are offered to the public each week at our facilities
� Our comprehensive education program presented 685 programs at schools and on-site summer camps for youth and community groups
� More than 1,500 dedicated individuals contributed 107,402 volunteer hours in 2007
This is just a glimpse of what we do for the people and animals of our community. I encourage you to visit our website at www.animalhumanesociety.org or tour one of our locations to get a fuller sense.
AHS is an open-admission facility that takes in and cares for any animal in need. We do not pick and choose which ones are worthy of our services or easiest to place. We strongly believe we have an equal responsibility to the animals and the people in our community. We make every effort to ensure that animals adopted from us will be good community citizens, safe for families and, as a result, life-long placements that are bonded family members.
We are proud of our accomplishments, of our staff and volunteers, and our collaborations with animal welfare organizations. Together, we make a tremendous difference. Animal Humane Society is always looking for opportunities to do a better job and reduce euthanasia. We believe that this is a community issue and one that requires trust, respect and an open and honest dialogue to move forward.
Janelle Dixon
CEO/President
Animal Humane Society
-
jen 09/03/2008 6:13:00 AM
Sam-- please explain how you know this. The reason I ask is that I know animals that are euthanized need to be disposed of by deep burial, due to the drugs in their system. Thanks for your reply in advance.
-
Sam 09/02/2008 8:45:00 PM
Just to clarify the "mass burial" of animal euthanized at AHS.
They are simply dumped at a landfill, not buried as AHS wants us to believe. They are dumped with our household garbage. This speaks volumes as to how animals are valued at AHS...they are simply garbage.
How sad...and how sad that their staff simply regurgitate this information when they are asked for it.
-
Anonymous 09/02/2008 10:20:00 AM
For those of you who go to pet stores and buy animals, go to pet shops, ads in newspapers, websites, craigslist.org and breeders...NONE of you people understand what it means to care for a pet. In those 'pet communities' all you need is a checkbook and you can have an animal. When you adopt from a shelter, you are getting an animal who has been through so much already (being seperated from its 'family', leaving the home it once knew to go to somewhere where they can smell and hear other animals, but not always see them, being poked at in cages by curious customers) and you need to learn to be patient with both the shelter staff who are there to help the animal first and THEN the customer, and also the animal. Cookie is going to be scared, afraid, curious, and anxious all at the same and going to a new family is going to be over whelming for EVERYONE. Im off on a tangent, but what Im trying to say is that PATIENCE is needed to be able to help ALL of the animals that need our help no matter what organization we work for, support or are representing.
Secondly, I want to clarify a few things;
AHS has spayed and neutered their animals prior to adoption for about 5 years or more now. If we dont, we are slapping ourselves in the face for taking in the adopted animals puppies and kittens just a few months later...
AHS does not have many dogs on their adoption floor, and cant keep their kennels full because they ADOPT THEM ALL OUT! Dogs are only at AHS a few days before finding homes with a new family. About 7.7 days to be exact...
It is NOT AHS's fault that there is not a low cost spay/neuter clinic. The fact is that the State of Minnesota's legislation TOOK IT AWAY FROM AHS because 'it takes away practice from veterinarians who run their own clinics'. So if you want AHS to be able to spay Mittens and Neuter Fido, you better write to your legislator telling them that the community needs a subsidized low cost spay/neuter clinic.
-
Lee 09/02/2008 9:19:00 AM
If they are in the top 1% of humane society income and yet there is no low cost spay and neuter clinic offered, this is truly a disgrace and it sounds as tho the money is being pocketed by 'private' contractors. Let private businesses offer overnite and vacation boarding of animals. The Humane Society should be in the business of offering humane treatment and care of community animals. And that they haven't required animals sold by them to be spayed & neutered, until recently is beyond belief.
Is Minnesota one big puppy mill?
Until you people raise heck, nothing will change.
-
Rob 08/31/2008 4:22:00 AM
I had an experience like this when I was younger. I found a stray cat; it seemed pretty solid and fine, but I was in no position to look after it so I took it to the local animal shelter. I went back to see it a few days later only to find it had been killed. I wouldn't have taken it here if I knew that was likely to happen. There's obviously an over-supply of pets, leading the market to pick and choose for pleasure, profit and convenience. These 'humane' societies are doing a job they shouldn't have to do (managing unwanted rather than lost pets), which in turn leads some of them down this path of killing the ones that they can't force back into a market that has already rejected them. Every pet should have registered caregiver who is responsible and liable for its life-long health and safety. Too hard to implement? Only when they're seen as worthless toys. I applaud the people who are trying to do something about this - thank you!
-
jenny 08/30/2008 7:27:00 PM
And Beth, a correction and clarification on your reporting of numbers a week and a half later burried at the end of an on-line blog is not worth much.
-
jenny 08/30/2008 7:25:00 PM
And Beth, a correction and clarification on your reporting of numbers a week and a half later burried at the end of an on-line blog is not worth much.
-
jenny 08/30/2008 7:20:00 PM
this debate in this forum seems to have cooled down but in case Mike is still listening I have one more comment. Your response to scott regarding AHS putting down barking dogs was to go read the book on temperment testing that the AHS models and therefore they must follow every rule completely and thus "kill" every dog that does not present well. Now you and I know full well that this is just not reality. Go into any AHS shelter and you will see older dogs, barking and jumping dogs, dogs with disclaimers asking for a special kind of adopter who can deal with whatever ailment the dog has. Scott referred to 3 legged dogs and while I have not seen that, I have seen a one eyed dog up for adoption that had been rescued from a puppy mill. Her eye was infected, she had to be socialized and needed her eye removed and now she is in a happy home. Also, I must say that the argument that just because the dog numbers on the adoption floors are low, the conclusion must then be that the rest are dead is very thin. I hope you have noticed Mike that through all of this there has not been much criticism of your organization and what you do for the animals. You do a good thing and it is honorable for anyone to set up an organization to help animals. You have however reached a point where you will need to learn to work with others and not try to purposely polarize this issue in hopes of moving sentiment in your favor. Now that this debate has reached a larger audience I think it is obvious that people see you for what you are and you will not get any more support than that of the extreme factions that you pander to if you continue down this road. I am not hiding the fact that I support and am associated with the AHS.
-
Dave 08/29/2008 4:51:00 PM
My problem is that kill shelters kill too many. No kill Shelters kill too few.
Bite? Die
Sick? Die
Why??????
Perfectly healthy/friendly die while you try to rehabilitate the sick/mean. Period.
Stop trying to save EVERY ANIMAL....it cant be done. Enjoy the ones you do save.
I hate the shelters that complain that they just spent lots of money to treat a horrible disease/habit. All I can say is that I hope you can SLEEP with the fact that you just put to DEATH many more animals by saving one.
Oh, by the way - NONE of my animals have EVER been in a shelter. Lets not get started on the RIDICULOUS rules for adopting......no WONDER dog breeders get soo much business.
-
Beth Walton 08/29/2008 3:53:00 AM
We lumped together temperament and breed for simplicity, but as you will see most deaths were due to temperment.
According to the data provided to City Pages by AHS, 49 pitbulls were euthanized because of a no adopt policy in 2007. That same year an additional 2,410 dogs were eutahnized for temperment.
In 2008, thanks in part to their Project Pitbull program, referenced in the story, no dogs were euthanized because of their breed. Sorry for any confusion.
-
Julie 08/28/2008 6:38:00 PM
Your Article did have a positive outcome - I have adopted a 3 year old cat that had been at the St. Paul shelter for almost 6 weeks. I am very blessed to have him and he is one happy feline.
-
Lissa 08/27/2008 11:57:00 PM
The rescue organization I volunteer with took a dog that had been "rescued" from AHS. He was a 4 month old Border Collie cross puppy that was abandoned and starving. The kind man who rescued him and brought him to AHS, paid the $80 fee to be alerted to his status. AHS called and said the puppy was going to be euthanized due to food aggression. The man picked up the puppy and called us. We had the pup evaluated by one of our vets and no agggression was found. The man who rescued him questions the capability and training of the AHS "evaluators". He said they all appeared to be young girls that really didn't know what they were talking about. It is very saddening to me that it is probable there are not qualified people making the heartwrenching decision. I personally only met this one puppy that was rescued from AHS.
I didn't find the story to be biased at all. It was facts and opinions of both sides. It is a very emotional subject and sadly, euthanasia does happen and seems inevitable with an open door policy. I just hope the animals are given every possible chance to survive.
-
Colleen 08/27/2008 8:45:00 PM
I just received my fundraising plea from Janelle Dixon of AHS. It focuses on a story about an abandoned box of kittens who (of course) all found happy homes.
Ms. Dixon says, "The kittens' savior . . . knew that AHS had the trained staff and volunteers to give these little ones the medical care they needed and love they deserved to grow strong and healthy. . . . Please can I count on you to help find second chances for more kitten and cats, puppies and dogs that depend on us? Your gift today . . . will help us:
A safe haven for animals in distress
Treatment for illnesses or injuries
Foster care . . .
Spay/neuter services . . .
Adoptions of pets to loving homes
And so much more
You'll be saving the next needy animal who comes our way, and that's a great feeling.
We need your support to help more animals. Please rush your gift . . . I hate to think where they would be without you."
The donation card says "Yes! I want to save the lives of more homeless and helpless animals."
In light of the killing that goes on at AHS, I find this plea very misleading. I will be sending it back with a note that unless and until efforts are made to save more animals, I will be redirecting my donations to another organization.
-
Mike Fry 08/27/2008 1:01:00 AM
To "Cat Lover",
It is a great thing you are doing for those kitties. I wonder, if you had 20 or 30 a day calling you, how would you deal with it?
If Animal Ark had the resources, we would love to be open admission. It is our plan to be. We are growing very rapidly. As we do, we have focused most of our growth on spay/neuter programs, including free or low-cost spay/neuter for owned pets and feral cat programs. We are also working to expand our shelter. Our ability to become open admission focused on finances and increasing adoptions.
-
Cat Lover 08/26/2008 11:54:00 PM
Mike thank you for replying. Thankfully I had room for these poor waifs. The group I volenteer with is a foster home based rescue. We also pull from Animal Control facilities. I know that this clinic has quit asking you for the plain and simple fact is every time they have asked they have been told "NO". I was mortified that a sanctuary right in town would deny a dump cat help. If you had the millions that the humane society had, would you allow open admission?
-
Mike Fry 08/26/2008 11:19:00 PM
To "Cat Lover",
I don't really know how I could answer your question, without knowing more details about the situation you are talking about. What vet clinic are you discussion? What cats? What, specifically, was the issue? What did the clinic as us to do?
Animal Ark works with a number of vet clinics in a variety of capacities. We have taken several animals from several vet clinics throughout the Twin Cities metro.
I do repeat, however, that Animal Ark does not currently have the resources to be "open admission". We are not, and have never pretended to be, able to accept every animal that everyone wants us to take.
Your post suggests that another rescue was able to accommodate the kitties. Again, it is hard to tell from the nature of your post. If that is true, and the kittens are still alive and doing well, doesn't that actually prove that it is a good thing we do NOT take in more animals than we can care for?
To reiterate something I said earlier, we try to determine which animals to take in based, primarily on 2 factors:
1) The animals that need our services the most
2) The animals we can actually help
From that perspective, you can see how cats at a vet clinic, where people care about them, that have connections to other rescue groups, may not be as urgent a priority for us as animals actually scheduled to be killed at an impound center, or that were hit by a car . . . or that were rescued from a hoarding situation. . . or. . .
If we believe an animal is safe where it is, with caring people, it is not going to be as high a priority for us as animals that have no one advocating for them, and no resources to help.
-
Cat Lover 08/26/2008 11:02:00 PM
Mike, are you going to answer me? Why will you not help the homeless cats that are dumped at a local vet office??? I could actually see working together for the sake of the abandoned cats, you save some and the group I am with will save some. That is working together to solve the problem, right in your community. Let me know!!!!!
-
Mike Fry 08/26/2008 10:41:00 PM
Virginia,
I rest my case. If I respond to all of the questions, people complain that I post too much. If I don't answer every single question exactly as you would like, you complain anyway. So, I get it.
Though this is totally off topic, I will once again point out that I did mention news stories of actual rendering companies admitting they were putting dogs and cats in the products sold to pet food companies. That is as far as that needs to be taken. You can do your own research. If you come to a different conclusion than I have, that is your prerogative. I urge you to not take just the simple, superficial answer posted to this site. Instead of looking at one study, look at the other 2 studies that were conducted leading up to that study. Ask interesting questions, like "why did the FDA go looking for sodium pentobarbital in pet food?" That ALONE is an interesting question with some interesting answers. Ask, "when the FDA found sodium pentobarbital in pet food, why did they -for several years - refuse to release the names of the foods implicated in the test?" Why did consumers need to file FOI requests to obtain this data (Note the directory the reports are filed under on the FDA web site is "FOI") Ask "why does the conclusion of the second study contradict the rationale for even performing the first study?" I did ask all of those questions to lots of people. I was one of the consumers who learned of the first study shortly after it was conducted. And, while I did not participate in the FOI request, I followed the activities of the people who did. I talked to many people in both the rendering industry and the pet food industry. I talked to veterinarians. Heck, when I worked at the Wildlife Rehabilitation Clinic, part of my job was disposing of animals like deer, that I had to personally put into the back of rendering trucks. I have seen dogs and cats in the back of those trucks, mixed in with deer, cow parts, etc. I can attest that if anyone thinks people are sorting through the grotesque, soupy mess that is in the back of those trucks to pull out dog and cat bodies, then I say they are just crazy.
As for barking dogs being put down at AHS, I also believe that was well covered. You have the ability to check out Sternberg's temperament test. "Euthanizing" a dog that "displays badly in their kennel" is something she even recommends when she does her public workshops. Frankly, there are even sillier reasons animals are "euthanized" at the humane society. The fact that an AHS spokesperson claimed that "Tootsie" was "too aggressive to handle" says a lot. She is a sweet, loving, playful girl with people and other animals. Puppies being killed for "play biting" is something that was posted on this site, and something I have heard many times over the years. The fact that they kill more than 40% of the dogs they "rescue" is enough to tell the average person that they are killing animals for non-reasons, especially in light of the fact that it has been proven that about 93% of dogs that enter open admission shelters are healthy enough and behaviorally sound enough to adopt into homes.
How Animal Ark determines whether or not a cat is feral is complex, and depends largely on the context of the colony. In a large, rural setting, like a farm, where most of our feral cat projects take place, that is really easy to determine. The fact that most projects happen in a setting like that, or a municipal complex, or industrial site where there are lots of cats make the determination easy. It is also easy to get agreement from property managers to agree to continue monitoring/feeding the cats.
So, now I have a question for you? Do you think AHS has a good save rate? Do you think they could do better? Do you think that spending $4.5 million dollars, in hopes of maybe getting a $100,000 annual return is good business? (note: that amounts to about a 2.5% annual return) or do you think those funds would be better spend on spay/neuter, where it has been shown that every dollar invested can return more than $10 in animal welfare/animal control cost savings?
-
Cat Lover 08/26/2008 9:55:00 PM
Mike I am talking about a local clinic in Hastings that you will not help. This clinic feeds and provides shelter to cats that are �dropped off� at their back door. They live trapped a mom and her four babies. Thankfully the mom got a home and was spayed and the babies are in foster care with me. The rescue group I am with are taking care of these babies, they will be altered, microchipped, shots given, feline leukemia tested, wormed, ect... I am proud to be associated with the wonderful and caring staff at this clinic. I�ve taken other cats that they have taken in to care for. The fact of the matter is that people do drop their pets off and they do need to be rescued. It is quite apparent to me and others that you will not help those in need in your own community. DO NOT for one minute doubt that I love cats (actually all animals) and do not assume what I would like as far as animal welfare organizations. Your callus remark about municipalities having designated impound centers screams volumes.....
-
Virginia 08/26/2008 9:34:00 PM
Hmm... i tried posting, but the validation code didn't work. Sorry if this gets doubly posted (3rd time's the charm):
Mike, that was a great overview of the TNR program. But i did not see an answer to my question.
What does ANIMAL ARK do to ensure that the feral cats they sterilize are properly taken care of? And for that matter, how does AA determine whether a cat is feral, or just a very frightened stray?
And i think Scott poses some good questions that I am still waiting for an answer on:
"...provide proof of AHS euthanizing barking dogs, scientists to discredit the FDA, etc"
-
Virginia 08/26/2008 7:38:00 PM
Hmm... i tried posting, but the validation code didn't work. Sorry if this gets doubly posted:
Mike, that was a great overview of the TNR program. But i did not see an answer to my question.
What does ANIMAL ARK do to ensure that the feral cats they sterilize are properly taken care of? And for that matter, how does AA determine whether a cat is feral, or just a very frightened stray?
And i think Scott poses some good questions that I am still waiting for an answer on:
"...provide proof of AHS euthanizing barking dogs, scientists to discredit the FDA, etc"
-
Virginia 08/26/2008 7:34:00 PM
Mike, that was a great overview of the TNR program. But i did not see an answer to my question.
What does ANIMAL ARK do to ensure that the feral cats they sterilize are properly taken care of? And for that matter, how does AA determine whether a cat is feral, or just a very frightened stray?
And i think Scott poses some good questions that I am still waiting for an answer on:
-
Mike Fry 08/26/2008 7:30:00 PM
Scott,
You are right about a couple of things in Tompkins County. First, failure to increase animal control costs at the county is not a problem the current leadership there created. It is also not a problem with their "no kill" policy. As has already been well articulated, many of the no kill programs actually cost less than traditional approaches. One could possibly make the case that Tompkins County SPCA was able to keep their animal control contract going as long as they did at those grossly low rates because of their no kill policy.
You are right. No organization, just like no person, is perfect.
What detractors call "crowding" I call "seasonal crowding" and, unless it causes other problems, like the spread of serious disease, I consider it a sign the organization is keeping to its mission. You should be able to tell this by simply looking at their save rate. You don't kill a dog or cat, in my opinion, because you want some of your kennels empty.
To Jenny,
You really did not answer my question. The a large percentage of municipalities in and around the metro do not have containment laws for cats. Again, I am not an advocate for people letting their cats roam. But, in reality a large percent of them do, and they have every right to do so, even if I don't like it. So, how is a shelter supposed to tell if this is a cat that was "stray" or "stolen"? Why would they take in an animal that is possibly the latter?
Also, my comments as stated in the Pioneer Press were a bit skewed. Then, you skewed them even more. What I was referring to was a situation like that we have been discussing in Tompkins County, where the municipality is not stepping up to fully fund their animal control costs. Given that animal control is a government mandated service, there is no need for donor funds to pay for that. When contracting with humane organizations, government entities rarely just happily turn over the funds really needed to run animal control. I, therefore, am a strong advocate for separating animal welfare organizations from the animal control function. When government entities have to pay the full cost of animal control, important things like public funding for spay/neuter are easier to get on their radar screen, and several unseemly conflicts of interest get removed from the equation.
-
Jo 08/26/2008 7:02:00 PM
Again, I ask the question: Does Mike Fry work? Or does he spend his days blogging?
If Mike spent more time doing what a leader of an organization should be doing (managing, meeting with donors, conveying his vision, improving the organization, helping animals, etc.) he might have a larger, more healthy organization.
Instead, he bickers and blogs. You rarely grow an organization or a movement by attacking others, especially on blogs at free community newspapers and podcasts an second-rate radio shows.
-
jenny 08/26/2008 6:31:00 PM
Mike, the answer to your question is that I do not live or work in a community where cats are allowed to roam free. I have 2 cats that are registered with my city and they are to remain indoors. I do not belive that cats should be allowed to be out on a "stroll". This may work in rural areas but not in the city. You never answered my questions either so dont get high and mighty on me. Also, Im not debating you on TNR, I dont know enough about it to argue if it reduces birth rates or not. However we have a philosophical difference on whether or not domestic cats should roam free.
Now, you never answered me asking to explain your words in the pioneer press.. That we should "Flood the system" with stray cats and force the cities to take up the slack.
-
Scott 08/26/2008 5:06:00 PM
A podcast is not a budget Mike. Show the numbers to prove its working.
I'm not saying that their financial problems are due to being no kill, I'm just saying given the problems that are on record they might not be the best example of a successful and viable "no kill" shelter. You claim they are not in financial problems but blowning through reserves is not healthy for any organization.
It seems odd that despite such underfunding from the county that Abigal's predecesors didn't raise their rates when their reserves were first being used (see the board's minutes from Oct 12 07). Rather than giving the county gradual increases over the years they hit it with a doubling of fees.
Also you haven't addressed the issue of overcrowding problems in their shelter...which is another huge concern with going to the "no kill" model.
This is all to say that there is easy answer. Despite the claims of 90% save in less than a year, it's a lot more complicated than that. It can have long lasting implications beyond just saving lives of cute puppies and kitties. Red flags go up when someone is trying to sell me on an idea that just sounds too good to be true and then can't back up claims with budgets, data, etc.
Chris proposes we "give Animal Ark the budget that the AHS has". AHS gets their budget from us - the community. If you feels your needs are not being served by AHS then give your money to Animal Ark. I suspect the reason AHS has the budget they have is because they do have a vote of confidence of the community. The numbers "exposed" by Citypages is nothing new to informed donors as it's been published in their annual report. (http://www.animalhumanesociety.org/PDF/AnnualReport.pdf) and is public knowledge.
I was an informed donor before this whole conversation, but now I feel even more confident in my support for AHS. Could they do better? Yes! Every non-profit's goal should be to do better and as I've stated before I do see evidence of AHS trying new programs to better serve the community. They have my vote of confidence.
-
Chester 08/26/2008 10:30:00 AM
Pieter,
You wrote:
"What a BS article. So people should take in all these alley cats (for example), sterilize them, then let them back out on the streets? Since ecology has nothing to do these groups ideals, and its all about cute pets, and who cares about the birds and everyhing else these animals kill."
I just have two points to make to your comment:
1.) Birds can fly. Cats cannot. Who has the advantage here? I do not think that we need to worry about the stray cats catching and killing all of the birds in the world.
2.) Cats catch mice. You do realize that the Bubonic Plague, aka Black Death, happened as a direct result of cats being killed by humans during this time period as they were thought to be "evil" and whatnot, correct?
Ecology has everything to do with this. It's called the circle of life.
-
Mike Fry 08/26/2008 8:30:00 AM
To Scott,
One last thing on Tompkins County. . . you have yet to prove that any financial difficulties (if there even are any) in Tompkins County are a result of the no kill policy. Based on the numbers, they are more likely the result of the County not fully funding animal control.
You said that you have not seen a viable "business model". But, I would argue, you have not even seen the Tompkins County business model. Your eagerness to blame any potential financial woes on their no kill policy speaks loudly of your bias.
You seem awfully willing to jump to conclusions before being fully informed.
-
Mike Fry 08/26/2008 8:21:00 AM
Scott,
OK. I get it, you still have not listened to the interview with their director from Animal Wise Radio. You also do not understand how government entities try to squeeze humane organizations into subsidizing animal control. What you read, and the article you pointed to is a clear example of that. To quote the article:
"Abigail Smith, executive director of the Tompkins County SPCA, said the county pays $1.76 per capita per year for its services under its contract � less than half of the national average of $4.00 to $6.00."
So, lets be clear: the county was paying $1.76 for services that should have cost them $4 - $6. Abigail's job is to push the County into paying the full cost of those services. That is not hard to understand.
Since SPCA has proven that no kill can be achieved and sustained, it is the job of the tax payers in Tompkins County to demand that the county maintain its no kill position. Note: Tompkins County has been no kill for more than 7 years.
I repeat: If you have any questions about what is going on in Tompkins County, you should talk to Abigail. I have.
The same thing is true here. The people supporting animal control and humane organizations need to know there is a better model available. That, fundamentally, is what the City Pages article is about.
Lets pretend, for just a moment, that the worst happens in Tompkins County, and the County decides to go a traditional animal control route. First, their costs will rise anyway; they will lose the notoriety they have gotten for their success; they will become more like other communities.
But, the SPCA will still be there. They will build their reserves again. And anyone who faults a humane organization for spending a portion of their reserves to ensure the animals in their care are saved, I think, needs to re-evaluate their idea of the purpose of a humane organization.
If, for example, AHS were to decide to take the same path, they could easily and safely spend a sizable portion of their reserves, without risk. If they set a portion of their reserves aside for that purpose and they were able to make their shelters no kill for 7 years, that would amount to the saving of an additional 70,000+ animals over that 7 year period.
What percent of their 24 million reserves woud those 70,000 lives be worth?
-
Mike Fry 08/26/2008 7:58:00 AM
Relating to TNR,
Some people here have referred to TNR as "controversial", in fact, even this article did. I suggest that may have been true several years ago. There was a time when TNR was opposed by a large number of animal welfare organizations. But that has changed.
HSUS, historically one of the loudest and most vocal opponents of TNR, actually spoke to the St. Paul City Council supporting a change in their ordinance to allow for and support TNR in the City. That was a big shift. Additionally, in recent years, many biologists working to protect fragile habitats and endangered animals that had been threatened by feral cat populations have adopted TNR after decades of lethal approaches to managing the felines proved unsuccessful. Note: I am talking about some of the most fragile and endangered places on Earth, like the Galapagos Islands.
The fact that there are some straggler organization that have yet to adopt TNR as their official policy does not in and of itself mean that TNR is controversial. For those who do not yet understand the magic of TNR, it is based on simple biological population dynamics. The research of Louis Pasteur proved that in order to prevent a population of organisms from reproducing, you only need to sterilize 70% of them. The reasons for that are complex, but it generally holds true. He was primarily working with viruses and bacteria in vaccination research. It turns out, however that the same principal applies to most organisms.
This is a key thing to understand if you want to eliminate breeding in free-roaming cat populations. Traditional trap/kill programs do not work, because of the massive reproduction capacity of felines. A female can produce 3-4 litters of kittens per year. The kittens themselves can reproduce at just 6 months of age. Therefore, even if you can reduce a population of cats, you only do so for a short time.
The number of cats in a population is established by the available food sources and the amount of shelter in an area, not by the number killed.
Case in point: The first very large colony of cats Animal Ark sterilized was a group of about 200. It was a well-known group of cats in the north suburbs. The animals had been there for at least 20 years, in spite of efforts by animal control, various "humane" organizations and exterminators that tried, through various lethal means, to kill the cats.
The secret to understanding why they were unsuccessful in changing the population for 20 years is understanding this colony of cats produced between 1,200 and 1,800 kittens per year. The colony had maxed out the "carrying capacity" of the area, but continued breeding lots of kittens every year. When adults were killed, it just made room for more kittens to survive, and the population on the property never changed.
During that time period, the average lifespan of the cats was very short. There was too much competition for very limited resources. The overwhelming majority of the cats, when we trapped them, were under 1 year of age. There was a lot of fighting among the cats, and regular bites were being reported by the cats to animal control.
During a 3-day project, involving several local animal welfare organizations, nearly all of these cats were trapped. The fact that I say "nearly" is really important, if you remember the 70% rule. But, I will get to that in a bit.
Kittens that were young enough to be socialized were taken in my shelters/rescue organizations involved in the process. They were tamed, spayed or neutered, etc. and adopted into homes. The animals that were too old (85 in all) were spayed or neutered, treated for fleas, ticks and internal parasites, vaccinated for rabies and returned to the place they were trapped. Additionally, shelters were provided for them, and volunteers continue to monitor this group of cats several years later.
This project happened in the fall. The following spring, a total of 4 kittens were born in this colony. These kittens were found and taken to a cat foster group for adoption. The mother was trapped, sterilized, vaccinated and released. There have been no kittens born to this colony in subsequent years.
Volunteers continue to feed and monitor this colony, which, over the last few years, has declined to about 45-50 aging, healthy felines, who no longer need to fight for resources.
Animal Ark has, and many other operators of large-scale TNR projects, have seen these same results. Last year alone, Animal Ark sterilized about 1,300 cats during projects like this one. We see similar results in project after project.
In urban areas, where there are lots of feral felines mixing with owned pets, and cross-breeding, the dynamic is a little more complex. However, the same rules apply. Given that some of the owned felines are already sterilized, by sterilizing the ferals in an area, you can limit reproduction.
If, on the other hand, we had killed nearly all of the cats at that colony, in a very short while, the population would have been right back were it started, because of the high reproduction capacity of cats.
Properly done, TNR is better for the cats, better for wildlife, and better for people. It is more humane and less expensive. 21st-century animal welfare organizations are behind it. . . while some organizations are simply behind. . . thankfully, the numbers of those are fewer every day.
-
Scott 08/26/2008 7:57:00 AM
Mike they have spent their reserves and can no longer sustain the programs they have been providing the county. Why did they wait until they were this in poor of a financial situation to ask the county to step up and fully fund the programs? If the county goes with another provider for these services (with bids that are coming in cheaper) the county may no longer be "no kill" -
http://theithacan.org/am/publish/news/200710_Changes_in_SPCA_funding_may_end_no-kill_policy.shtml
And yes their numbers show a great save rate but I question how financially sustainable that is that given their current situation. I also question sustainability when they have had to deal with over-crowded facilities(http://www.wtvh.com/news/local/9435511.html) placing their animals in their kitchen and laundry rooms and even forcing them to shut down for several days last year.
I have yet to see a fully functioning sustainable business model that yields 90% save rates for an open admission shelter in the examples you have suggested I look into.
(and you have yet to provide proof of AHS euthanizing barking dogs, scientists to discredit the FDA, etc)
-
Mike Fry 08/26/2008 7:17:00 AM
To Scott, again...
Scott, again you have shown two things by your post about Tompkins County. These things are:
1) You did not listen to the interview on Animal Wise Radio I pointed you to, with the director there. Had you done so, your concern over finances at Tompkins County SPCA would have been fully alleviated. Tompkins County SPCA is not in a financial crisis. However, they do their best to divide their work in to "county business" and "animal welfare". That is a difficult task. The government in Tompkins County has, for a very long time, been paying well below the national standard for their animal control services. Way below. Doing their duty to require that the county pay the publicly mandated costs of animal control the Tompkins County SPCA was unwilling to have their donors subsidize animal control costs. That is what that discussion was about. Unfortunately, the request from Tompkins County SPCA to the County to fully fund their animal control (as is required by law) has been blown out of proportion by people opposing no kill, suggesting that it is not sustainable. Ironically, many of those same people would support a high-kill shelter if it was making the same demand from the County.
2) Commenting on things you have not fully researched is not a good thing.
I again suggest you listen to the interview on Animal Wise Radio with the director of Tompkins County SPCA. It is noteworthy that they have managed to achieve no kill in that county, even when the county has been paying a fraction of the nation per capita average cost of animal control. THAT is the real story in Tompkins County.
I notice, you have also avoided any discussion of the outcome statistics there. . .
-
Chris M 08/26/2008 7:14:00 AM
What is wrong with you people? The main issue here is saving the lives of the countless animals that are being euthanized each year. Is this Mike Fry's fault? I don't think so.
Why don't we give Animal Ark the budget that the AHS has and see if that organization will then start taking in all of the animals.
Let's stay focused. How do we all come together to save these animals? Why isn't the AHS willing to try something new if it might work? What do they have to lose? I don't particularly care what is going on in Reno. I care what is happening here and now.
As far as the AHS being voted best place to adopt an animal several years ago, I wonder how many people knew about the numbers of animals that were being euthanized. If it wasn't for this article, I wouldn't have ever known.
Please leave the name calling out of these responses. It really doesn't prove anyone's point.
-
old volunteer 08/26/2008 6:26:00 AM
Everybody, let's please remember that this article was written to raise awareness about things going on at AHS. The fact is animals are being killed there everyday, and many are unnecessary.
I wish people who have NEVER workerd at AHS or have never volunteered there would stop acting as if they know what goes on around the place. It's wasn't fun for people to tell the stories they had to tell for this article. I wish shelters were doing what they were supposed to do, and that there wouldn't have to be articles about these things.
Change doesn't happen without challenge. Please respect the people who are trying to bring about change. Has anyone ever thought that this article was the only way to make people aware? Many of us have tried numerous times and a variety of ways to bring about change at AHS, and if this is what finally gets it done, so be it.
to anyone who doesn't like the article don't read it and don't comment then. I am tired of seeing people write that this article was a waste. It's not a waste to lots of people.
And to Mary in Minneapolis: who reported on all the animals she saw on the adoption floor at Golden Valley. You have never seen ALL the animals that don't make it there. and I bet you have never seen there poor bodies stacked in barrels and put into a freezer.
-
Scott 08/26/2008 6:00:00 AM
Mike,
I've repeatedly told you why I think you're being dishonest - making claims about AHS killing dogs for barking too much, dead dogs in dog food, etc, etc. You make these claims but fail to prove it.
As for Reno, there is not enough evidence that I have found, or that you have presented, to show that Reno's animal population has had a 90% save rate. With all or Reno's strays going to the county and 40% of the county's animals unaccounted for you can't honestly claim these save rates for Reno (NHS yes, Reno no). Yes NHS gets animals transferred to them but there is no way you can claim those were the same animals with the same health and behavioral issues that came from Reno. If NHS transfers in 3,000+ healthy and adoptable animals from the county what happens to the animals from Reno with issues? They become someone else's problem.
I'm sure you'll disagree, as this is the same argument I've been making from the get go. This may be something we agree to disagree on. People reading this can decide for themselves whose logic makes the most sense.
As for Tompkins County, after reviewing their financial situation I do not think it would be wise for AHS to follow their business model. If you review the Tompkins County Council of Governments Minutes (http://www.tompkins-co.org/legislature/TCCOG/minutes/) you will see in Sept 07 that SPCA reported that they had depleated their reserves and would need to charge the county double their rates in 2008 to cover the gap between their revenue and program expenses. In order to sustain their programs they would need to charge the county, and the tax payers double their fees. In Oct 12 the county questioned if SCPA has been running on reserves until now, why were the fees not increased before this? Currently, after a short term agreement, the county is deciding if they would like to stay with SPCA to provide these services or if they'd like to find a new partner(s). The requests for proposals were due back on Aug 15th and I guess we'll know more after their next meeting. Also according to the May 22 minutes, SPCA no longer covers feline control and those servcies are now covered directly by the county. I have not seen any indication if the County euthanizes cats or not.
Finally, I'm not saying your info on TNR is wrong, but if you're going to claim those programs are successful please provide your sources.
-
Virginia 08/26/2008 4:01:00 AM
I forgot i wanted to speak about TNR. I love this concept. but it is also controversial. Feral cats are destructive and detrimental to the native wildlife- they are a nuisance. But this doesn't mean they should be destroyed. But TNR will not work unless each stable colony of sterile feral cats has a caretaker- without a caretaker, sterile cats will move on, and intact cats will move in.
Mike, i love the fact that AA has tackled TNR. but i've been meaning to ask, how does AA ensure that all the colonies they are sterilizing are appropriately taken care of?
-
Virginia 08/26/2008 3:51:00 AM
I am a supporter of Animal Ark. But i am not a supporter of Mike Fry, and this is a perfect example of why. A leader should bring people together. Instead he pushes people apart. His mother says this is the first year he has 'criticized AHS publicly'. Never mind the years he has been criticizing AHS and HSCA publicly on his Animal Ark Blog.
I have very serious concerns about the amount of time (and therefore money) he is allowed to blog in the aspect of his job. I can't believe Animal Ark (and therefore donor money- my money) pays him to spend this much time online blogging and commenting.
I applaud Scott's efforts. Everything he say makes perfect sense. Where does a community end? If Reno is in Washoe County, then i feel it is part of the community, and we must consider every animal in the county to rate the 'community' as a 90% save rate.
And Mike- Innocent until proven guilty. you are the one throwing stones- you have the burden of proof, not Scott. it is not his job to defend AHS or show proof to the contrary- you're the one making claims, you must prove otherwise.
And i think Scott's comments about your lies refer to the fact that you claim AHS will euthanize barking dogs, or black labs for being black. Your false claims discredit your stance. Maybe when your supporters claim these types of things, you should speak to the contrary. it would be refreshing to haer you say "Hey guys, AHS does not euthanize black labs just because they're black. Let's stick to the facts." That would be such a breath of fresh air.
it is unfortunate that Animal Ark has to be dragged along in the wake of Mike's warmongering
Beth Walton needs to retake journalism 101- the whole article is editorial, down to the fact that she didn't interview current and happy AHS volunteers (they're out there too), and her use of the word 'kill' instead of euthanize (everyone that has even an iota of interest in the animal welfare community sees that for the No-Kill jargon that it is).
Mary Salter, everyone knows that you haven't worked for AHS (or HSCA) for years and years. it's a different organization now- i think you have to stop claiming you have inside information- it's outdated, inaccurate, and hurts your claims.
Those are just my overall feelings after reading all the comments from the passionate people speaking here
-
Jo 08/26/2008 1:38:00 AM
Does Mike Fry work? Or does he spend his days blogging on various newspaper websites? He spent WEEKS on the STrib site a few months back haranging AHS. Now he's on CityPages doing the same. He also spends what I believe to be an excessive amount of time on Animal Ark's site doing the same.
Mike - don't you have some dogs to walk, cats to feed, or staff and volunteers to supervise? Are you running the organization or just blogging about running the organization?
-
Mike Fry 08/26/2008 1:26:00 AM
To Jenny again,
You said, "So allowing cats to procreate uninhibited in the wild is your stance?"
You said that, even though you know or should know that Animal Ark launched Minnesota's largest and first trap, neuter and return program for cats. You also know that we have been advocating for others to implement similar programs. TNR programs are humane ways of preventing free-roaming cats from reproducing and reducing their numbers. They have been widely regarded as safe and effective, while lethal approaches are not humane, are not effective and are expensive.
I have answered your questions. Please answer mine, or be done with this conversation.
-
Mike Fry 08/26/2008 1:21:00 AM
No, Jenny,
Actually, I answered your question pretty completely. I asked you a question that you are avoiding. How do you, in a community that allows cats to roam free, differentiate between owned cats that are simply on a stroll, and cat that are actually lost. I told you how Animal Ark makes that determination. How would YOU?
You suggest that the humane society is taking in and killing cats in an effort to control breeding, even though every research study I have found suggest that does not work. Frankly, AHS kill rates also prove this point. They have taken this approach for about 125 years, and things are not better. Communities that adopt a TNR program for feral cats are successful.
Additionally, I have a hard time believing this is the real rationale for humane societies taking in cats, that may belong to people. To prove this point I will call attention to the fact that it is only within the last couple of years that AHS shelters were sterilizing all of the animals that were adopted from their shelters. In other words, they may have, for more than 100 years, been taking cats that were totally fine, that belonged to people, and putting them back out into the community still capable of reproducing.
Another point I would make is that currently, the humane society does not check a cat's reproductive status prior to determining what to do with them. In other words, even if a cat is sterile and roaming loose (in other words, not capable or producing kittens) they still take it in, even if it does not need to be taken in. . .
So, again, I ask you to answer the question. I have answered yours. Please answer mine.
-
jenny 08/26/2008 12:41:00 AM
Funny, ask a logical question and get the same robotic answers. So allowing cats to procreate uninhibited in the wild is your stance? I was asking what your criteria for dogs is. Based on your answer that all dogs should go to the local impound, does that mean that you dont take any? Im not trying to push your buttons, just want plain answers. In the Pioneer Press you said that we should "flood the system" with strays to force municipalities to take on the problem. Is that a fair assesment of your words? I dont get it.
-
Mike Fry 08/26/2008 12:26:00 AM
To Jenny and "CatLover":
So, now I have a question for you? In a community that does not have a containment law for cats, how do you differentiate between a lost (i.e. "stray") cat, and one that knows exactly where it is and where it is going? I am really curious.
I have told you how Animal Ark makes this determination. If the animal is healthy (i.e. NOT starving, or injured, etc.) why assume the cat even needs the aid of a shelter? I just don't get it, especially given that, based on available data, shelters are some of the most dangerous and deadly places for felines in our community.
If the cat seems otherwise healthy and fine, why does it need to be "rescued" and taken to a place where it will likely be killed? How is killing those cats helpful to them? Just curious. If you really are a "CatLover" I assume you would like animal welfare organizations to make choices that are in the best interests of the animals. . . right?
As for dogs, I have already said that all municipalities have designated impound centers. Stray dogs should go there. . .
-
Cat Lover 08/25/2008 11:43:00 PM
Mike, I agree with Jenny. Also let us not forget the suffering of the cats that are so hungry they are eating birdseed. They become prey for the coyotes and ignornat people who shot them or run them over. Sad as it is to say I'd rather see them put to sleep then to suffer. You could help out the local vets, I think you just chose not to. It is very sad that you won't help those poor abandoned cats in your own town. Shame on you!!!!
-
jenny 08/25/2008 11:26:00 PM
what about dogs?
and just to clarify, you say that we should leave healthy strays in the wild? What about what that does to increase population and how about in the winter months when it is 20 below?
-
Mike Fry 08/25/2008 10:43:00 PM
To Jenny,
GREAT question. Thanks for asking.
Given that each day we get more calls about animals in need than our small shelter can accommodate, we try to focus our resources on the animals most in need and that we can help.
This concept is one of the primary ideas behind TNR programs, for example. If an organization claims they cannot provide basic vet care to cats with ringworm, for example, because they take in so many, one thing they can do is to stop taking in feral cats.
Taking feral cats into a shelter does not help the cats. Additionally, it does not help to solve the community's feral cat problem. This has been proven time and time again. Ironically, TNR is also less expensive than than trap/kill approaches to handling feral cats.
This is because, when feral cats come into shelters, by law they are basically classified as "stray". That means that to handle these feral cats according to the law, a shelter should hold these animals for a 5 day holding period. The national average estimated cost of taking in, holding a feral cat for 5 days, including feeding, cleaning its cage, etc. Plus the cost of killing the feral cat and disposing of its body is between $75 and $100. An animal welfare organization can sterilize a feral cat for between $25 and $35, depending on the gender of the cat.
Because we have implemented a TNR program at Animal Ark, we do not take feral cats into our shelter. We cannot help those cats in the shelter. We can help them in a TNR project. This approach frees up shelter resources to focus on cats most at risk that we can help in the shelter. Stray animals with medical conditions, that actually need to come into a shelter. For those animals, regardless of breed, we always have an open door. Abused animals and animals in dangerous situations also fall into this criteria.
Perfectly healthy cats that are just picked up by citizens that are roaming lose do not meet our criteria for immediate intake. Most of the communities in MN do not have containment laws for cats. And, though I do not agree with letting cats run lose, a large percentage of the population does let their cats run. Therefore, I believe that if someone finds a cat, and it is otherwise healthy and in good shape, taking it into a shelter is not in the cats best interest, especially in a community where the kill rate for cats is about 50%. It is also not necessarily in the best interest of the cat's owner who may be waiting for the cat to come home.
People who find free-roaming felines assume they are lost. They may not be. However, as has already been addressed, the Twin Cities area has a very confusing collection of more than 32 shelters and impound centers, nearly all of which are very dangerous places for cats. Nearly none of these facilities post the photos of the stray animals they are holding on the Internet meaning that, by day 5 (the hold period of "strays) an owner of a cat that is taking to one of these facilities needs to, potentially, visit all 32 of these facilities in an effort to find a pet lost in that system. In other words, if a person assumes a feline is lost, it may not be, and by bringing it to one of these facilities, may cause it to get lost in that awful system.
Unless our communities develop more holistic approaches to dealing with free-roaming cats, including containment laws, I believe that scooping up an otherwise healthy feline and bringing it to a shelter where it will probably be killed, is not helpful. It may be well-intended, but not helpful.
In that regard, here is something to ponder: Given the high kill rate for felines at the humane society, and given that the adoption rate for young kittens is much higher, nationally, than it is for adult cats, I suggest that the chances of an adult cat coming out of the humane society alive are very poor.
People have to get past the notion that the only way to help an animal is to bring it into a shelter.
On a related note: Since all municipalities do have impound centers for dogs, and because of the confusing mess of impound centers described earlier, I feel strongly that lost dogs should always be taken to their designated municipal impound center, so families of lost pet have fewer places to look for their animals. Taking in stray animals from any place anywhere contributes to a big problem in the Metro area. I also believe that impound centers should have photos and descriptions on the Internet of stray animals taken into their facilities within hours of their arrival at the facility.
-
John 08/25/2008 10:20:00 PM
TO Jo,
I think you could benefit from some communication classes.
-
jenny 08/25/2008 10:15:00 PM
I also seem to remember a City Page annual "best of" issue in 06 or 07 that said the AHS was the best place in the Twin Cities to adopt an animal.
-
jenny 08/25/2008 9:25:00 PM
Mike,
fair question here, what is your criteria for deciding which animals to accept into your system and those you turn away?
-
Cat Lover 08/25/2008 9:23:00 PM
Mike, I see you are still lurking around. Maybe you can answer this
1. Why will Aniaml Ark not take in strays that are brought into the local clinics in your hometown of Hastings? They are not disposable either. Thankfully (for the cats/kittens) I try to help with the rescue I volenteer with.
2. I am not a big fan of the Humane Society myself but you do realize they take in ALL the unwanted pets, Right? Maybe if the Animal Ark took in ALL the unwanted pets just as the Humane Society did and could do it "NO KILL" you would have something to slam them about. Your high and mighty opinion of yourself doesn't help your cause AT ALL.
I am very interested in your reply, especially about helping the strays that end up at vet clinics right in Hastings.
-
Jo 08/25/2008 9:15:00 PM
Mike Fry of Animal Ark is a nut, a liar and his staff are embezzling cheats. He gets off on attacking others, rather than focusing on running a good organization. He's like the Fred Phelps of the animal welfare industry.
By the way, Animal Ark claims to be a "no-kill" shelter yet it openly admits to having euthenized 5 animals in 2007. How does 5 dead animals still make you a "no-kill" shelter"?
-
jenny 08/25/2008 9:04:00 PM
I have adopted 2 cats from AHS. Both were sick when I adopted them and with that I received free medication along with my free first visit to the vet. (the AHS provides an extensive list of participating vets) Both of these animals had recieved their intial round of vaccinations and were microchiped and sterilized before I adopted them. They are healthy and happy in my home. Had they not been turned in to the AHS they would be dead or feral on the loose producing an exponential amount of kittens to add to the system. I love my cats and I love the AHS. Thanks.
-
Mike Fry 08/25/2008 7:55:00 PM
Scott,
Again you say that I lie. I have asked you repeatedly to explain how. Show a specific example of me providing information I know to be false. Heck, try showing that I have provided false information.
I would like to restate your argument to be clear I understand it, if you don't mind: You say that stray animals are brought to Washoe County AC. The fact that NHS rescued 3,188 animals from Washoe County AC, and, even including those transfers from animal control in the county they NHS achieved a save rate of 90+%.
It has already been explained that, even if the numbers of animals going to animal control from Reno are, per capita, much higher than other communities, based on the population size there, it is likely in the 2,500 range. However, even if the total number of animals entering animal control from Reno were more like 4,000 - 5,000, I believe the no kill monicker would still hold, because, as has already been pointed out, not every animal that enters animal control needs to be saved. Some are reunited with their owners. Some are adopted from animal control directly, some are transferred to other groups, I am sure. And, some are terminally ill or seriously dangerous and need to be euthanized.
Setting aside the fact that, based on the data you have provided, your argument seems baseless; Setting aside the fact that you keep trying to cloud the discussion by pointing out that the report does not account for the outcome of every animal at Washoe County Animal Control (which, again is not the purpose of the report); Setting aside the fact that first you complain that I have attacked the humane society and you then say you have no problem with me speaking out against them; setting aside the fact that you complain that I do not provide data to support my arguments, and then you do not provide data that supports yours (i.e, you have yet to explain why you accuse me of telling lies); setting aside the fact that it has been suggested to you that if you want to look at county wide no kill statistics, you should look to Tompkins Co, NY and you have yet to do so; setting aside the label "no kill" in Reno, for just a brief second . . .
You have to, in the very least, accept that when NHS went no kill, and implemented the programs referred to as the no kill equation that they dramatically increased life saving not only in their own shelter, but in the greater Washoe County area as well. If you do not agree with that, which, by the way, is the entire point of the report you cited, then you should follow your own advice and produce data to support your claim.
If you agree that these programs produced dramatic increases, not only at NHS, but in the greater Washoe County as well, then why would you argue so stubbornly in support of the status quo here, where the kill rate is pathetic compared to there?
What motivation do you have to support a nearly 50% kill rate for dogs and cats at our local humane society?
-
Scott 08/25/2008 9:03:00 AM
Mike,
The criticisms I have against you aren't that you disagree with the AHS and are taking a stand. That's fine - this country is founded on people taking a stand for what they believe. My criticism of you is your approach.
My consistent message through ALL of these comments is that you make baseless accusations (AHS killing dogs that bark too much, dead dogs in puppy food, etc) and don't have the facts available to prove what you propose works in other communities (the missing 40% I refer to).
If you want to speak out against AHS - do so! But don't lie to make your point. Say your beliefs, AHS can say theirs and we in the community gets to decide who we give our money to.
-
Scott 08/25/2008 8:53:00 AM
Mary,
If you go back to my post I provided the link for the new innovative program I was referring to, Mission Meow.
Mike,
You're trying to distance Reno's numbers from the county's but that's not an accurate picture. All strays in the city of Reno, by law, must be picked up by the county's animal control (link to prove that was provided in an earlier comment of mine). There is no way you can make the assumption that the animals getting transfered from NHS are the same ones that were picked up as strays in Reno. Yes NHS tranfered county animals to their shelter and adopted them out, but which ones? The healthiest and most adoptable? We just don't know. Again until more information is known you can't make assumptions and claim 90% success.
Those are the facts - everyone can make their own assumptions from there. You assume 90% save - that's fine but that is an assumption, not a fact. There is a possibility that the worst of the animals got transfered elsewhere to be somebody else's problem.
-
Mike Fry 08/25/2008 8:04:00 AM
Scott, You keep referring to 40% of animals �unaccounted for� �in the community�. But �the community� you are talking about is Washoe County. I have always been talking about the CITY of RENO. I have had to point that out how many times?
The numbers of animals from the City are more than accounted for in the spreadsheet you pointed us to. I already, in very clear terms, explained that in my last post (the points from which you managed to avoid bringing up) why that is true.
You seem to be grasping at a straw to support a losing argument. And, the straw you are reaching for is a weak, flimsy little twisted straw.
When making the points I made in my last post I was overly conservative. Because, as has already been explained in this discussion, not every animal that enters an animal control center can be rescued (or even should be). There are terminally ill animals, and those too dangerous to rescue. Additionally, there are lost pets that are reunited with their families.
In other words, the fact that Washoe County animal control transferred 3,188 animals to NHS (which are accounted for in the spreadsheet) clearly and unequivocally demonstrates the no kill status of the City of Reno.
I will add, as well, that it is not the responsibility of NHS to account for the outcome of every animal that goes through Washoe County animal control.
Since you have been the one demanding that people put forward data, and you want every animal in Washoe county accounted for, why don�t you go put that data together?
I am not sure what you would think to prove by doing that. The data for NHS that has been presented is already very clear.
Additionally, regarding your comments about �working together.� That sounds nice and is all well and good. But, again, not exactly correct. My proof? Check what brought all of the communities we have been discussing to no kill: It is really very interesting.
There are common factors. All, with the possible exception of Richmond, VA, followed the No Kill Equation, promoted by the No Kill Advocacy Center. I would argue that Richmond did, too. They just took longer and came to it more on their own.
The other common factor was a radical change in leadership at the lead shelter in the area.
Reno: New director hired, brought in new thinking and the no kill equation
Tompkins County: New director hired, brought in new thinking and the no kill equation
Charlottesville, VA: New director hired, brought in new thinking and the no kill equation
Richmond, VA: Director very open to new ideas and brought in new thinking
To that list, we can add one more. Today, on Animal Wise Radio, Nathan Winograd announced that Valparaiso Indiana has been no kill since May of this year.
How did they get there? 20 year veteran director ousted and a new one brought in, bringing in new thinking and the no kill equation.
In every community but one there was a radical change in leadership. And I would argue that in the case of Richmond, they had a leader in place already very open and receptive to generating change. They did not accept the statue quo.
Animal Humane Society�s Mission Meow is a WONDERFUL program. It is urgently needed. It is one small piece of one of 10 programs outlined in the no kill equation.
The key measure of whether or not a shelter is improving is it�s live release rate. In the decades I have watched the statistics in the Twin Cities metro, the numbers have not improved much. And, the only organization with sufficient resources to fully change the status quo in MN is AHS. And, fundamentally, they just refuse to get on board with the changes needed. In that case, I believe that not calling them out on that fact would be tantamount to enabling them.
Their donors and supporters, even if they are unaware of the volume of killing AHS does are, in effect, funding that killing, and helping to perpetuate the status quo. If THEY demand change, we could see no kill in Minnesota very quickly.
So, this article, and this discussion are critically important.
-
MS 08/25/2008 7:47:00 AM
To Scott,
I agree, but to use some of your own words and approach . . .
I'll be sure to check out that site you listed and I hope more unbiased information will be available there than what has been displayed in your blogs and in a lot of these comments.
If I may be so bold though, I am interested in hearing you explain how you can make the claims that AHS is creating new innovative programs and attempting to lower their rate of euthanasia. I have seen the inside operations and worked there, so could you please explain what evidence you have for making each one of those claims?
If you have been taking the high ground, as you stated, you should be able to provide verifiable evidence for making such bold and "honest" statements.
-
mary salter 08/25/2008 7:42:00 AM
To Scott,
I agree, but to use some of your own words and approach . . .
I'll be sure to check out that site you listed and I hope more unbiased information will be available there than what has been displayed in your blogs and in a lot of these comments.
If I may be so bold though, I am interested in hearing you explain how you can make the claims that AHS is creating new innovative programs and attempting to lower their rate of euthanasia. I have seen the inside operations and worked there, so could you please explain what evidence you have for making each one of those claims?
If you have been taking the high ground, as you stated, you should be able to provide verifiable evidence for making such bold and "honest" statements.
-
mary salter 08/25/2008 7:32:00 AM
To Scott,
I agree, but to use some of your own words and approach . . .
I'll be sure to check out that site you listed and I hope more unbiased information will be available there than what has been displayed in your blogs and in a lot of these comments.
If I may be so bold though, I am interested in hearing you explain how you can make the claims that AHS is creating new innovative programs and attempting to lower their rate of euthanasia. I have seen the inside operations and worked there, so could you please explain what evidence you have for making each one of those claims?
If you have been taking the high ground, as you stated, you should be able to provide verifiable evidence for making such bold and "honest" statements. Fair is Fair.
-
mary salter 08/25/2008 6:49:00 AM
I'll be sure to check out that site you listed and I hope more unbiased information will be available there than what has been displayed in your blogs and in a lot of these comments.
If I may be so bold though, I am interested in hearing you explain how you can make the claims that AHS is creating new innovative programs and attempting to lower their rate of euthanasia. I have seen the inside operations and worked there, so could you please explain what evidence you have for making each one of those claims?
If you have been taking the high ground, as you stated, you should be able to provide verifiable evidence for making such bold and "honest" statements.
-
Scott 08/25/2008 5:59:00 AM
Mike I'm not discrediting the work of NHS - they do a lot of good work and I even said so. I agree it is impressive the number of animals that they took in during 2007. I just don't see evidence proving the 90% save rates you claim for the community - their shelter yes, the community no. 90% very well may be the case but let's see the numbers to prove it. Again until you can say where all the animals went (all 40% unaccounted for) you can't claim 90% save rate for the community. This isn't a matter of an agenda, this is about being able to prove the claims you are making and showing the work.
And just because AHS doesn't adopt a no kill model doesn't mean they don't want to reduce the number of euthanasias. Their website shows they are trying new inovative programs (http://www.animalhumanesociety.org/meow.asp). Just because they don't follow Mike's method doesn't mean they don't do things to reduce the numbers.
Animal over population is a complex issue and there is no one single easy answer. In an ideal world both sides of this could have their own opinions, agree to disagree and collaborate to better support the animals. The reality of that happening decreases when either side goes into attack mode and makes things up to prove a point.
-
Mary Salter 08/25/2008 4:20:00 AM
Wow.
We all have our own individual experiences with the Animal Humane Society/Animal Ark & I'd love to list mine here, but really, the important questions I wanted to hear the answers to were; "Why doesn't the Animal Humane Society WANT to lower their euthanasia rates?" and "What is the reason the Animal Humane Society is not willing to try new approaches when the attempts they have tried are not working?".
The greatest quote toward those questions would be the common quote about the definition of insanity . . . I hope you all know that one.
Instead, I'd like to share the quote by Johnnetta B. Cole, "The declaration that the sun always rises in the East and sets in the West is of little importance to one who challenges the existance of the sun".
-
Mike Fry 08/25/2008 1:26:00 AM
To Scott, again:
You wrote:
"Regarding Reno you can distort this any way you'd like but there are still 40% of the animals in the county / community that aren't acounted for. Washoe County Animal Control is by law the only agency that can pick up strays so they would be the ones to handle Reno's stray animal population (http://www.nevadahumanesociety.org/who_faq.htm#six). Until you can say what happens to all the animals going into the County Animal Control, you can not claim that Reno has a 90% save rate."
With all respect, I have to say that you seem to be deliberately confusing this issue, by looking for any piece of data you can use to discredit the wonderful work of the Nevada Humane Society. That is really unfortunate. But, since you like facts, here are a couple of more for you to consider:
The document use are using, the link to which you posted on this web site, shows that in 2007, 3,188 animals were transferred from animal control in Washoe County. That is a LOT of animals, relative to the community size.
To put that into perspective, the city of St. Paul, as of the 2000 census, has a population of 100,000 more people than the city of Reno, (287,151 in St. Paul, compared to about 180,000 in Reno) yet the city of St. Paul animal control typically only takes in about 2,500 strays. Even if per capita, the city of Reno has a LOT more strays than St. Paul, it is clear that NHS is taking more than those animals through transfers from animal control to NHS.
Better minds than you or I have reviewed the data posted by NHS and have reached the same conclusion that I have.
Again, you seem to not understand the numbers you are looking at, or you are simply trying to find any excuse to discredit the no kill claim in Reno. Get over it. The data shows, hands down, that the programs called the no kill equation have been widely successful in that community, and that the save rate is as claimed.
The complaint about the AHS budget is not necessarily about the budget in and of itself. However, the fact that they have all of the resources they need to end the killing of healthy, savable animals in our community, and that they refuse to implement these programs, makes the situation that much more frustrating. If they were getting the kinds of results seen at NHS or Tompkins Co SPCA, or the Richmond SPCA, I don't think anyone would be complaining about their budget.
Lots of no kill organizations handle sick and aggressive animals. Different kinds of behaviors that people may call "aggression" can be corrected through training and/or socialization. Animals that cannot be rehabilitated are euthanized. Animals that are suffering and terminally ill are also euthanized. Data from a variety of communities shows that collectively the animals in these two categories amount to between 6% and 10% of the animals that enter shelters.
In other words, AHS should be able to, by implementing the programs commonly referred to as "The No Kill Equation" cut their kill rates for dogs and cats from 42% and 48% respectively to around 7%. That would amount to thousands and thousands of animals that would be saved, that they are currently killing. All of the hard data available shows that, even if you do not yet fully understand it, or are deliberately trying to present it in a confusing way.
-
Kristine 08/25/2008 1:23:00 AM
Interesting articles about the use of rendered pets in pet food. Please, no rants from agitated people who think I'm saying that AHS does this. I am not saying or implying that. Am providing these links for general info to people who might be interested in the subject.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0106-03.htm
See: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0106-04.htm
-
Scott 08/24/2008 11:11:00 PM
My point with bringing up the financials wasn't to say that AHS is good and Animal Ark is bad - I was saying that despite the attacks against AHS and large salaries they have still achieved a 4 star rating from charity navigator and are spending a great percentage on their programs. I find the attacks against their "big budget" to be unfounded.
Regarding Reno you can distort this any way you'd like but there are still 40% of the animals in the county / community that aren't acounted for. Washoe County Animal Control is by law the only agency that can pick up strays so they would be the ones to handle Reno's stray animal population (http://www.nevadahumanesociety.org/who_faq.htm#six). Until you can say what happens to all the animals going into the County Animal Control, you can not claim that Reno has a 90% save rate.
This is not to say that Nevada Humane Society doesn't do good work, this isn't to say that YOU don't do good work - you both do. The point is to be honest in your statements and if you're gonna make big claims, be able to prove it.
You try to simplify things as being as easy as 90% no kill in a year! But these animals have to go somewhere, where did the ones in Nevada go and where do you think the ones in Minnesota should go? Who do you propose handles the sick and contagious animals? Who do you propose handles the aggresive ones? With a waiting list at your facility can you take these in? This takes a tremendous amount of resources and is a potential risk to the healthy animal community.
As for Tootsie, there is a lack of verifiable facts on either side of the issue - it's a case of he said, she said - I'm not taking a side. But again, Mike would have a stronger case if he hasn't lost credibility in my mind by making some of the claims he has.
As for dogs in pet food - anyone can write a book or have a blog. Show me some science to back up the claims - science that will discredit the FDA and then we'll talk...
-
Mark 08/24/2008 10:01:00 PM
To Scott from Minneapolis: In one of your recent comments you state in reference to AHS "You reference their large salaries but if you look at Charity Navigator they have a 4 star rating showing that 76.6% of their money goes to program expenses, 12.2% to admin and 11.0% to fundraising."
If you go the Minnesota Charities Review Council web site (http://www.smartgivers.org/home.html), you will find that Animal Ark's "3-Year Average Charity Expenses" are listed as: 85.2% Programs and 14.7% Other = (11.1% management + 3.6% fundraising ). So in terms of actual dollars going to the animals via program costs, Animal Ark spends 85.2% on programs vs. 76.6% for AHS.
Note that Charity Navigator does not rate all charities. The site selects which ones they evaluate and states "there are many we have yet to rate." This is true of most charity evaluation web sites, including the Minnesota Charities Review Council site. So just because you do a search and don't find a charity, that doesn't mean the charity is not reporting. Many smaller non-profit organizations get frequent calls from potential donors saying - you're not listed in so and so charity database - what's wrong with you - and then the organization has to try to explain that that is not a negative - that the organization just hasn't been reviewed by the particular site. However, note that all charities are required by law to submit information to the Minnesota Attorney General's office and this information can be found on the attorney general's web site (although this site isn't perfect either; there are Minnesota non-profits that aren't listed).
-
Marlene Foote 08/24/2008 8:39:00 PM
This is for Scott. Obviously AHS is not handling 36,000 animals at once. They should have isolation space in proportion to the number of animals coming in each day.
The debate on euthanasia fluid in pet foods is so off the topic of the newspaper article that I hesitate to keep it going. However, somewhere in my files, I have a hard copy of that report that was sent to me at least 5 years ago. If you will send me your name and address, I will attempt to find it and mail you a copy.
I also have a copy of the book "Foods That Pets Die For" This was written by a woman who had 2 dogs that became ill and both eventually died from pet food that was made in the United States. She never gives the brand name. When she complained to the pet food company that that the food caused the death of her dogs, they asked her to send them all of the dog food to test.
However she kept some of it and had it tested on her own. The conclusion was that dogs and cats were used in that food. Again this book was around about 5 or 6 years ago but I have a copy in my office. I would be happy to loan it to you.
-
Lynda Hansen 08/24/2008 8:34:00 PM
Hello Scott
I have a comment on your post #110 on ringworm.
Yes, it can be a nuisance.
But, my point and question is, why didn't the Woodbury Humane Society test Tootsie?
Janelle, as quoted in the article, they will test and treat if it is minor. NO test was done.
The workers there said she had a patch of missing hair on her nose which led them to believe it COULD be ringworm.
Put into perspective, this dog was malnurished due to being a stray. Hair will fall out due to that.
In reality and truth, this dog had NO patch of hair missing.
I found her, I visited her while she was at the Humane Society. I was there with ARK when we got her out.
I really believe Woodbury HS was reaching for reasons to put this dog down.
-
Mike Fry 08/24/2008 8:19:00 PM
To Scott:
You wrote:
"Mike by that logic if every organizaton in the city of Minneapolis was no kill and achieved 90% "save rates" but AHS continued their shelter in Golden Valley as it currently is you could claim that Minneapolis was now no kill and was a beaming example of 90% save rates. Would that be an accurate description of the community? Who cares if Hennepin County is no kill, right? The city of Minneapolis is and that allows you to ignore the larger problem which now lies in the hands of AHS in Golden Valley to take care of."
You seem to still not understand what is happening in Reno. If things in MN were to be like they are in Reno, it would be more like of the major shelter in Minneapolis went no kill, and the surrounding cities in Hennepin County did not. Also, if the City of St. Paul was not there. Or, it would be like the City of Minneapolis went no kill, and, at the same time, dramatically reduced the kill rate at the humane society, even if the Humane Society did not yet embrace the no kill model.
The fact that Washoe County has yet to adopt the no kill model does not take anything away from the accomplishment of the Nevada Humane Society. And, in fact, by going no kill, NHS has made a huge, positive impact reaching beyond their city and out into the county. The argument you make suggests you still either do not understand what a wonderful thing is happening in Nevada, or you will do whatever it takes to justify your position.
I have never said that Parvo is "minor". I have said that Animal Ark treats dogs with Parvo. Doing so is very difficult, expensive and time-consuming. Because of the potential consequences with this illness, I do not recommend that other shelters attempt to treat Parvo unless they are very rigid in their intake, isolation and quarantine practices. It is a very serious disease, often fatal, and in an entirely different category than ringworm.
Much larger facilities than AHS isolate and treat for ringworm. So, give me a break, they could too. And, if they are not going to treat it, they should stop saying that they only kill animals with "serious" medical conditions. They should say, instead, "due to the volume of animals coming in, we do not treat otherwise treatable medical conditions." That would be honest. If, as you say, the volume of animals coming in is why they are not treating things like ringworm or mange, they have an obligation to say so.
The finances for all MN charities is available at the MN AG web site at:
http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Charities/CharitySearch.asp
-
Scott 08/24/2008 7:51:00 PM
Mike by that logic if every organizaton in the city of Minneapolis was no kill and achieved 90% "save rates" but AHS continued their shelter in Golden Valley as it currently is you could claim that Minneapolis was now no kill and was a beaming example of 90% save rates. Would that be an accurate description of the community? Who cares if Hennepin County is no kill, right? The city of Minneapolis is and that allows you to ignore the larger problem which now lies in the hands of AHS in Golden Valley to take care of.
Again you try to mislead to make your point. I never claimed I was an expert, I'm just finding enough out there to disprove you comments. Given that this is your line of work you should easily be able to provide information backing your claims rather than me having to find stuff that discredits it.
You say pets are in our dog food, try to discredit the FDA by citing "scientists" but never provide the proof.
You claim AHS kills dogs that bark too much but have not proven that and anyone who visits the shelter will see otherwise.
And ringworm, parvo, and a host of other things you're gonna call "minor" can be treated at a small scale shelter. When you're dealing with 36,000 animals the answer isn't as simple as isolating the ill ones. That is incredibly expensive and takes resources. Easy to do when you are not open admission and can choose how many sick animals you can rehabilite, when you have a larger population hard choices must be made to protect the rest of community.
And yes they have a big budget, but as was pointed out they care for more animals per dollar with that money. You reference their large salaries but if you look at Charity Navigator they have a 4 star rating showing that 76.6% of their money goes to program expenses, 12.2% to admin and 11.0% to fundraising. Animal Ark isn't listed on Charity Navigator so we can't see your numbers for comparison.
For the talk of their big budget and all the things they should be doing with it, it reminds me back to when I was a kid and I heard my uncle won a thousand dollars in a church raffle. My mind exploded - wow! $1,000 - if I had that kind of money I'd build a mansion and get a ton of cars and big screen tvs, etc, etc. Seemed rational at the time, now not so much..... So Mike you have all these dreams of what you could do if only you had AHS' money, but I think if you were in their shoes you'd be confronted with a lot of problems and their "huge" budget wouldn't go nearly so far to accomplish all that you think it could.
-
Mike Fry 08/24/2008 6:59:00 PM
To Scott:
With all due respect, while I respect your research into the subjects you are discussing, a couple of days on the Internet are not exactly the same as a couple of decades working in Animal Ark. And, frankly, given that it has already been pointed out, in very clear terms that the no kill community being discussed in Nevada was "Reno" not "Washoe County". Why would "Reno" need to account for every animal in Washoe County in order to convince you that no kill works in Reno? They did account for every animal in Reno, and, more strongly, demonstrated, by accounting for the total deaths in Washoe County, that they had a very positive impact beyond Reno when NHS went no kill?
The spreadsheet you found is one of the strongest pieces of evidence supporting "no kill" you could have dug up. Maybe you still don't understand that Reno and Washoe County are not the same thing?
As for the discussion of ringworm: You are completely right. If NOT PROPERLY MANAGED, ringworm can be a problem at a shelter. Managing it is not that hard. You just need isolation wards for animals with ringworm. Otherwise, as many shelters do, you need to send the infected animals into foster homes willing to handle ringworm. At Animal Ark, like at many other facilities, we have both of these options available.
The numbers of dog deaths at AHS due to "temperament" are the only evidence anyone would need to know that AHS is interpreting Sternberg's test (which is, at best, in and of itself considered controversial) in a very rigid way. (Note: that Sternberg's test is controversial should be clear, based on the comments you made in your post)
From what I can tell from your statements and your research, you should have all of the evidence in front of you right now to absolutely prove that:
AHS could chose to isolate and treat animals with ringworm. They have plenty of resources with which to do that.
AHS does not have to rigidly follow what is regarded as a "controversial" temperament test, and use it as an excuse to kill dogs. They have plenty of resources, including money and space in their shelter, that they do not have to do this.
With fewer resources, other communities are saving 90+% of the animals they take in.
Animal Humane Society could accomplish these same results, and simply choses not to, because they have turned their backs on the programs that generate them. If that is what you want to support in an animal welfare organization, that is your business.
You accuse me of telling flat out lies. But YOU never cite examples, or prove your case. I will give you a clear example of how you could do that, if it were true:
As has been pointed out previously, AHS currently has an article linked to the front page of their web site. It is titled, "No Kill Shelters What it Really Means". In that article, Dixon writes, "What "no-kill" really means is selective admission - meaning services are not provided to all of the people and animals in the community who need and ask a selective admission organization for help."
This statement cannot only be proven to be false, it can be proven that Dixon knows it to be false. The no kill communities referenced, and especially Tompkins County and Charlottesville and others have shelters that are both no kill AND open admission. Dixon knows this to be true. She even acknowledges attending Nathan Winograd's presentation when he was in the Twin Cities, at which he discussed these places in detail. Additionally, one could argue that, as the head of the largest animal welfare organization in MN, it is her job to know about these very well-publicized successes. She knows that people wanting AHS to move to no kill are not asking them to limit services to any animal, yet she continues to make these kinds of false statements.
That she knows one thing and says another is, by my definition, a lie.
By saying that I lie, without giving specific examples of when or how, to me suggest that you have fallen into the exact behavior you accuse me of, that being not citing references, muddying the discussion, etc.
I stand by everything I have posted here, especially the strong statement that AHS could and should be saving a much higher percentage of the animals they take in. Ironically, the references you cite, only make my case for that statement stronger.
