I realize that there are some broken links in this piece, and I will fix them after tonight. have fixed them.

One of the kittens from that first foster litter.

The Tompkins County SPCA is located at 1640 Hanshaw Road in Ithaca, NY, but well outside of town. Many people know it from having read Redemption: the Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America. In Redemption, Nathan Winograd recounts the history of American animal sheltering and describes how, under his leadership, Tompkins County, NY became the first truly No Kill community in the entire United States. The inspiring story of its overnight transformation from overkill to No Kill has moved many to replicate its success. It has also infuriated others who have a vested interest in the status quo and its intrinsic failures, and they have alternately ignored and denied the accomplishment of ‘the little shelter that could’, and of the first community in the country to get sick and tired of death and to stop the killing.

I’ve read Redemption too, but it’s a little bit different for me. To me, the Tompkins County SPCA is more than a story in a book that I just happened to pick up off the shelf—I was there.

My perspective on No Kill is one of somebody who can look back on a story that has already played out, but who remembers that the struggle looked quite different when we were facing directly into it—back then the future of the TCSPCA was most uncertain and the struggle had no clear end in sight. There were turning points along the way—dangerous times when the wrong decision could have been made. There were many needless animal deaths and much heartache.

It was a shelter like so many others.

Prehistory

I had first volunteered at the TCSPCA in the early nineties, while I was in college. At that time, I never saw another volunteer. Apparently, I was the only one, and I was left to my own devices—ignored, basically. I came in every week and walked dogs or socialized the cats (who had to stay in their cages at all times) or did basic care. I’d worked in a veterinarian’s office and had learned how to give vaccines, check for and treat ear mites, and so forth. I bathed animals who were dirty and trimmed away mats on those with unkempt coats. At that time there were ample supplies of gallon bottles of shampoo and tubes of sticky beige ear miticide. The quantities of these things never seemed to vary between the times that I was there, as if I were the only one using them. The ear mite treatment would always leave the cats looking somewhat annoyed, with the sticky beige paste smeared on the fur around their ears. I look back and wonder if I hurt or helped what I now know was their slim chances of being adopted. I was often the only one working with the animals, as the staff congregated around the front desk socializing. Few potential adopters came through the shelter. I remember seeing the number of empty cages when it wasn’t “kitten season” and thinking to myself, “what if there was some way to shift animals around, so that available cage-days could be used to alleviate crowding?” I remember wondering why “wild” cats were even brought to the shelter. They appeared to be just as capable as any raccoon of taking care of themselves. At the shelter, they had no chance.

It was a lonely place. My presence was barely acknowledged and I eventually stopped going.

2000

Several years later, in the spring of 2000, I decided to go back and the place was quite different. Volunteers were socializing cats and walking dogs, and there were several adopters looking at animals. The staff still largely congregated around the front desk, but the presence of the volunteers made the place different. There was a frantic edge to it, though, a certain desperate scurrying around—cleaning here, feeding there. The tension was pervasive and palpable.

The shelter now had an application for volunteers and I filled one out. No longer would I be allowed to vaccinate animals or administer first aid—certain things were not considered the purview of volunteers. There was some interesting talk, though—the shelter was “going no-kill”, but “wasn’t there yet”. There was something called ‘fostering’—volunteers could take animals, such as orphaned kittens, into their homes on a temporary basis until they were ready for adoption, and this would also take some pressure off of the shelter—its boundaries would be more elastic. There would be less need to kill for space. There was also a nationwide shortage of euthanasia solution, and leaders of national humane organizations were up in arms about this ‘crisis’ and the suffering it would cause. Shelters would be forced to release animals back onto the streets! They would kill in inhumane ways! They pushed for production to resume. What to do with all of those animals if you can’t kill them? Shelters would be helpless without their ‘blue juice’.

At the time, I had a very elderly cat with cancer, and I didn’t want to stress him by taking in kittens, but I decided that once he passed away, I’d honor his memory by fostering litters of kittens.

I volunteered in the cat room, socializing cats, cleaning litter boxes, and talking to people interested in adopting cats, and became only slightly acquainted with a few of the other regular volunteers. The building was small and poorly designed for housing animals. Dog walkers had to walk the dogs through the cat room to get outside, which meant that the cats were repeatedly upset throughout the day. The dog kennel area was intolerably noisy—an echo chamber for constant barking—I couldn’t stand it and it couldn’t have been any better for the dogs who had no choice and very sensitive hearing. I considered myself more of a dog person than a cat person but worked with the cats because the din in the kennel was more than I could take. In a room adjacent to the front desk was an intake area where animals were kept prior to being vaccinated or dewormed. A ‘hallway’ area was used to house cats and sometimes small dogs not on public view—ferals and ones who were on their initial hold period. At the end of the hallway was ‘iso’—the isolation room where sick animals were kept. They were supposed to be receiving nursing care. Volunteers weren’t supposed to go in there. Adjacent to the hallway was the garage, a rather large space not used to house animals, but which contained a fair amount of junk—broken cat carriers, bags of moldy food—items which should have been walked out front to the dumpster. This was where staff liked to take cigarette breaks while volunteers did the work they were being paid to do.

In late April, my beloved old cat Doikie passed away from his cancer. In early May, sick and tired of death, I adopted a skinny, deaf cat with some skin issues. She had come in as a stray and was pregnant, so would have to be ‘pregnant spayed’, her kittens aborted, before I could take her home. I also filled out an application to foster kittens. The foster care application stated that animals had to be returned to the shelter for adoption—volunteers couldn’t just adopt them out. I agreed to that, as it was a precondition to fostering at all, and I didn’t know any better. It specifically asked if the applicant was willing to take their foster animals back if they were in danger of ‘euthanasia’, and if not, then why. I answered that I would absolutely take them back from the shelter if space was needed, no questions asked, in a heartbeat and at the drop of a hat.

After her surgery, I took my new cat home. I named her Lotus, hoping that something beautiful would grow out of the mess that she was, and it did. After a nasty bout of upper respiratory infection, she began to gain weight. The unsightly skin problems turned out to be due to a flea allergy and her poor nutritional state, and those soon cleared up. She was a very loving cat with a purr that could be heard in the next room with the door closed.

One of that first litter, fast asleep.

My first litter

I waited and waited to be assigned my first litter of foster kittens. I knew that it was ‘kitten season’. What was taking so long? I’d see empty cages every week at the shelter though. It’s not like it was overflowing or anything. Maybe this “no-kill” thing was working. I really didn’t know much about it. Finally, in mid-June I got a call that the shelter had a litter of orphaned kittens. Would I take them? Of course. I went to the shelter to pick them up. There were five kittens; all charcoal gray—four short-haired, one medium-haired. They were very healthy and about 4 weeks old, old enough to eat cat food and not require bottle-feeding, but too young to be adopted or in the shelter environment.

I took them home and set them up in a spare room. Within a couple of days, they were able to climb out of the large box I had corralled them in. They were very mobile. They played nonstop. Lotus, now fully recovered physically, showed an immediate interest in the kittens. She strode in to the room, gave me a look that told me that I was relieved of all duties except cleaning the litter box and keeping the food and water bowls full, and took over where their mother had left off, grooming them, instructing them in important cat things and generally supervising them. She was really in her element raising those kittens and lovingly tended them for the next month.

I took pictures of the kittens and put up a poster advertising them at each of my two jobs, making it clear that the adoption had to go through the shelter. I didn’t get any takers, but there were all of these empty cages at the shelter. After a month, they were old enough for their first vaccinations and to go back to the shelter for adoption. I called ahead of time to make sure that there was room. I wouldn’t want ‘my’ kittens taking up space needed by another animal. I was assured that things were fine, so I brought them in.

They got their shots and got set up in their cages. I reiterated that I would take them back if space was needed, and wrote that I would take them back, along with my contact information, on each of their forms. I bid my kittens farewell and hoped that they would be adopted into good homes quickly. I didn’t know what else to do.

One of that first litter relaxing on the bed.

Death and the letter

The next weekend, a couple of them were gone—adopted. I checked the logbook and confirmed that. I gave ‘my’ remaining kittens some extra attention. They were looking good and staying healthy. The following weekend, all five were gone. Once again, I checked the logbook. Two had been killed. I never even received a phone call or an email asking that I take them back. They had been perfectly healthy and loved and wanted, and they were killed. No call. Nothing. I felt sick. The room was spinning. I was in tears. I’ll never forget the looks on the faces of the other volunteers. The staff didn’t budge. One other volunteer was concerned and tried to stop me from leaving, but I fled the building and somehow managed to bike the several miles home, even though I could barely see for crying. Before I left, he told me of a couple of other people who had recently had a similar experience. I passed some friends and didn’t stop to say ‘hello’.

I’m ashamed to say that my kittens died without names. I’d deliberately resisted naming them, because I knew I’d be giving them up, and I thought it would be easier. I now consider that a mistake. They should be known by names, not numbers.

Looking back on it, I have to think that the euthanasia solution ‘crisis’ of 2000 (and I subscribe to the definition of ‘crisis’ as being danger and opportunity) may have been the proverbial ‘shot in the arm’ for TCSPCA’s foster program and the reason why I even got my first litter of foster kittens. Evidently the ‘crisis’ had been resolved and it was back to business as usual. †

At home, I tried to comprehend what had happened. The killing of my kittens was not an isolated incident. There is no such thing as an isolated incident. Not when matters of life and death are involved. If the shelter treated its own volunteers this way, if it talked about “going no-kill” at the same time as it killed needlessly, then it was headed for dry rot. It had no core already. If this were to continue, then the animals of Tompkins County would truly have nothing. At the time, the slogan of the shelter was “We are a shelter of hope.” What hope was there? They killed healthy kittens with a place to go rather than make the simple phone call which would have gotten them out of there alive. It made me feel ill. “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here,” would have been more accurate. When I tried explaining to my family what had happened, I had to relate the story repeatedly before it sunk in. They couldn’t understand. It defied normal logic. An animal shelter killing kittens that a volunteer had cared for at home for a month rather than make a phone call? What?

I did not wish to become embroiled in an unproductive discussion with the powers-that-be behind closed doors.

No, this required an audience.

I crawled into bed with a note pad and pen and wrote a letter to the editor of the Ithaca Journal. I wrote it in one draft and barely edited it. I stayed late after work the next day and typed the letter, proofread it, and then, like tossing a penny into a wishing well, clicked ‘send’.

No turning back now.

The editor acknowledged receiving the letter but would say no more. Those in authority at the shelter remained tellingly silent. I watched the paper every day, and over a week later, on Tuesday August 8, 2000, the letter ran as an op-ed piece alongside a weak and insulting response from the then-shelter director in which he failed to address a single point I’d made.

It was in print. My grief was now very public. Now what?

That first litter–all five in their cage at the shelter (one is partially hidden behind the others.)

They were there all along

My call to remedy the situation was answered, not by the shelter, but by the community. People I knew expressed amazement at the situation, and support for me. When I arrived home from work, the red light on my answering machine was blinking furiously. It was full to capacity with messages from people expressing support for the position I’d expressed in the letter. Some were from people who I didn’t even know, but who’d been moved to look me up. Some told of their own experiences with the shelter.

Notably absent were any messages from the shelter’s executive director or anyone on the Board of Directors.

I’d gone to the shelter for my usual shift the weekend after they killed my kittens, knowing that they probably assumed and preferred that I just go away. No apology or comment from anyone on the shelter payroll, but then they didn’t throw me out either.

I went to the cat room and was greeted by a sight that would change everything. I consider it the first in a series of miracles I was privileged to witness. Another volunteer, one who had been present when I found out that my kittens had been killed, and who had wild hair like Einstein, stepped out from behind a bank of cat cages and told me in a low voice that there was going to be a meeting at the home of a couple of volunteers, invitation only, and I was invited.

He restored my hope.

The meeting was held soon after the letter was published. Over a dozen people were there. Our hosts had several dogs and cats who meandered through the meeting. We introduced ourselves and shared our experiences. Everyone had a piece of the puzzle. When put together, the picture of the shelter was worse than anyone alone had previously realized. Sick animals were being denied the medication prescribed for them (by a vet who was also a board member, no less). Animals were being physically abused or not fed and watered. Complaints about abusive employees were ignored. Staff sat around socializing even as the shelter was filthy. Volunteers were treated with disdain, as if our only redeeming quality was that we did work the staff was paid to do, allowing them more time for cigarette breaks in the garage. Animals were killed despite available space. The list of specific incidents went on and on. We also learned that collectively, we had a lot of strengths and skills. We resolved to continue holding regular meetings and used email to keep in near-constant contact between meetings.

The shelter director had announced a meeting with the volunteers to take place at the shelter at the end of the week and we packed that stuffy little room. It was actually one of the very few times I’d seen him—mostly he stayed holed up in his office. He managed to make it very clear that gratuitous killing would not stop on his watch and that he was completely out of touch with reality. He was far too wishy-washy to discipline employees, much less fire them, no matter how much they needed firing. Who would he hire in their place? Who would want to work there? He harbored and protected animal killers and abusers. I would not be getting an apology from the person who killed my kittens, because that would mean revealing her identity.*

The shelter had a subsidized spay-neuter program called the Helen Milks Francis Fund, which had been established by and named for a citizen concerned about the unavailability of such services to those of low income. He told all present, almost boastfully, that it was “the best-kept secret in Tompkins County”. Unbelievable. Wasn’t it his job to make sure that it was not a secret?

One volunteer gritted his teeth when angry, a sound we would hear regularly over the next several months. That sound could be heard throughout the entire room.

The shelter director invited us to write suggestions and put them in his suggestion box.

Yeah, right.

Eventually the meeting was over. People got up and began to leave. Another volunteer, a retired school teacher, led me back to the cat room to show me an emotionally traumatized white cat. She’d been there when I adopted Lotus and figured I must have a thing about white cats. This one was literally petrified. I picked him up and he remained statue-like, curled in a ball in exactly the position he’d been in while in his cage. I turned him over and he made no attempt to right himself or adjust in any way. After a couple of minutes of holding him, I thought I noticed a slight positive change. It was after hours and there was no one to handle paperwork, and anyway, I was fried, so I left him. I couldn’t stop thinking about him, though.

A couple of days later, I decided I had to adopt him. I went to the shelter and could not find him in the cat room. He wasn’t in the holding area or the hallway either. I started getting panicked. I went to ‘iso’, and found him there. He’d gotten an upper respiratory infection. I was so relieved to find him still alive. I couldn’t go through a repeat of my experience with the kittens.

Not all of the employees were worthless. The person working in ‘iso’ was glad to see this cat, now named Blizzard, get out, and she gave me a few tablets of the antibiotic he was on to tide him over until I could get him a vet appointment. The volunteer who’d initially introduced me to Blizzard told me how a mentally disabled man had spent quite a bit of time holding and petting him. Apparently a local group home took residents on outings to pet animals at the shelter. (While I could wholeheartedly support a program like that in a place that was saving lives, I questioned the wisdom of bringing people who may be more emotionally vulnerable than most into a place where an animal they care for is likely to be dead by their next visit. It made me furious. At least that man could be truthfully told that this one got out alive.)

And, wonder of wonders, another employee, the one most sympathetic to volunteers, pulled me aside and, somewhat secretively, said she was sorry about the shelter killing my kittens, and could I possibly take in another litter because she had three tiny orphans that someone had just brought in.

Editorial in the Ithaca Journal about the shelter’s killing of my foster kittens. August 8, 2000.

Volunteers are not doormats, they are lightning rods. Forget that at your own peril.

So, one week after the letter ran, I had come to adopt one traumatized cat, and ended up with one traumatized cat with a cold and three foster kittens. Whether the powers that be liked it or not, the foster program was continuing.

Never again would any foster cat of mine go back to the shelter. I’d learned my lesson. They got names, and they went to offsite adoptions.

Over the next few months, the ‘core group’ of volunteers, as we called ourselves, exercised our constitutional right to peaceful assembly by holding meetings in which we planned and strategized how to save more animals from the shelter. We would have liked nothing better than to be able to simply bottle-feed kittens and train dogs and hold offsite adoption events, but the shelter staff kept inventing new roadblocks for us to fight, recycling old roadblocks we thought we’d already defeated, and continuing to kill animals that had been spoken for. The faces of some of those animals are with me to this day.

The ‘core group’ self-assembled in an almost magical way. It had no real hierarchy. No one person had authority over anyone else, it was a much more of a cooperative, organic, ‘flat’ type of organization. We had various skills, whether it was keeping paperwork organized, making sure meetings ran efficiently, with a predetermined agenda, and goals to accomplish by the next meeting, coming up with creative ideas, negotiating with staff, communicating with the board, setting up adoption events, rehabilitating animals with behavior problems or illnesses, or coordinating a foster program. Different people took the lead in different areas. We were focused on one thing only—getting animals out of the shelter alive, and that, I suppose, is why things went as smoothly as they did—that and only inviting carefully selected people into the group.

The shelter wanted to discontinue the foster program, claiming that we might one day have a ‘run on the bank’ and all decide to bring our animals back to the shelter at once. We assured them that would never happen and outlined our plan for shifting animals around in the foster network if need be. They replied “but what if all the foster homes bring their animals back to the shelter at once?” I’m not kidding. It was like talking to the wall. A local business owner who sold pet and garden supplies wanted to feature a couple of cats for adoption in his store. The shelter said ‘no’. The cats might be neglected. Never mind that cats at the shelter were neglected all the time. We offered to have volunteers check on the cats a few times a week—we shopped there anyway. They still said ‘no’. The display cage donated to house cats at the store remained in its unopened box in storage at the shelter.

Complaints about animal-abusing staff were ignored. Complaints about staff tossing antibiotics in the trash and then marking down that they’d administered them to the sick animal for which they were prescribed were ignored. Animals that volunteers had put their names on, with a request that they be called, continued to be killed.

Apparently the negative publicity they had gotten for killing my kittens did not matter to them.

The Ithaca Journal did a ‘Pet of the Week’ spot, sending a reporter and photographer to the shelter to feature an animal. On more than one occasion, the shelter killed the featured pet before the spot even ran, and people would come to the shelter wanting to adopt an animal that was already dead. Some staff was very casual about stating how many animals they’d killed. During business hours, they mostly sat behind the desk, socializing, no matter how dirty the shelter was. The microchip scanner sat in a drawer, rarely, if ever used. One employee stole constantly, when he showed up for work. It was not so much a shelter for animals as a sinecure for the unemployable.

It was business as usual, except that they had us.

We took animals to offsite adoption events at local shopping malls and the farmer’s market and elsewhere. We found them homes. We explained to people who insisted that the shelter was No Kill, that it was not so. We had to do that regularly. It got to be quite aggravating. We fostered as many animals as we could, but with so few people willing to volunteer at a place like that, it wasn’t nearly enough. We did keep the program going, though. Some volunteers, with the means to do so, adopted animals outright and if staff was being difficult about fostering said animals. We snuck into ‘iso’ armed with canned cat food. ‘Iso’ was technically off-limits to volunteers, but if we weren’t scofflaws, sick cats didn’t eat. A veterinarian on the Board had explained to staff that “food is medicine” to a sick animal, and they had to eat, yet they often went unfed, and we were told by staff that “canned food causes diarrhea”. We socialized cats. We walked dogs. We handled adoption paperwork. We took verbal and emotional abuse.

Staff criticized us for being emotional, in an effort to dismiss our concerns. They had no real argument against our ideas or any of the plans we proposed, only the desire to continue as they always had. But what is the human-animal bond if not emotional? Senseless killing is bound to arouse emotion. Is that wrong?

Staff also accused us of having too much power. We actually had very little immediate power. Any power we had, we used to save animals. If we had more, we would have saved more animals. If we had still more, we would have hired better staff. Still more power, and that director and most of the Board would have been canned in half a second and with a great deal of pleasure. No, what we had was responsibility. We took upon ourselves responsibility for saving the animals at the shelter. The shelter’s Board, it’s director, and it’s staff had power, but wouldn’t take responsibility. That’s a really problematic dynamic, but unfortunately, a common one in shelters. Responsibility without power is the fast track to frustration and burnout. Power without responsibility is a recipe for abject tyranny.

The situation wore on and on. Then, in November, several of us got an unexpected phone call from the Chair of the Board, an individual incapable of a statement that did not reek of politics. The shelter director had “tendered his resignation”. There was really only one way to interpret that—the Board had finally fired him. It had taken months too long, but they finally did it.

We were ecstatic.

One of that first, fateful litter.

What were they thinking?

But things were to get even worse before they got better.

The Board hired an interim shelter director who openly despised volunteers. Instead of being simply lazy and incompetent, he hated us. Among other things, he advocated keeping every other cat cage in the shelter empty, which would effectively halve capacity and increase the carnage, and he didn’t seem to know very much about animal care. He promoted to shelter manager an employee who, unfortunately, had an attitude much like his own.

We had to do something. The annual meeting was coming up and all paid members could vote. Those of us who were not yet members, paid our dues. It galled me to give money to the shelter at that time, but I did it. The annual meeting was the scene of a showdown between the volunteers and the Board. We asserted ourselves. The belligerent interim director disappeared soon after, but his unfortunate legacy remained with us.

Words are deeds

The shelter had a subscription to Animal Sheltering magazine, published by HSUS. I am a compulsive reader, completely unable to resist the printed word, so when I saw copies of it lying around the front desk area, I’d naturally pick them up. They made for some mind-bending reading.

The November-December 2000 issue was astonishing. It’s cover story was an Orwellian attempt to manipulate terms commonly used in reference to shelter animals, and included cartoons of animals objecting to the idea that they were rescued from a shelter and “explaining” various other terms. It mixed an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with failure to address the weightiest issue of all head-on. ‘Pet’ is objectionable, ‘guardian’ is preferred, but don’t call what shelters do ‘killing’. It deliberately misread the meaning of the term ‘no-kill community’ before that term was even in widespread use, setting it up as an impossibly utopian goal, and attempting to muddy the line between killing and euthanasia, a definition crucial to distinguishing No Kill shelters and the No Kill movement from places like the one where I was standing as I read this tripe. It treated the term no-kill as if it were something dirty, dishonest, related only to fund raising, or problematic, offensive, and likely to hurt someone’s feelings. The article was an attempt to turn simple terms into a sort of unintelligible slurry—able to mean anything and nothing at the same time.

It was accompanied by another article that blew my mind, a story about an animal control officer and his long career. It bemoaned how dogcatchers were hated, extolled him as a hero for animals and went on to describe how he’d ‘euthanize’ stray pets with hot car exhaust, by hosing them down and electrocuting them or by drowning them in buckets (birds, puppies and kittens). But it was all o.k., because he loved his cat, Tinsel.

Juxtaposed with the advertisements for crematoria, and the announcements for ‘hands-on’ “euthanasia” workshops, these articles left me nonplussed. I was still reeling from the killing of my kittens, even though I had to give the appearance of putting their deaths aside in order to continue.

Abusers will often kill or threaten to kill the pets of their abused, as a means of controlling them. I had enough perspective to see myself and the other volunteers as the shelter’s abused. The psychological dynamic was identical. What had I done? Shelters were fond of blaming the ‘irresponsible public’ for their killing. Was I “irresponsible” for taking in a litter of foster kittens? Why were they punishing us?

As bad as it was for us, the animals had it worse.

The January-February 2001 issue was openly hostile to the concept of animal rescue, and an article stated how the term ‘rescue’ was deeply offensive, reflecting badly on shelters, ignoring that the saving of a life is defined as ‘rescue’ by most people. Rule number one for rescuers is simple.

Must. Not. Criticize.

It seemed as if one of the main purposes of this publication was to abuse language in an almost inconceivably ham-fisted manner. How could this go on? Could most readers not see through it? Apparently not. If it offered justification and cover for their killing, anything goes, however shoddy. Deception, including self-deception is a form of armor, at least for a time. Working with rescue groups is to be undertaken only with trepidation, and only on restricted terms. Lives were at stake, but false pride was more important. It is easier to blame others than to take responsibility.

The shelter’s own newsletter was a study in absurdity: an article on writing ditties about your cat from a place that killed cats—was it a sick joke?

In the New Year, the Board announced a nationwide search for a new director. Three candidates were invited for interviews, and a few volunteers were included in the interview process. They were impressed with one of the candidates. The other two they did not like, describing them as too friendly with the staff members who constituted some of the biggest problems at the shelter. They could make recommendations, but the hiring decision belonged to the Board.

Over the next several months, things continued to go from bad to worse at the shelter. One volunteer likened the shelter to the Headless Horseman. No one was leading it. The shelter manager wanted to micromanage every move of the volunteers, even as staff were allowed to sit around and socialize or treat the public rudely or allow animals to go unfed or without water or to keep the shelter dirty. She’d let the shelter run out of kitty litter or newspaper before she’d get off of our backs.

She instituted the infamous Sue Sternberg Temperament Test for the shelter’s dogs with devastating results. She used it as an excuse to kill many good dogs, while claiming that they were ‘unadoptable’. I suppose that this game-playing was to ingratiate her with the Board—they could claim progress towards No Kill, because she had found justification for killing in a plastic hand. At the time, I thought that she was misusing the test, but I subsequently learned that her use of the test was actually quite similar to the way its creator uses it. The dog volunteers were climbing the walls. We could not stop her and the Board refused to. The shelter seemed to be doing all it could to eradicate any credibility it may have had.

An elderly gentleman came in to adopt a dog. He selected one, a pointer mix, still on his mandatory stray holding period, hence not yet available. The man returned to the shelter the next weekend, eager to take his new buddy home. He’d picked out a name for his new dog and even bought a dog bed with the name embroidered on it. The employee behind the desk informed him matter-of-factly, that the dog had already been killed. I will not ever be able to forget the look on his face.

Among the reading material left lying around the shelter was a publication from California, a newsletter from a foundation I’d never heard of before, Maddie’s Fund. I remember standing in the lobby of the TCSPCA, in front of the desk as I read it. I can picture the room, the angle of the sunlight coming through the window, and where I was standing, perfectly. It told of a day when the entire nation would be No Kill. No shelter in the entire country would kill healthy or treatable animals. The author was even crazy enough to put a date on it and it would be within my lifetime. “Wow. That wacko has obviously never been to this place. I know Californians are supposed to be nuts, but this really takes the cake,” I thought. “He’s seriously got some screws loose, and the balls to publish, and distribute, a statement like that. What a combination!” It seemed so incredibly impossible as to defy even imagining.

I hold that moment of ignorance perfectly preserved, as if in its own little snow-globe of memory, separated from all else–a silly toy that will one day be placed on a shelf to gather dust. I could not have known then that I was standing exactly where it would happen first.

Months passed. The toll of needless deaths continued to mount with no end in sight. What had come of the candidate search? When would the new director start? We heard nothing from the Board.

‘Kitten season’ was in full swing.Dogs continued to be “temperament tested” to death. The situation grew more and more desperate. I wondered if and when this new shelter director would materialize. The type of communication necessary for an organization to function well was notably absent from the shelter. Instead we had only that which tells you what you are dealing with.

Eventually, a member of the community became fed up with the mounting list of incidents attributable to the shelter manager, and she wrote a letter to the editor. It mentioned the shelter manager by name. The letter circulated among someofthevolunteersbeforeitwas submitted to the paper, andafewofussignedonto it, including me.

That got me fired.

The other volunteers who had signed on went unscathed, but, as the shelter manager told me when she called first thing on the morning of Saturday, June 9, 2001, I was a ‘repeat offender’ and she’d thought I’d “learned my lesson”. She was appalled that I’d do such a thing to her. It was all about her. She ordered me to return the shelter’s “property”–my foster cats, immediately, or she’d come to my house to get them.

There was nothing she could have said to me that would have caused me more stress. I called one of my fellow volunteers—co-host of that first meeting, and grinder of teeth. He assured me that the Underground Railroad was ready to receive my cats if need be. I hopped on my bike, pedaled out to the shelter, and adopted my foster cats outright. The volunteer behind the desk, the one who’d introduced me to Blizzard, looked perplexed, but I couldn’t explain. I needed to get the completed adoption paperwork, and I needed to get the heck out of there.

The new director started the following Monday. Soon afterward, he held a meeting of the volunteers. He called and asked that I attend, having heard what had happened. I wondered to myself what the Board was going to inflict upon us this time.What new permutation of schmuckdom did they have in store? The meeting was well-attended. He had a lot of wrongs to right. He listened to what we had to say. He asked us to hit him with our toughest questions, and he answered them.

His predecessors had dug a very deep hole from which he’d have to haul the shelter.

Having been hurt so many times by the shelter, I was skeptical. I was not going to believe it until I saw it.

The first and only genuine apology I ever got for what the shelter did to my kittens, from someone in authority, came from someone who had been on the other side of the continent—3,000 miles away—when mykittenswere taken from theircageandinjectedwithsodiumpentobarbital, from someone who likely had never heard of Tompkins County, New York at the time, and who would not have allowed something like that to happen. When I hear his critics call him ‘divisive’ and worse, I think of that. They have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

I suppose that if this particular incident had happened to someone else, I would find it funny—getting fired from volunteering at a kill shelter for being critical ofitskillingtwodaysbeforeNathanWinograd started as director and brought the killing to a grinding halt–but I got hit with a big slug of stress that day and I still can’t laugh. Maybe someday I will. The Old Guard is all about killing and abuse and power and lies, and a desperate gasp at the end of its reign is probably best appreciated if you know it for what it is at the time, or if you’ve gained a great many years’ distance on it.

One of that first litter playing in the kitchen.

A different world

The atmosphere at the shelter changed almost immediately. The amount of tension eased dramatically. When the killing stopped, even the worst of the employees eased up. The abuser of cats and tosser of antibiotic tablets relaxed and even smiled, but she thankfully did not last. She was too far gone. Her smiling would have been inconceivable just a couple of weeks earlier, but she did it and her face did not crack. If killing had never been an option at the shelter, would she have turned out differently?

We now had breathing room. The new director dropped in on an offsite at the farmer’s market and complimented us on our professionalism. That was a first. The number of volunteers grew and grew. We were asked to foster animals on a daily basis. The shelter asked us, we didn’t have to fight and plead to get animals out. The place was cleaner. The animals got fed. Off site adoption events were more frequent. The Sue Sternberg Temperament Test was no longer used. The animals featured in the ‘Pet of the Week’ spot lived to be adopted. The display cage was unpacked from storage, and finally set up at the garden and pet supply store. We were no longer treated as pests. I could finally, in good conscience, recruit others to volunteer at the shelter.

The staff from the bad old days was gradually replaced. Only a couple of them were able to make the transition. The shelter manager who’d fired me back in June remained, though she was stripped of any authority. She mostly stood around scowling at the volunteers, which was mildly amusing for a short while, but a waste of money. I’d seen a lot of positive changes, but remained skeptical. The shelter manager’s continued presence cast doubt on the shelter’s commitment to change, and was an ongoing insult to the volunteers. I later learned that when the new director was hired, the Board had ordered him not to fire her. She had their support. Knowing what I know now, I am amazed that the shelter succeeded at all. For them to support her was to reveal their total lack of respect for the shelter’s volunteers (or for their newly-hired director). We had given so much to the shelter. We were its heart and its soul. The new director persevered and built a case against her for six months. When he finally fired her, the long-time volunteers were jubilant. She was gone. Finally, she was gone.

The shelter was frequently featured in the local media. We had the use of a storefront in downtown Ithaca for the ‘Home for the Holidays’ adoption drive. Conventional “wisdom” said that shelters shouldn’t adopt out black cats around Halloween or any pets at all around Christmas. Those notions were discarded. Good riddance. The shelter sponsored spay-neuter events and courted the support of local veterinarians, and the Cornell Vet School, something it had not done before. It spayed or neutered all animals before they went home. It partnered with the North Shore Animal League, which took kittens to its facility in New York City for adoption, freeing up needed space and resources. The shelter built its capacity to save lives in various ways, even though it remained the same small, poorly designed building. The garage was renovated to house more animals rather than to store junk. It was worked to the max.

Eventually, it broke ground on land next door, and built a state-of-the-art pet adoption facility, a spacious ‘green’ building–LEED-certified, no less. After months of construction, it was finally ready and the animals were walked or carried next door. Once again, the atmosphere changed completely, and I don’t just mean the fresh air from the ventilation system. The first time I went to the new shelter, it was like a revelation. Many of the animals had been at the old building the previous week, but there are no steel cages in the Dorothy Park Pet Adoption Center, no bars of any kind. The animals are housed is small groups in more home-like settings. They were so much more at ease. Instead of seeing cats through steel bars or dogs from behind chain link, you see them through windows, as if they were waiting for you when you came home. The first glimpse anyone sees of the animals there is through the windows of their ‘condos’, and what a difference that makes. A dog or cat peers out of their condo window as you approach, and it is as if you are seeing them as you come home. Adopting? You’re halfway there.

Just a few years earlier, this would have defied imagining.

One of that first litter relaxing on the bed.

2014 ‡

When I hear someone deny that No Kill communities are possible, I think of a shelter in upstate New York, a place where one day it looked sickeningly hopeless, and the next day everything changed. It went through a crisis in the truest sense of the term—a dynamic and dangerous situation, and came to a turning point. Anything could have happened. If wrong decisions were made, the wrong leader chosen, if the volunteers had not united, if we hadn’t finally said “enough is enough” and meant it, the TCSPCA would not be what it is today. It would be what it was, and that would be tragic.

It got out of the habit of killing.

Its former incarnation was a place that killed animals and abused people. Had the volunteers not had each other to rely on, it would have chewed us up and spat us out one at a time. It was typical of what the American animal sheltering system has been allowed to become. But that place has been dead and gone for almost thirteen years, and, in its place, an example and an inspiration for others to follow.

We live in a cruel, crazy world, one in which shelter killing is a habit, and getting to not killing requires a crisis.

We live in a beautiful world, because we can make the killing stop.

I believe in miracles.

They happen every day.

---

This article was originally published here.  Subsequently it appeared as a guest post on Nathan Winograd’s blog. It is also included in the companion book to the documentary, which features interviews with a few of the Tompkins County volunteers who held the shelter accountable and never gave up.

Bella, rescued from the high-kill Carroll County Animal Shelter in Georgia.

The science of population dynamics teaches us that there are really only four factors that influence the size of a population of animals or plants. They are birth rate,death rate,immigration and emigration.

The birth rate is simply the number of animals born in that population in a given time period. The death rate is the number dying in that same time period. Immigration is the rate at which animals join the population in question from some other population. Emigration is the rate at which animals leave the population in question for some other population.

The maximum sustainable size of a given population is governed by the habitat’s carrying capacity. The carrying capacity is determined by limiting factors—resources such as food, water and shelter.

Population biologists refer to groups of interacting populations of a given species as a metapopulation, basically a ‘population of populations’. They interact by exchanging members through immigration and emigration. Each of these interacting populations within a metapopulation is called a subpopulation.

Why the science lesson in a column about animal welfare? Simple—looking at the pets in a given community as a metapopulation can help us see how to save all the healthy and treatable pets in that community. A community’s pets can be divided into three subpopulations. There are pets with homes and pets without homes. These twosubpopulations interact and exchange members. Pets with homes can join the ranks of the homeless when they are lost or abandoned. Pets without homes can get homes when they are found, rescued or adopted. This exchange process often involves an animal entering the third subpopulation of pets in a community—those in its shelters and rescue groups.

Entering this third subpopulation has traditionally proved deadly for animals because shelters have long relied on the death rate as a means of controlling the size of this subpopulation. While there has been much talk about spaying and neutering*, which curbs the birth rate, it is only fairly recently that some shelters have begun spaying and neutering all adopted pets. Many still adopt out unaltered animals, sometimes relying on contracts or monetary deposits to induce adopters to have the pet altered by their own veterinarian after adoption. This is an unwieldy system guaranteed to have some level of non-compliance, resulting in the system’s failure. The traditional model of animal sheltering has failed miserably because it simply does not address the four factors which influence the shelter pet population in a comprehensive or meaningful way.

“Wait a minute, there is a pet overpopulation problem!”, you say. “There are more pets entering shelters than there are homes for them. The number of pets exceeds the carrying capacity for pets. There simply aren’t enough homes for them all. The number of homes is the limiting factor.”

“Not so!”, says Nathan Winograd, author of Redemption: the Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America. “Not so!” says Maddie’s Fund,  the actual data indicate otherwise. There are 17 million people in this country who are looking to acquire a dog or cat this year, but haven’t yet decided from where—the ‘swing voters’ . About 8 million animals will enter shelters, and of those, about 4 million will be killed. Of those 4 million killed, about 90% are healthy or savable. Therefore, there are 17 million potential homes for fewer than 4 million animals. Homes are not a limiting factor. Pet overpopulation, far from being received wisdom, is in fact, a myth, and a deadly one. It has too long served as a smokescreen for the real reason why the death rate is used to control the shelter pet population—the habit of institutionalized uncaring in the shelters themselves.

Enter the No Kill Equation, the first and only proven method for saving all healthy and treatable animals in a community’s shelter pet population. It succeeds by comprehensively addressing the shelter pet population using the three non-lethal factors which influence any population. With the NKE, shelters are restored to the original and proper definition of the term—places of safety for animals. Euthanasia too is restored to the original and proper definition of the term, and is used only for those animals who truly are irremediably suffering or vicious. The NKE has 11 points. Let’s have a look at each one.

Trap-Neuter-Return for feral cats is an integral part of the No Kill Equation.

1. Feral cat TNR Program: Also known as ‘Trap, Neuter, Return’, TNR keeps feral cats out of the shelter pet population. Feral cats, called ‘community cats’ by some, have homes. They live outside, on their own and don’t belong in shelters. They grew up without being socialized to humans and can’t be adopted into human families. Volunteer caretakers feed and monitor feral cat colonies. They humanely trap the cats and have them spayed and neutered, then return them to their habitats and continue caring for them there. This controls the birth rate. When new cats immigrate into the community’s population, they can be TNRed as well, or adopted into homes if not really feral. The immigration rate is lower than with the traditional ‘catch and kill’ method of dealing with feral cats, however, because with TNR, the niche occupied by cats is not left vacant—cats are territorial. The ‘catch and kill’ method perpetuates a never-ending cycle of killing. It is also more costly than TNR, which relies largely on the volunteer labor of caring community members. Over time, managed colonies shrink as the cats live out their life spans.

2. High Volume, Low Cost Spay/Neuter: By making spay-neuter readily available to the pets of all members of the community, the birth rate in the overall pet population is effectively curbed, reducing the number of animals entering the shelter population (immigration). Studies, including the recent Petsmart study, indicate that a major obstacle to spay-neuter is the cost of the surgery. Low cost clinics reduce the number of animals entering shelters. Punitive laws, such as mandatory spay-neuter, or MSN, actually increase the number of pets entering shelters.

3. Rescue Groups: By working with rescue groups, a shelter reduces its population through emigration—the animals leave the shelter to go into rescue and ultimately into homes. The number of animals between homes is not limited by the four walls of the shelter building. Members of the community pitch in. Lives are saved. Remember the responsible public–that previously ignored stakeholder?

4. Foster Care: Once again, by relying on the responsible public, this time with a comprehensive foster care program in which all orphaned kittens and puppies, sick or injured animals and those in need of behavioral rehabilitation have a place to go until they are ready to be adopted, animals are saved. The four walls of the shelter, previously identified as a limiting factor, no longer are so. The shelter is more a part of the community. Volunteers work for free and create good will.

5. A Comprehensive Adoption Program: Most people who acquire pets don’t get them from shelters. Getting animals adopted into homes, having them emigrate into the population of pets with homes needs to be a central mission of any shelter. Shelters need to present a clean and inviting environment to the public and to effectively market shelter pets in a variety of different ways, including the internet and social media. Shelters should be open at times when working people and families with children can actually visit them. They should bring the pets into the community with offsite adoptions. Volunteers can help with this. It needs to be done vigorously.

George was rescued from the high-kill Carroll County Animal Shelter.

6. Pet Retention: Sometimes, a little problem-solving can prevent the immigration of pets from the homed population into the shelter population. Blaming people is counterproductive, but helping them solve the problems that lead to pets being surrendered to shelters gets results. Do they need some pet food to get through a difficult financial time? Tips on getting their cat to use the litter box? A referral for training for a rambunctious dog? Shelters need to act like they believe that pets are not disposable and to help people do the right thing wherever possible.

7. Medical and Behavioral Programs: Shelters are obligated to ensure that all animals in their care who are ready for adoption stay that way, and that those who are sick, injured, too young or in need of behavioral rehabilitation get it. A healthy shelter pet population will emigrate into the homed pet population. Failure to have these programs results in an increased and unnecessary death rate.

8. Public Relations/Community Involvement: By keeping the shelter and its programs in the public eye, there are more opportunities for shelter pets to emigrate into the homed pet population by being adopted, more opportunities to reduce the birth rate through low-cost spay-neuter, more opportunities to help people retain pets, thus reducing the immigration rate, and more volunteers recruited and donations obtained for programs that reduce limiting factors and reduce the death rate.

9. Volunteers: Shelter pets can’t live without them. They work at spay-neuter clinics, reducing the birth rate. They bottle feed orphaned puppies and kittens, and care for the sick and injured, reducing the death rate. They provide foster homes for animals, removing the space within a shelter’s four walls as a limiting factor. They take pets to offsite adoptions, increasing the emigration rate. They offer advice and assistance, preventing some animals from ending up at the shelter in the first place, reducing the immigration rate. They create good will and make the shelter a part of the community it serves. Shelters need to treat them like the powerful positive force that they are.

10. Proactive Redemptions: Many pets at shelters are lost. They have homes and should be returned to them. Traditionally the rate of lost pets being returned to their homes by shelters has been very low and many are killed, resulting in a high death rate. Being proactive prevents this unnecessary immigration or at least greatly reduces its duration, freeing up resources for animals who really don’t have homes.

11. A Compassionate Director: The director is the one with both the power and the responsibility to make it all happen, the keystone that holds the whole NKE together. Sadly such directors are not easy to come by, and many shelter directors thwart rather than promote the implementation of the NKE. The bottom line is that the shelter director must reduce the shelter pet death rate so that it includes only those animals who are irremediably sick, injured or truly vicious. That means that 90% or more of the animals entering the shelter pet population leave that population alive. The director makes the shelter into a true safety net for animals. Such a shelter has a positive image and is both an asset to its community and a point of pride. The circle of compassion is extended to those animals without homes, and they can be more efficiently moved into the homed animal population through the shelter. A growing list of communities as diverse as Tompkins County, NY, Reno, NV, Charlottesville, VA and Shelby County, KY has already accomplished this, even as their shelters maintain an open-door policy, accepting any pet in need.

This article originally appeared here.

An available cat lounges on a cat tree in condo-style housing at Animal Ark. Providing a home-like environment puts available pets and prospective adopters at ease, and can actually be less expensive that the traditional steel cages. No Kill communities are committed to innovations that make life better for pets and people while watching the bottom line (which includes both lives and money saved).

In a No Kill community, the shelter is a temporary way station on a dog’s quest for a new life. Here Crosby, an American Shelter Dog (otherwise known as a pit bull-type dog) gets a treat before heading out to join a play group.

In No Kill communities, tiny kittens receive loving care.

Don’t miss your chance to learn about what No Kill communities are, the history of the movement, and how you can help to create one this Thursday August 21 at 7pm at Midtown Art Cinema in Atlanta.  This is a HUGE deal.  It is the Atlanta premiere, the only screening in Georgia this year (there is a possibility that it will be in a Georgia film festival within the next year–I don’t know), and the $5 ticket cost includes a presentation by the filmmaker, author, and No Kill leader Nathan Winograd.  First 100 people in the door get a copy of the companion book too.  It is well worth the effort to get there.  If you have any of Nathan’s other books, bring them along to be signed.

The film will not be out on DVD until after the film festivals–sometime in July 2015, I believe.

Not anywhere near Atlanta this Thursday?  Other screenings listed here.

I got the idea for this because I was so struck by the difference in attitude and atmosphere at shelters in No Kill communities vs. ones which still kill as a means of controlling the animal population (and a means of exerting psychological control  over rescuers and volunteers.)  At every shelter I have ever visited in a No Kill community, I was welcomed and invited to photograph whatever I wanted to, whereas at places that kill,  I have experienced hostility in some form or other, sometimes very overt, and sometimes even before I even got in the door or said a word.  I’d also like to show people what No Kill communities really look like.  They are positive places where the lives of all lost and homeless pets are valued–truly valued, and where the contributions of shelter staff, volunteers and rescuers and community members, are also valued.  They are places where people are treated like human beings, and that makes a huge difference.  No Kill communities are nothing like what the fear mongers (yes there are fear mongers about this issue, for example PETA, hence the “Crazy” in my blog’s title)  would have you believe.

In the time leading up to SlowE, I’ll post occasional pictures from this project, which is very much a work in progress (as in–I still have a lot of photos yet to process).

An American Shelter Dog awaits his turn to join the dog play group at Animal Ark in Hastings, MN. Play groups, advocated by trainer Aimee Sadler, are a great way to keep dogs physically and mentally healthy in the shelter environment.

The No Kill is Love tour comes to Atlanta’s Midtown Art Cinema on August 21 at 7pm.

Last month, internationally respected No Kill advocate Nathan Winograd visited Georgia and gave a free seminar entitled‘Building No Kill Communities’ to an audience of almost 300 animal advocates from across Georgia and from five neighboring states. He kindly answered a series of questions from the Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner about the No Kill movement in general, and about what it means for Georgia in particular.

Georgia recently passed Grace’s Law, which bans the use of the gas chamber to kill shelter pets, effective December 31, 2010. This will end one particularly tortuous way of killing dogs and cats in shelters, but Georgia still kills a lot of shelter pets—260,000 a year, according to the GVAW report. Is there anything we can do legislatively that would stem this tide? Anything we should definitely not do?

The ideal animal control law would ban the killing of dogs and cats, and would prohibit the impounding of feral cats except for purposes of spay/neuter and release. But at this time in history, it is unlikely that local governments would pass such sweeping laws. The answer, therefore, lies in passing and enforcing shelter reform legislation that mandates how all shelters must operate. We need to regulate shelters in the same way we regulate hospitals and other agencies which hold the power over life and death.

We know how to end the killing and have for over a decade. But Georgia shelters are not voluntarily implementing the programs and services that make No Kill possible. As a result, animals continue to be needlessly killed. So we need to force them to. We need to force them to operate their shelters in a progressive, life-affirming way—removing the discretion which allows shelter leaders to ignore the best interests of the animals and kill them needlessly. We need to move beyond a system of shelters and pounds in which the lives of animals are subject to the discretion and whims of shelter leaders or health department bureaucrats. In short, we need to codify the programs and services of the No Kill Equation.

One of the programs is working with rescue groups. But it is clear too many shelters are not doing that voluntarily. The No Kill Advocacy Center, for example, surveyed rescue groups throughout New York State and found that almost three out four had tried to rescue animals from shelters and had been turned away. Worse, the shelters then turned around and killed those animals. I heard similar complaints from rescue groups when I was in Georgia. Thankfully, the New York State legislature is considering a law to make it illegal for a shelter in that state to kill an animal if a qualified rescue group is willing to save that animal’s life. Laws like that are needed in Georgia too.

We are also going to see legislation introduced in another state that would make it illegal for a shelter to kill an animal unless of the following criteria is met: there are no empty cages, kennels, or other living environments in the shelter that are suitable for the animal; the animal cannot share a cage or kennel with another animal; a foster home is not available; rescue groups have been notified and are not willing to accept the animal; and the shelter manager certifies that the above conditions are met and that he/she has no other reasonable alternative.

In fact, that law is modeled after the No Kill Advocacy Center’s model legislation, which would be a good place for Georgia animal lovers to start crafting their own shelter reform law. But what they should not do, what I hope they don’t do, is seek punitive legislation aimed at the public. Because when we seek laws to punish the public, we just end up punishing the animals. Animal shelters have proven that they are not responsible with the lives of animals. Animal shelters have proven that they find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it. We should not pass laws giving them even more power to cite, impound, and kill animals. Because if Georgia shelters have proven anything, it is that they are more than willing to do just that.

Some people have called for mandatory spay-neuter laws (MSN), possibly on a temporary (5 year) basis as a means of reducing the number of animals killed in Georgia’s shelters. Is that a good idea?

If they worked, I would say “Yes.” If they worked, I would be mandatory spay/neuter’s biggest advocate. I would be going around the country seeing to it that every community passed one. I am not philosophically opposed to them, and I would never put a human-centric interest (breeding, breed enthusiasts, perpetuation of a breed) over the life of an animal. I know that is going to get a lot of people who support my work very upset. But I’ve never claimed otherwise. I’ve never written anything against mandatory spay/neuter on the basis of those other interests. I’ve been very clear from day one: I oppose them because they lead to more killing. And ending killing is my only goal.

It is not that I don’t support spay/neuter. I do. And when I was in charge of shelters, I supported it more than most shelter directors do. Spay/Neuter is one of the cornerstones of the No Kill Equation and a program I offered for free in both San Francisco and Tompkins County. My opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws is because they increase the power of the animal control bureaucracy to impound and kill animals for violations, and that is what has occurred in municipalities which pass them. They exacerbate rather than decrease killing. This is not an anomaly. It has happened time and time again. It also causes animal control to divert scarce resources from programs which save lives to enforcement of ordinances that result in higher rates of killing. Now, the ASPCA has come out against them for the same reason, so even an organization that supports killing shelters and backs killing directors could no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence that they do not work. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that even the former head of animal control in Los Angeles, one of the chief proponents of such laws, admitted that his mandatory spay/neuter law was a failure.

These laws are not about saving lives. They are about more power for animal control departments, more officers, more sweeps of stray animals, more citations written, more animals impounded, and more animals killed. (They also feed the backyard breeder market as people then find other unaltered animals.) That groups which claim to be concerned with high levels of shelter killing would actually seek legislation to empower a dysfunctional animal control bureaucracy to impound—and thus kill—even more animals, is a contradiction they conveniently ignore.

When was the last time a mandatory sterilization law reduced killing 50% or 75% as has occurred in communities using the No Kill Equation model of sheltering? It has never happened. Ever. And more often, the opposite results. Los Angeles City shelters saw the first increase in impounds and killing in a decade after passing their spay/neuter law—a 24% increase in dog killing and a 35% increase in cat killing, at a time when other California communities were seeing killing decline.

That is why I’ve asked supporters that if they are going to push for these, despite all the evidence to the contrary, to add protections for animals in these laws, such as no impound provisions, free spay/neuter in lieu of a citation, and automatic repeal if killing goes up. They always refuse to do so. If they believe in these laws, despite all the evidence about how harmful to animals they actually are, why not put in these protections?

What about anti-tethering laws?

I support them because it is in a different category than the law above. Anti-tethering laws are aimed at stopping cruelty—and chaining dogs in the backyard 24/7 is cruelty. But they need to be well crafted so they do not result in the round up and killing of dogs. ‘Pit Bulls’ often fare even worse than other animals in Georgia’s shelters. For example, DeKalb County kills about 90% of the ‘pit bulls’ it takes in (almost 35 per week), as opposed to 65 % of all animals considered together. This leads some to see the ‘pit bull’ situation as hopeless. What can be done?

First of all, it is important to realize that shelter workers misidentify breeds over 70% of the time. So they are killing dogs by calling them “Pit Bulls” even when they have no real “Pit Bull” in them. But that aside, when I was in Tompkins, we saved 9 out of 10 dogs classified as “Pit Bulls.” Charlottesville has been No Kill for four years despite a 50% “Pit Bull” intake. And Reno is saving 92% of all dogs, despite a significant “Pit Bull” intake. To say it is hopeless when shelters across the country are living proof that is not is indefensible naysaying. That doesn’t mean it is not without its challenges. It most certainly is. We have to overcome stereotyping that is, in some ways, of the animal protection movement’s own creation. Every time organizations like HSUS or PETA call for Pit Bulls to be killed en masse, as they have in certain contexts, we reinforce the stereotype that they are different. But, as Karen Delise, who I consider the nation’s foremost Pit Bull advocate likes to say, Pit Bulls are just dogs. Two eyes, four legs, one heart.

Do you think it is possible to implement the No Kill Equation in a shelter staffed by prison inmates?’

Well, you are asking a former prosecutor who spent years sending people to prison, so I would guess I may be a little biased in my perceptions here. But given widespread No Kill success, and the fact that not a single one has been run with prison labor, my beliefs are on firm ground. So with those caveats, the short answer is that yes, it can be implemented. And yes, it will save some lives. But will it achieve No Kill? I doubt it.

Achieving No Kill is hard work, which is why many shelters are not No Kill. Killing is easier because they have a built in excuse for their own failures: pet overpopulation. But, if shelters are going to succeed, they need a professional staff. A modern shelter interested in reducing killing to the maximum extent practicable must meet certain mandatory minimums. These are:

1. Providing nourishment, medical care and social enrichment/behavioral rehabilitation for all domestic animals in its care; 2. Providing basic health screening for all animals; 3. Providing a preventative disease control program; 4. Providing a comprehensive adoption program; 5. Providing a volunteer and foster care program through which members of the community can get actively involved in helping the animals; 6. Providing lost and found services; 7. Providing information and access to subsidized spay/neuter services for low income pet owners in a community and for unowned feral cats; 8. Maintaining accurate and thorough records on all animal-related activities;

To reach its goals, these duties translate into several key program areas including working with rescue groups, providing access to low cost spaying and neutering, developing a community-based volunteer, foster care and offsite adoption program, providing options and solutions to overcome medical, behavioral and environmental issues that may cause caretakers to relinquish their pets, medical and behavioral programs and rehabilitation, disease control and socialization, and a proactive and positive public relations and marketing campaign. All these programs are essential to a well run shelter. And a well run shelter requires an ethical, highly motivated team with an emphasis on accountability, responsibility, and good judgment. People don’t get into prison by exercising those characteristics.

You’ve said that it is possible to transition shelters from high-kill to No Kill without additional funding or staff. How would that work in Georgia shelters, which are often staffed by prison inmates? What about spay-neuter before adoption in shelters that do not yet do that? How would that be funded?

In Tompkins, we actually reduced the number of staff despite a 75% decline in killing. In Reno, they’ve actually cut costs despite almost doubling the adoption rate. And as the 2009 leadership study showed, funding levels don’t really account for the differences between No Kill and killing shelters. In fact, when we became the first No Kill community in the country, municipalities were only paying us about $1.50 per capita for animal control. Is it right to do that? It isn’t. And part of the current director’s priority is to make the arrangement more equitable. What we did was subsidize that through our own fundraising. And despite that, we were still able to balance the budget. In fact, in 2003, my last full year, we finished with a $23,000 surplus to expenses. But, it is not a long term strategy and shelters must have an adequate level of funding.

So, that study should not be used to eviscerate shelter funding. But rather than wait around until more money flows from taxpayer coffers, using that as an excuse to kill, shelter directors can be doing a lot while they lobby for fair funding levels by cutting inefficiencies and firing underperforming staff. In addition, any increases in costs can be offset by more revenue from adoptions and donations from the community.

Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that while saving lives costs money, it is often more cost effective than killing. Adoptions bring in revenues, while killing costs money. Transfers to rescue groups also transfer the cost of care from taxpayer to private philanthropy, while saving money associated with killing. Foster parents augment services at little to no cost while the adoption revenue goes to the facility. And it is certainly less expensive to sterilize a feral cat than take that cat in, kill the cat, and dispose of her body, or that of her offspring. And the savings are exponential. Thanks to an investment in free and subsidized spay/neuter, San Francisco shelters are only taking in 7,000 dogs and cats per year, down from over 20,000 in the 1980s: a rate five times less than Reno and one of the lowest of any municipality in the nation. That’s a huge savings.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, most expenses in an animal shelter are fixed costs, so saving the animals won’t increase the bulk of those.

How long does it take to transition a shelter from a place of killing to a place of safety? What if a shelter director wants to implement the No Kill Equation gradually, on a small scale or only partially?

We turned Tompkins County around overnight. Charlottesville became No Kill overnight. As did shelters in Kentucky, Utah, Indiana, Kansas and elsewhere. Some communities took a little longer, but there were real obstacles such as a shelter director hostile to calls for reform. But once committed, they also achieved success virtually overnight when those directors were replaced. And these communities take in more animals per capita than the national average. Reno takes in 39 animals for every 1,000 residents, five times the rate of San Francisco, three times the rate of Los Angeles, over twice the national average. In fact, their per capita intake rate is higher than New York City and other communities still killing healthy animals. But Reno is saving 90% of all animals, while these communities are not. Tompkins took in 26 animals per 1,000 residents when I was there, well above the national average of about 14. And not only do these communities prove it, the national data does to.

What needs to happen is that directors must implement all of the programs of the No Kill Equation comprehensively so that they replace killing entirely. In other words, every neonatal kitten should go into foster care, not just a precious few.

Of course, I would rather see shelter directors implement some of them rather than none of them, and I’d rather see them do them even at a token level rather than none at all, but that isn’t really the choice presented. Historically in Austin, Texas, for example, the pound director boasted that they had a foster care program. But she only allowed staff to foster. In other words, she was willing to kill kittens and puppies while turning away thousands of people in the community who would have been willing and able to help foster animals. The ASPCA backed her, saying she was doing a “good” job. I take issue with the ASPCA’s definition of what constitutes a good job, in fact, it should be categorized as a resounding failure. And thankfully, despite the ASPCA’s endorsement, she was removed because of her hostility to saving lives. But that aside, even if she were doing a “good” job compared to other shelters, good enough is never good enough when the lives of animals are at stake.

When Tompkins County, NY became the first No Kill community in the entire country back in 2001, how did shelter directors across the country react? Was it what you expected? It certainly electrified rescue groups and animal lovers all over the country, and I believe it played a pivotal role to the widespread success of the No Kill movement since then. In fact, a national magazine called it one of the top achievements in the nation. Because of Tompkins County’s seminal achievement, No Kill is taking the country by storm. And, thankfully, some shelter directors sought to replicate our success, with similar success. The success in Charlottesville is a direct result of the success in Tompkins. In fact, the future director of Charlottesville came to visit us in Tompkins to learn about our success so she could implement it back home. But, tragically and unethically, that is not how most directors responded. Most shelter directors sought to denigrate, downplay, ignore, and dismiss our success.

They came up with excuse after excuse. I was accused of killing animals in the middle of the night so no one would notice. I was accused of meeting people surrendering animals in our parking lot and killing them out there so they wouldn’t count in our statistics. I was accused of taking friendly animals and dumping them on the side of the road and claiming they were adopted. But you were there, hundreds of volunteers were there and all of us were part of a vast lifesaving initiative. So the attacks against me and our success denigrated the work of thousands of people who were working very hard to make a lifesaving difference in Tompkins County. And all of their malicious and false attacks were motivated by a desire to avoid accountability—to avoid having to answer the question, “if they can achieve No Kill in Tompkins County, why can’t we do it here?”—here, being in the community where shelter directors were still butchering animals by the hundreds or thousands in the face of readily available lifesaving alternatives they simply refused to implement.

But they aren’t making those claims anymore. Not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t. It was easier to dismiss and ignore No Kill when Tompkins was the only No Kill community. But I’ve not been in Tompkins since 2004 and they are still saving over 90% of the animals (at least 92% each year for the last eight years). And Tompkins is not alone. There are now No Kill communities all over the U.S., and abroad—in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And our numbers continue to grow. Unless there is a mass conspiracy of parking lot killing, middle of the night killing, and dumping animals on the side of the road, there are simply no excuses left. As a result, shelter directors mired in killing are increasingly being seen for who and what they are.

We visited a local taxpayer-funded shelter while you were in Georgia—the Carroll County Animal Shelter. Would you comment on what you saw there?

I was met at the door by an incredibly hostile shelter director. When I asked him if he would give me a tour, he told me I could take one myself. He then proceeded to stand around chatting with lazy staff congregating at the front desk. I also saw lots of empty cages. In fact, banks and banks of empty cages, in spite of a high kill rate. I wish I could say it was an aberration, but I can’t. That is the paradigm built and maintained by HSUS and it is the status quo. In other words, it was typical of a do nothing, killing shelter run by uncaring staff who have no business having the power of life and death over defenseless animals.

What are the most important things concerned animal-lovers should do to reform their community’s shelter?

Fight hard and fight smart. Learn from the success of others. There are good resources out there to help you including the No Kill Advocacy Center, Fix Austin, and KCACCexposed. But if there is one piece of advice I can give animal lovers working for shelter reform is to remember that while we can achieve a No Kill nation overnight, regime change in shelters like the one I visited in Georgia may take time. Activists have to remember that killing is entrenched in this country and they will be ignored, dismissed, ridiculed, and attacked for challenging the status quo. But they need to look at the silver lining: the dialog was never occurring before, the killing was never challenged. If they keep fighting and fight smart, they will wear the opposition down, they will educate the public that there is another way, they will educate candidates for city council who will eventually campaign on a pro-No Kill platform as they have in other communities, they will eventually strip away the excuses.

In other words, no matter how many times they knock you down, you will win if you remember the golden rule: dust off, stand up, and fight back. In short, never give up, never give up, never give up.

Read part one of my interview with Nathan Winograd.

I’ve been meaning to move some of my favorite articles from Examiner.com over to this blog for a while. With the Atlanta screening of Redemption just a week away, I thought I’d start with the two-part interview I did with Nathan Winograd back in 2010, when he gave a Building No Kill Communities workshop in Douglasville.  Some things have changed in that time, some have not.  Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this new documentary is that it will reach an audience that loves animals, but doesn’t necessarily spend a lot of time thinking about animal shelters, and will reframe the issues for a lot of people.  Change starts with looking at a problem differently, from another angle, with thinking about it differently.  Tickets to the Atlanta premiere of Redemption are only $5 and must be purchased in advance here. There will not be ticket sales at the event.

The No Kill is Love tour comes to Atlanta’s Midtown Art Cinema on August 21 at 7pm.

Last month, internationally respected No Kill advocate Nathan Winograd visited Georgia and gave a free seminar entitled‘Building No Kill Communities’ to an audience of almost 300 animal advocates from across Georgia and from five neighboring states.  He kindly answered a series of questions from the AtlantaAnimal WelfareExaminer about the No Kill movement in general, and about what it means for Georgia in particular.

Redemption: the Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No kill Revolution in America—that’s a pretty provocative title. When did you first realize that ‘pet overpopulation’ was a myth? Did you find it difficult to believe? I mean, 4 million animals are killed in American shelters annually. That’s a large number of animals. I talk about this in my new book, Irreconcilable Differences. I did not wake up one day and say, “Pet overpopulation is a myth.” Nor did I think that someday I would champion the notion that it was. I did not even set out to prove it. It unfolded as part of my work in the humane movement and the facts began to compel further analysis. In fact, many years ago, I too believed the opposite. I once argued with my wife that “There were too many animals and not enough homes.” I am ashamed of having done so, but I did. She correctly argued that even if it were true, killing remained unethical. She also correctly argued that if we took killing off the table, human ingenuity and human compassion would find a way to make it work. But, more importantly, she asked me how I knew it was true.

How did I know? Because I’ve heard it repeated a thousand times. Because I took the fact of killing in shelters and then rationalized the reason backward. I was too embarrassed to admit so. But therein began a journey that started in San Francisco, then Tompkins County, New York, then Charlottesville, Virginia, followed by dozens of shelters in communities across the country. I reviewed data from over 1,000 shelters nationwide, and reviewed several national studies. And the conclusion became not just inescapable, but unassailable. Rather than bury it, ignore it or downplay it, I did what anyone who truly loves animals would have done. I celebrated it. Why? Because it meant that we had the power to end the killing, today.

And since that time, other studies and the increase in the number of No Kill communities have proven I was right; indeed, they show I was being conservative. While four million animals are being killed, it is not because of a lack of homes that they are being killed. Of these four million, roughly 3.6 million are not suffering, hopelessly ill, or truly vicious dogs with a poor prognosis for rehabilitation. If shelters did a better job returning lost animals home, they could, for example, increase the percentage of dog reclaims from an average of about 25% to 60%. If shelters embraced TNR, they could release these cats to their habitat, rather than kill them. If they had pet retention programs to help people overcome the behavior, medical, and environmental conditions which cause them to surrender animals, they could reduce by as much as 30% the number of animals coming in to the shelter. If they utilized foster care programs, such a program would provide an alternative to killing the underaged animals entering their facility. And if they had good customer service, employed basic marketing principles, and comprehensively implemented an adoption program, they’d have little trouble finding homes for the 2 to 3 million animals being killed in U.S. pounds and shelters who need adoption. That’s potentially 2 million dogs and cats competing for the 17 million people who are looking to bring a new dog or cat into their homes, have not decided where that animal will come from, and can be influenced to adopt from a shelter.

Contrary to what many shelters falsely claim are the primary hurdles to lifesaving (e.g., public irresponsibility or lack of homes), the biggest impediments are actually in shelter management’s hands. Effectiveness in shelter goals and operations begins with caring and competent leadership, staff accountability, effective programs, and good relations with the community—which do not currently exist in most shelters. It means putting actions behind the words of every shelter’s mission statement that “All life is precious.” And it is abundantly clear that the practices of most shelters violate this principle.

Shelter killing is not the result of pet overpopulation; it is the result of shelter managers who find it easier to kill animals than save them. And not only do they kill animals they should be saving, too many of them neglect and abuse them in the process. The bottom line is that shelter killing is unnecessary and unethical. And pet overpopulation is merely an excuse for poorly performing shelter managers who want to blame others for their own failures and keep on with business as usual. Instead of challenging the data, however, they attack me. But I could go away tomorrow and that wouldn’t change the facts, or the inescapable conclusion. The cat is out of the bag, and is never going back in.

When did things go wrong in the American animal sheltering system? It was always wrong. In the 19th Century, the modern pound system was established to rid cities of stray dogs by putting them to death. This was done in a variety of cruel ways: shooting, poisoning, drowning, even beating them to death. By contrast, the animal protection movement was founded on compassion, to combat those efforts. What I argue in Redemption is that the humane movement lost its way when it moved from advocacy on behalf of those stray dogs to operating the majority of kill shelters. It was a great betrayal of Henry Bergh’s founding vision for an SPCA. As a result, an agency founded to save lives, in fact founded on the highest ideals of compassion, was replaced by a network of thousands of them all across the country whose primary mission became killing animals, even when those animals were not suffering.

In the mid-1970s, a lot of these agencies, along with the leaders of the national animal protection organizations like the ASPCA, Humane Society of the United States, and American Humane Association, met for the first time to discuss shelter killing. But by this time, the view that killing was both necessary and proper, indeed the right and kind thing to do, had become so entrenched that any effort to change the status quo—to save feral cats, to work with dogs who might have behavior challenges, to save neonatal animals, to partner with rescue groups—was met with recrimination and open hostility. Groups like HSUS gave shelters a new enemy: the American public, even though the public held the keys to ending the killing through adoption, fostering, volunteering, and rescue. And, sadly, the American public had one more reason to avoid their shelter, aside from the fact that they killed the bulk of their occupants.

When did they go right? Well, they started to go right when Rich Avanzino changed the course of the San Francisco SPCA’s history and put it on a path toward lifesaving. In total contravention of HSUS’ conventional wisdom, Avanzino embraced the public and asked them to help him save lives. And they did, opening up their hearts, homes, and wallets and in the process—through a series of programs and services that made it easy for the public to do the right thing; to adopt, rather than buy, to spay/neuter because cost was no longer an issue—made San Francisco the first to end the killing of healthy dogs and cats.

I took those lessons, and that philosophy, with me when I took over in Tompkins County, NY, radicalizing and expanding the programs to the point that they replaced killing entirely. Together, I, the volunteers, a new staff with a “can do” attitude, and all the animal lovers of Tompkins County, created the nation’s first—and at the time only—No Kill community. We took a concept from the theoretical and made it real. And we not only proved it was possible, but that it could happen overnight.

Moreover, we didn’t just save all healthy dogs and cats the way San Francisco did. We also saved all the sick, injured, unweaned, and traumatized treatable ones. We saved all the feral cats. And we saved other shelter animals including bunnies, mice, hamsters, iguanas, even the occasional chicken, goose, and horse who came through our doors. It electrified the nation. And the rest, as they say, is history.

The No Kill Equation is the 11-point plan for reforming animal shelters. When was it first articulated? How has it evolved?

Most of the programs that are articulated in the No Kill Equation came from the vision of Richard Avanzino. But after Avanzino left San Francisco, I put together a document called, “Mission: Possible.” At the time, it was a description of the 10-point plan. That is what I set out to implement in Tompkins, with the help of the volunteers who always, always rose to the occasion.

But over time, it has expanded. We added an important 11th program, which I call “proactive redemption efforts” to increase the percentage of lost animals who get back home. That has made a crucial lifesaving difference in places with higher than average impounds, allowing them to rehome over 60% of stray dogs and increasing seven-fold the percentage of cats reclaimed by their families; thus freeing up shelter kennel space and allowing them to save more lives.

At the No Kill Advocacy Center, we needed to name the programs and services, since “Mission: Possible” was associated with the San Francisco SPCA. It was actually my wife who coined the term the “No Kill Equation” and since then, it has taken on a life of its own. What does the NKE mean for the South? Is it even possible in the land of red clay? In Georgia, about 50 of the 159 counties have no form of animal control and no animal shelters. What does the NKE mean for them?

Historically—and to this very day—animal control in this country is an institution that is designed to warehouse and kill animals at the lowest possible cost. That is the status quo that HSUS and other national organizations have championed for so long.

Given the success of the No Kill philosophy, these agencies can and should be temporary way stations for animals, a place where they go for a new life, rather than what they too often find—the end of the line. So we need to be careful we are not striving to create institutions of killing. That is never the better choice.

The good news is, of course, that this isn’t the only choice faced. It is not “no animal control” vs. “animal control based on killing.” The third choice is No Kill animal control.

And the even better news is that some of the most successful communities in the country in terms of saving lives are in the South, in historically poorer states. Right now, there are No Kill communities in the North and in the South, in urban areas and in rural areas, in politically liberal states and in very conservative ones. What I have learned is that it is not where the shelter is located that matters, it is who runs it and whether they implement the programs and services of the No Kill Equation.

Traditionally, the blame for shelter killing has been directed at two targets—one amorphous and the other, defenseless—the “irresponsible public” and the animals themselves. If ‘pet overpopulation’ is a myth and there really are enough homes for the animals killed in shelters, and shelters like the Tompkins county SPCA, Reno, NV and Charlottesville, VA have demonstrated for years that it is possible for communities to be No Kill, then why do we have so much shelter killing today? According to a recent report compiled by the Georgia Voters for Animal Welfare, Georgia’s shelters kill about 260,000 dogs and cats annually.

Why, indeed? Just the other day I got an e-mail from a shelter volunteer whose director told her No Kill was impossible, even though it has already been achieved and has been a reality for almost a decade. She also wrote to tell me that their local shelter director said a shelter had to turn animals away in order to be No Kill, another falsehood given the proliferation of No Kill animal control shelters.

The term No Kill means that a shelter does not kill savable animals, roughly 90-95% of all shelter intakes. It has nothing to do with whether the shelter is public or private, municipal or SPCA, open admission or one that only takes in animals it can do so without killing. There are No Kill shelters that fit all of these categories.

The reality is that shelters continue to kill because killing is easier than doing what is necessary to stop it. Shelters kill because they are run by uncaring, inept, and lazy managers, and equally uncaring, inept, and lazy staff. Shelters kill because they refuse to accept responsibility, while they point the finger of blame elsewhere: the public and the animals themselves. And shelters kill because national organizations like the ASPCA and HSUS that should be holding them accountable, instead provide them political cover to continue killing.

Also according to that report, the percentage of animals killed varies greatly from county to county and is even 100% in some places. What are usually the most important determinants for variation in the percentage of animals killed in one shelter versus another?

In 2009, the No Kill Advocacy Center commissioned a study to look at this very question. The study looked at funding rates, location, a host of factors. But none of those could explain the differences in lifesaving rates between shelters. For example, one shelter spent $6.00 per capita on animal control but only saved 40% of the animals. A shelter in a neighboring community with similar demographics only spent $1.50 per capita, ¼ the rate of the former, but saved 90%.

What did explain the difference in lifesaving—in fact, the only thing that accounted for the differences—was who was running them. In other words, the difference between high rates of lifesaving and high rates of killing came down to the choices made by the people running those shelters. It came down to leadership and how committed those leaders were to embracing the No Kill philosophy and implementing the programs which make it possible.

That is why San Francisco went from slaughtering most animals to saving most. That is why Tompkins County went from killing to No Kill. And the same is true of every community that has achieved No Kill thereafter. Leadership is the single most important aspect of the No Kill Equation. Because all the money in the world, all the offers by rescue groups and volunteers, won’t save animals at a shelter run by an uncaring director who refuses to hold his or her staff accountable, or refuses to give animals to rescue groups rather than kill them, or refuses to use foster parent volunteers, or refuses to implement any of the other alternatives to killing. Quite simply, No Kill starts as an act of will.

The buck stops with the shelter’s director. Yes, there are other factors: if a shelter is overseen by regressive health department bureaucrats, if they are hamstrung by an inept Board of Directors, if they inherit a shelter in disarray, all of these will impact how quickly a director can cross the No Kill goal line. But at the end of the day, all of them can and should. And, so it is fair to say that in the vast majority of cases, the ultimate responsibility for whether animals live or die under their watch lies with them. The buck stops with the shelter’s director. And no amount of posturing or protesting will ever change that fact.

Why do some people oppose No Kill? It seems obvious that lives should be saved. What is all the fuss about?

That is the question I tackled in Part I of Redemption called “The Controversy over Saving Lives.” The difference comes down to the fact that “we” (meaning SPCAs, humane societies, animal protection groups) are doing the killing. And it is always harder to stand up to one’s so-called “friends” than one’s clear cut enemies. But stand up we must. For if we are ever to achieve a No Kill nation, we must always do what is in the best interests of animals even when it means that we must fight against someone who claims to be part of our movement, but whose actions in killing defenseless animals belie that claim.

In the end, the people who oppose No Kill do not care enough about the animals. Because I’ll tell you one thing you can engrave in stone: no one—and I mean absolutely no one—would be an advocate for killing if they were the ones facing the needle.

How does the current economic situation in Georgia pose challenges and opportunities for No Kill?

Economic downturns are always a challenge for organizations. Especially if bureaucrats down prioritize lifesaving, the downturn gives them an excuse to continue underfunding and underprioritizing shelter services. But here’s the flipside: those shelters which have embraced No Kill have seen donations continue to increase during the recent economic recession, and some of these are seeing donations hit all-time highs. They also continue to save record numbers of lives, despite the recession.

In order to achieve success in this difficult economic environment, a shelter must be run for innovative, optimistic, passionate people who see challenges as opportunities, rather than just one more in a long litany of excuses they use in order to justify their needless killing.

History has proven that there is enough love and compassion in every community if shelters do good things for animals and ask for the public’s help. Even while virtually every other sector of the economy was plummeting, per capita spending on companion animals continued its meteoric rise and hit $50 billion in the U.S. And giving to animal related causes remains the fastest growing segment in American philanthropy.

What the public won’t do with their hard earned dollars, especially in times of economic stress, is finance a shelter that kills animals. What do you think is the biggest obstacle to No Kill in Georgia? And what are important assets?

The biggest obstacles to lifesaving success in Georgia are the same obstacles faced in communities in other states where killing is the norm: shelter directors content with killing who refuse to change, uncaring bureaucrats who fail to hold those directors accountable, and the built in excuse of pet overpopulation. That is why any effort to reform these shelters must attack the root cause of shelter killing, by removing these directors, electing animal lovers to positions of power, and exposing the myth of pet overpopulation.

What is going to overcome this is the same thing that has overcome it in communities across the country: the people. A few months ago, the head of the pro-killing Humane Society of the United States came to San Francisco to defend their anti-animal positions including the embrace of Michael Vick, the most notorious animal abuser of our generation even while HSUS lobbied to have the dogs he abused killed, and their abhorrent record on advocating killing in shelters. Barely two dozen people showed up.

When I went to rural Georgia, in Douglasville, to talk about how Georgia can become a No Kill state, almost 300 people showed up. Why? Because people love animals and want to help build a better world for them. Experiences like that, which I encounter frequently, remind me just how widespread our love for companion animals is as a society. And it is that love that gives me faith that we will fix our broken animal shelter system.

Read part two of the Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner’s interview with Nathan Winograd.

It doesn’t make any sense to me either.

A modest proposal: PETA should ‘euthanize’ only animatronic dogs and cats

top A robotic dog is the perfect solution to PETA’s use of the ‘blue solution’.
Sculpture created by Paul Loughridge

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has once again made headlines for suggesting the use of animatronic technology as a means of protecting animals, this time suggesting that Punxsutawney Phil be replaced with a robotic groundhog, on the grounds that having an actual groundhog pop his head out of a hole in front of an audience once a year is a form of animal cruelty.  They had earlier suggested that UGA replace its mascot with ‘robodawg’ after the untimely passing of Uga’s most recent incarnation.  Additionally, PETA has produced a video in which robotic cats attempt to make robotic kittens.  Clearly they are aware of the great potential this technology has for the protection of animals, but they are overlooking one use which would save thousands of dogs and cats every year, and it’s right there in front of them.  It is so obvious, how could they not see it?

PETA kills thousands of pets every year, and many, if not most of these pets would be deemed adoptable by a No Kill shelter.  No Kill shelters save 90% or more of the animals that come through their doors, whether or not they are open-admission.  PETA, by contrast, seeks out andkills over 90% of the animals they get their hands on.  In 2006, they killed 97%.  In 2007, they killed 91%.  In 2008, they killed 96%.  There is no reason to believe that 2009 will be any different once the numbers are finally released.*

If PETA were to switch to ‘euthanizing’ robotic dogs and cats (and the occasional chicken), rather than killing actual living, breathing dogs and cats (and the occasional chicken), literally thousands of animal lives would be saved every year.  Rescuing could be left to real rescuers.  That infamous walk-in freezer at PETA headquarters could instead be filled with tofu burgers.  PETA could inject Fatal-Plus into robots while the cameras roll.  It would be great publicity.  The technology would be very simple, since the robots wouldn’t need to do anything fancier than play dead.  They could be reused time and again, which would be much more environmentally friendly than  filling up dumpsters with dead pets.  The money saved by eliminating the need to cremate tons of dead pets could be spent on spay-neuter assistance, or on more  ads featuring naked celebrities.

If PETA would only stick its collective head out of its collective hole, it could catch a glimpse of the growing No Kill movement.

Everyone would live happily ever after.

*Note: The pertinent numbers to look at in these data are the numbers of animals taken in for adoption and the numbers of animals killed.  PETA habitually includes animals brought to its spay-neuter clinic for surgery to obfuscate the true gravity of its statistics.  When calculating the kill rate, the animals brought for surgery were, of course, left out.

Let PETA know about the benefits of ‘euthanizing’ robotic pets:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

501 Front Street

Norfolk VA 23510

info@peta.org
(757) 622-7382

Having convinced themselves that rounding up and killing healthy and treatable pets is somehow vegan, the staff and supporters of PETA try to keep the awful truth from the animal lovers who contribute to their $30 million budget, but more and more people are finding out, and they are having to try harder and harder.  On rare occasions they publicize a rescue, real or imagined, and then offer the animal up for adoption, real or imagined–the truth being rarer than unicorns in PETA-land.  Mostly they just lie about the nature of what they do.  

Someday, PETA will stop rounding up and killing pets, and getting there will be a very interesting process, in the “may you live in interesting times” sense of the word “interesting.  It won’t involve the sudden realization that what they have been doing is wrong and that there is a better way, because they already know both of those things on some level and that knowledge has not stopped them from unfettered killing.  If you’re looking for integrity, don’t look at PETA.  Will that day be brought about by legislation?  Loss of funds?  Legal action?  A complete turnover of personnel?  Those things will take years and the animals that fall into their hands need people to intervene on their behalf now.

Please do take a moment or two to ask PETA to switch to killing robots.  

And while PETA does not have a Petfinder site and doesn’t typically advertise pets for adoption, they do have an adoption application.  It isn’t easy to come by, but now you can download a copy here.    A pretty unimpressive Word document, but it is interesting that they ask “How many companion animals do you own now? ” and “How long you have owned him/her”  (emphasis added).  I thought they only liked ownership when they could use it to sneak out of some legal hot water.  Also “Where is the animal now?”  A coarsely-phrased but interesting question, coming from people who, if they were honest, would have to answer many thousands of times over:  “in some landfill somewhere”.  I admit that I find the thought  of  telling those people any personal information rather creepy, but I can’t help but wonder what would happen if PETA were to suddenly start receiving adoption applications from people informed about what PETA really is?  Would they be ignored?  Would applicants be opening themselves up for harassment?  Would they be placing their pets at risk?  How would this all look?  

How do any animals get out of there alive?

I find it creepy because the whole thing is so lopsided with a hefty dose of crazy added for good measure.  In a No Kill community, a shelter is a positive part of the community, and has to earn its trust every day.  Fortunately, earning trust  is a natural part of taking in lost and homeless pets and reuniting them with their families of finding them new ones, providing sick and injured animals with medical care and a clean place to stay, treating volunteers with respect, and so forth.  You can expect you adoption application to be handled in a professional manner in a No Kill community.   PETA is the exact opposite of all that.  They do all manner of crazy things and answer to no one.

So, what to do with the adoption application?  I have a couple of  ideas:

1. Apply to adopt,  if you dare.
2. Spread the word.  Share the application around.  Here it is again.  If you prefer a pdf, here you go.  Put it up on twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, tumblr, wherever.  Let people know that it exists.  Let people know the truth about PETA.  Let them know that the staff and supporters of PETA want their killing of thousands of healthy and treatable pets to remain invisible.

Click  here for the original article.

Animal Services of Mesilla Valley will do free pit bull adoptions in October

The first post I wrote on this blog was about the televised killing of a dog by a “shelter” in New Mexico, a depraved publicity stunt that echoed a depraved publicity stunt by a “shelter” in California twenty years previously–the one which was recounted in the opening paragraphs of Redemption.

Many people were outraged by Dr. Beth Vesco-Mock’s televised killing of the golden-haired dog (which was apparently the second such stunt for her) and her blaming of the public:

“I’m sure the public is tired of hearing this problem but unfortunately, it is a community problem – it is not a shelter problem, Vesco-Mock said.

It also came out that she’d briefly directed a Georgia shelter, but was fired after a dog was left in a hot animal control vehicle and died.

At the time of the televised killing the Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley had a 70% kill rate–significantly higher than the national average of about 50%.  Appalling, when you consider that we have known how to achieve 90+% save rates for over 10 years.

The Animal Services Center of the Mesilla Valley and Dr. Beth Vesco-Mock are in the news again today, this time for doing a free pit bull adoption event for the month of October.  According to the news article, the shelter will still use its usual screening procedures, the only difference being that there will be no charge to adopt pit bulls.  In addition, the dogs will be neutered already.

Now, I have a natural tendency to be skeptical, and I don’t think that this shelter director suddenly turned into adoption promo queen Bonney Brown, but, could this be progress?  Is she really going to do it and do it right?  I sure hope so.  The fifty-six pit bulls currently at the facility, the other dogs, and the cats and other animals, are depending on progress.

A couple of things are pretty clear to me, based on comments I’ve seen about this article on the article itself, and on Facebook:

1. A lot of people don’t read past the headline of an article, and
2. A lot of people have misconceptions about what free and reduced-price adoption promotions are all about.

Free pet adoptions are not aimed at people who otherwise couldn’t afford a pet, and that’s not primarily who they attract. Just as Nordstrom holds special sales only for its best and, presumably, wealthiest customers, just as car dealers and appliance stores and luxury hotels have special promotions, shelters and rescue groups who do free adoptions know that the “free” part is a marketing strategy, not a hand-out.

I doubt that most of the people who are so upset at the prospect of pit bulls being adopted out for free know that the last time this facility made headlines, it was for killing a dog on television.  I doubt that most know that at that time, its kill rate was 70%.  And wherever kill rates are high, they are generally even worse for dogs labeled ‘pit bulls’.

Shelter killing creates a toxic climate of fear, leading to a willingness to believe the worst about people, and the long tradition of blaming the public means that the people whose support is essential to saving lives–”the public”, is, after all, your pool of potential adopters–is viewed with suspicion rather than courted.  Innovation is suspect.

Is this shelter director committed to making this event a success?  I don’t know.  I sure hope that she is.  What I do know is that the animals deserve a successful adoption event, and many more in the future.  Animal advocates should do what they can to make this event a success, because we need to leave the bad old days behind.

If you were a pit bull, which would you choose: 15 minutes of fame for getting killed on the evening news or 15 years of life with a family who adopted you for free?