The Lunendogs Blog
I HATE BANFIELD!!!!
Let’s start with a couple of apropos links to Banfield stories in the media.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/pets/banfield.html
http://banfield-pet-hospital.pissedconsumer.com/
http://www.oregonlive.com/tualatin/index.ssf/2010/04/lawsuit_alleges_banfield_pet_clinic_in_tualatin_put_profits_over_pets.html
(good luck getting through ALL these complaints, many of which are simply heartbreaking, and most of which were because of insensitivity, or complete incompetency…)
Okay….let me share my stories.
#1. This first story is a first-hand revelation. It happened TO me. Summer. 2008. Summer of “fleas”. Now, normally my dogs are flea-free, and without benefit of monthly poisons. But, every so often you have a summer where a few fleas get a foothold. I have very good luck with Advantage or Advantix, use it rarely, and only for as long as needed. As much as I detest Banfield, I know Advantage is OTC, I happened to be across the street from PetsMart, so I was just going to stop, grab some Advantage and head home to treat some itchy dogs. Well, where the Advantage “should” be on the shelf, there is a note to “see the customer service associate”. I’m perplexed, but go in search of an “associate” who promptly tells me I will need a prescription. “No, I don’t”, I tell him. And now he decides to argue with me a take a bit of a ‘tude with me. And at which point, I give him a schooling in “tude… At which point he sheepishly agrees that, “no, it doesn’t require a prescription, but Banfield wants to check out each dog before using the product. He says I can get an immediate appointment at Banfield, and have them examine the dog, and write a prescription. I point out, I didn’t BRING a DOG. “Oh…that’s okay”….they don’t need to see the dog, they can just write the prescription for you”. (Poor thing…he was trying his best to carry the company “line”…but was now just tripping all over himself…) At which point, I tell him he’s full of bullshit, and I KNOW it’s an OTC product, and if they don’t wish to sell it to me…I’ll go to PetCo. I’ve purchased it there before, and I’ll spend my money there. Which is what I did. I haven’t set foot inside a Petsmart since. And won’t. It doesn’t help that Petsmart will not utilize any docked, cropped, or intact animal in their advertising. And prefer not to use males at all, because they have penises. I’m NOT kidding. I have a talent agency for a couple of my dogs, and she is the one that told me after I submitted a portfolio to the ad agency looking for the dogs, that MINE were NOT APPROPRIATE, and then explained “why”. I think I said something about telling Petsmart to shove it “somewhere not mentionable here”.
#2. This is a first-hand account as I was a part of this story. I was contacted by an out-of-state breeder (Great Dane) who was placing a cropped puppy in this area, and wanted to insure that experienced support was available to her adopting family, especially in terms of on-going ear care and posting. She had already contacted the couple’s vet, and was assured that the puppy would be in good veterinary “hands”. This couple had previously owned “pet” Weims, and had used this vet for years. And owning Weims, is pretty good credentials for owning just about ANY other breed!
#3. I also have client that lost a schnauzer because it was given vaccinations that she had not authorized. The dog was not elderly, but was getting on to late middle age, and she wanted to be very conservative about vaccinations at this age. The dog had also recently recovered from some minor illness, and the owner had specifically requested only Parvo and Distemper. WITH NO Rabies at that particular juncture. She would vaccinate for Rabies in six or eight weeks, as a singular vaccination. When she returned to pick up her dog, the bill showed a 7/1 WITH Rabies administered as well. She about passed out. When she questioned the vet, she was told there were “standard” protocols, and those could not be deviated from. Her dog lived through several months of autoimmune issues, and was euthanized about seven months later due to so many issues that had not existed prior to the vaccinations and which were auto-immune in nature. Specialists that treated the dog after the Banfield experience, were amazed at the vaccine protocol used for an older dog.
#4. And today…another Dane couple took a puppy with cherry eye (a not-common, but also not unusual condition in loose eyed breeds) to a Banfield vet. Many minor cases of this condition will resolve on their own, and are sometimes just a part of the growing-up process. Like Pano or HOD. However, they can be of such condition that surgery is required. This is the first “potential” show dog this couple has purchased. Again, they have previously owned dogs, and have used this Banfield vet….but these were just “pets” and therefore had the usual vaccinations, had been spayed/neutered, and although Banfield offers healthcare “packages” giving discounts and incentives on many common well pet and routine procedures, they had never purchased one previously because of cost. But, since this was a potentially valuable show puppy, they purchased one of the packages. And it did offer some discount on this type of surgery. AND OF COURSE, Banfield was going to recommend surgery. Just one problem. When the couple went to pick up their puppy from cherry-eye surgery, it had also had it’s testicles removed. Yes, he was neutered without owner consent. Now Banfield seems to look at their healthcare “packages” as contracts, and since this “package” included a discount for sterilization surgery…they claim that they can decide when it is best to perform the sterilization surgery. Never told the clients they were going to do it…nor did the clients request it. They thought it was simply an optional discount “should they decide” at some point to neuter. An attorney has been contacted. I’ve also been told by a vet tech who USED to work for Banfield, they can sue for replacement cost of the puppy. But his breeding potential is gone. And without being intact, he cannot be shown. So his show career is dead. At five months.
Be afraid. Banfield is a HUGE AR supporter, and also has quotas that they work out in conjunction with Petsmart. It is a common practice for many of the products offered at Petsmart to be available only through Banfield “prescription”. The ex-manager I spoke to, actually told me that on Monday mornings, Banfield and Petsmart management set quotas for how many office visits should occur that week (referred from Petsmart) and what the minimum amount each Banfield visit should “net”. Banfield is incompetent and greedy, making people pay for services, tests, or drugs that may not be necessary…worse yet are those cases that are misdiagnosed and left untreated or improperly treated. AT the expense of the very animals they are supposed to care about. Animals suffer, and in many cases, have DIED unnecessarily. Banfield BAD. Banfield should be put out of business. And until Petsmart divorces them once and for all…I will give business to neither.
An Update to “Vote No on Mo Prop B”
I posted a blog entry last week which included a link to a Nathan Winograd article, examining the benefits and risks presented by this very controversial “bill”. I stated that I agreed with Nathan on many of the issues he discussed, but that we parted ways on the final “vote” decision, as Nathan reservedly supported a “yes” vote. After a few days of consideration, he posted another blog entry and I’d like to share that with you. It stands on it’s own. Again, I invite you to read it…and to decide for yourself whether this bill actually protects the animals it “claims” to serve.
On civility…and trolls
This has been rolling around in my head for awhile, and this morning I woke up, and had to write about it. The current environment of intolerance, impatience, hostility, and fear-mongering is beyond troubling. Not that these things haven’t always been…they have. But my own opinion, for whatever it is worth, is that the advent of cyberspace has, unfortunately, fostered acceptance of an incredibly dangerous tendency to speak without consequence. We will never meet most of those who attack us, or whom we attack. Notice the use of the word “attack”…it is intentional. (Trolls, pay attention…this is for you….)
Intolerance and impatience, I blame on the “me” reality. I want it, I want it now. Me, me, me. I’m right, you’re wrong. And if you keep ME from getting what I want…then watch out…you’re going down. I’m going to throw a tantrum…until I get what I want. I don’t care what I say, I don’t care what I do…and I don’t care who I hurt….because it’s about ME! Don’t you get it….it’s about me, DAMN IT!!!!! Shut up and listen to me….you’re NOT listening to me. I don’t give a crap about what you are saying…completely unimportant….how does it impact ME!!?? We have turned into an entire country of four-year olds…(doing a terrible disservice to all the real four-year olds out there…) Civility is simply a casualty of the “me” reality. YOU ARE NOT important unless you are helping ME get what I want, so why do I care how I talk to you? Why do I care how I treat you? If you are not a means to an end for me…why do I care? Or the ever popular…if you’re not with me, you’re against me. (Trolls, this is what I refer to as the “troll dance”…where you jump up and down on alternating legs, twirling around with your ugly, knarly, hairy little bodies, raising your blood pressure to a point where we can only hope your head explodes…)
The fact that we, as a society, can no longer speak to each other with civility and respect, on-line OR in-person, is frightening, AND more importantly, dangerous. We allow those things that divide us, to anger us and make us defensive and fearful, and therefore unable to have a “conversation” in which we listen, and participate. We no longer “live” in community, where we know each other and have “personal” contact, and therefore we feel we have a “license to slander/defame”, or indeed, hurt and attack, anyone who happens to have a differing opinon. We longer tolerate that with which WE don’t agree. Since none of us can ever agree on everything with everyone else…that’s an awful lot of potential intolerance. (Otherwise known as “troll food”)
But here’s the kicker. Judging someone based on a single issue on which you disagree, robs you of knowing the “entire” person. We let “issues” keep us from knowing each other, and finding out how much we have in common. I disagree with people all the time, on all sorts of issues…even ones I find profoundly important to me…and you know what? I really enjoy the person I disagree with in the far majority of cases. I love that they enjoy the same things I do…and that they are funny, or keenly intelligent, or quirky, or that we have cool things in common. I routinely lunch with people of drastically differing opinons than I. I have been known to eat with vegetarians, and animal rights supporters, (OMG!!!) and HAVE FUN! Some of my best friends are Conservatives. I enjoy the person, and appreciate their passion. Taking time to “know” the person helps to foster communication as well. It’s hard to attack someone when you have shared meals with them, or met their family, or worked on some project together. Some of my best friends are those with which I have the strongest disagreement on a particular issue. NOTE…particular issue. We are more than our opinion on AN issue. We are all complex, unique, experienced, and important. Not a single one of us, holds exactly the same thoughts, the same dreams, the same hopes, or the same opinions. We share one belief with this group, and another belief with a different group, ad infinitum. We are NOT carbon copies of each other’s beliefs. We have different histories, different backgrounds, and have all traveled different paths to where we are today, and will take different paths to our tomorrows. (Although, oddly enough…trolls do seem to have the ability to replicate identically. Strange….)
Respect is what happens we take the time to “get-to-know” someone. Personal growth is what happens when we take the time to converse with those of differing opinions and backgrounds. Civility is what happens when we discover if we wish to “hear” and “learn” or, more importantly ”teach”, there are basic rules of conduct. And without those, you are just a “blow hard”. And at some point, people will simply see you as such, and not “hear” or care about anything you say. (In my case, I turn people off with long-winded, verbose postings. My own blog has helped rein-in that tendency on other blogs…but here…my blog, my rules, my words. You are HERE of your own free will…) It is one thing to argue with passion and fire, it is another to simply spew vitriolic, hate-filled, intolerant trash. If we disconnect ourselves from having to know anything about the person OTHER than how they feel on a particular issue, it’s easy to demonize. It’s easy to “assume” what they must be. It’s much easier to “attack” because “they” are now the enemy. It’s easy to hate that which we have never bothered to learn about or know. This is the problem currently in our legislatures. Once upon a time, regardless of which side of the aisle a legislator sat, they had “friends” on the other side. Real friends…the kind where your families spent time together, where you shared in each other’s lives…even if you disagreed on some points of politics. There were warm relationships. Now..we have political alliances. We don’t have friends, we have “pawns”…we manipulate people and issues. We are “users”…in every sense of the word. And it’s not just legislators. This is what our society has become. What WE ALL have become. We all “use” each other. (“Feed the Trolls at Your Own Risk”…or…”Political Trolls 101″.
The next time you feel like going off on someone that you know nothing about, except their opinion on a specific topic or issue, take a moment to consider asking them something completely unrelated to the topic at hand. My guess is if you bother to have a conversation of any significance, you’ll find you have something in common…and in most cases, you find you have far more in common than the one issue that divides you. So, is that “one” issue worth trashing the entire person? Remember, you are disagreeing with a concept, an idea, a position…NOT with who the “whole” person is. Or at least, you shouldn’t be…and therein lies the problem. We are all more than the sum of our “parts”. And we become even more when we are in “relationship” with each other. We are stronger BECAUSE OF our differences. You cannot build ANYTHING with one component or tool. (Troll control = our “bridges”, i.e. relationships, must be constructed well. They must be strong and able to withstand the constant attack of the trolls who live “beneath” the bridge, attacking all those whom benefit from the bridge. Lighting under the bridge helps too!)
One volunteer’s view of a shelter’s transition to No-Kill
Another one, just too good to let go. Tompkins County SPCA hard-fought No-Kill success. It’s long, but a very important read. Thank you Valerie Hayes for providing this article.
Vote “No”…Mo Prop B
I just ran across this link on my facebook page, and wanted to share it. http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=4418
I read a lot of Winograd, and will probably “quote” him more often in my blogs. He and I share a few things in common…a love of animals, a commitment to No-Kill, and a tendency to be rather verbose. Today’s entry was so good that I had to provide a link. It reflects the difficulty in navigating in political climate when dealing with animal welfare issues. Today’s entry addresses the Missouri Prop B which will be on the ballot this November, and which attempts to regulate puppy mills. I don’t always agree with Nathan, and on this issue we do part ways…but the decision each of us makes is based upon the same reason…the fact that the proposed legislation is flawed. And that if passed, there are many issues and challenges that have not adequately been addressed. And as Nathan points out, many of us simply are opposed because of HSUS involvement…and in large part, that explains my reticence. BUT…Nathan’s insights, as always, are amazingly astute, easy to grasp and understand and presented with candor and and this blog entry is well worth the read.
A few other thoughts to consider…
Some opponents to Proposition B, however, do not believe “correcting basic problems” is the main goal of the proposed ballot measure. During a Polk County Farm Bureau meeting in January, Kelly Smith, director of marketing and commodities for Missouri Farm Bureau, said the proposition (which was, at the time, still an initiative petition) was the work of animal activist groups to subtly and slowly integrate the abolition of animal agriculture.” (HSUS inferred)
The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, an opponent to Proposition B, released a list of discussion points, saying, “The ballot being proposed for this November would completely outlaw our state’s well-run and licensed facilities that have over 50 breeding dogs. This is unfair and misguided. These are operated properly under the guidance of extensive current regulations in order to provide families with pets to love and cherish. Cases of neglect and bad conditions have come mainly from unlicensed breeders who are not overseen by state inspection.
“Passing blanket initiatives without careful consideration of the facts and ignoring existing law is not in the best interest of the dogs we are trying to protect.” (MVMA)
Opponents of Proposition B include the Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, and the Alliance for Truth. http://www.thealliancefortruth.com They argue that the new regulations do not target the real problem and would be cost prohibitive, drive most professional Missouri dog breeders out of business, cost thousands of jobs, and ultimately threaten the food supply if such regulations ever found their way into agriculture.
ALL dogs – not just those who are part of a breeding program – deserve:
- Sufficient food and clean water;
- Necessary veterinary care;
- Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
- Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down and extend his or her limbs;
- Regular exercise; and
- Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
However, the way in which some of these terms are defined in Missouri Proposition B do absolutely nothing to improve the wellbeing of animals; instead, it would add excessive expenses to responsible breeders who strive to produce well-bred family pets.
The proposal also seeks to limit the number of dogs an individual may own. This confuses the real issue of animal welfare, which focuses on the quality of care given to animals,not the number of animals an individual owns. Responsible breeders are not defined by the number of dogs kept, or whether they make a profit in selling dogs. Rather, responsible breeders are characterized by the quality of care and conditions that they provide their dogs and the quality (including health, temperament and breed type) of the puppies they produce.
Cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person has.
Furthermore, the term “puppy mill cruelty” used in Proposition B to be offensive to responsible breeders. Local responsible breeders should be viewed as assets to their communities. These breeders make serious commitments to their animals by raising healthy, well cared-for dogs and by working to ensure that puppies are placed with responsible owners. They are in a unique position to support new pet owners and exemplify responsible animal ownership.
Make your own decision. But please make a well-informed one. There are very clear benefits and dangerous risks to either vote. Please take the time to consider not only the short-term consequences, but the long-term as well.
Adoption Dance
This was just too entertaining not to share! And thanks to “O is for Onward” for providing it. I did smile, and even teared up just a bit. This is what sheltering should look like. I’m not sure my local shelter is this dance-crazy…but their shelter looks much like this…and “feels” like this. Why can’t they all? Nevada Humane Society Adoption Dance
Adding a New Links Section
Well, I have finally finished my Great Dane National Specialty obligations. I offered to help with ad layout for the catalog, and didn’t account for HOW much interest there would be.
There’s lots going on in the legal wranglings of animal welfare these days. Mostly in terms of lots of ”innocent” people being unfairly, and possibly, intentionally… targeted. Because of the cost of financially defending yourself, MOST citizens cave in to the demands of the agency or agencies involved, meaning most surrender their animals in lieu of charges either being dropped or lessened. Even if not surrendered, the animals can be placed at the whim of a Justice of Peace at a hearing. A hearing is not a trial. A Justice of the Peace, needs no background in law. And a JP hearing does not occur in a court of “record”…meaning NO transcript or recording of the proceedings takes place. But a JP has the power in some states, (certainly here in Texas) to take your animals from you, and have a shelter or rescue place them permanently without a finding of “guilt” in a COURT OF LAW. A JP has the power to order your animals DESTROYED before you are found “guilty”. Animals are being seized and ownership legally being dissolved in venues all over our country, before a trial takes place, and before the owner is found guilty. I’m not sure what country we live in that can take something that belongs TO us without a finding of guilt. So…I’m adding a new links section which will have to do with legal cases, and most certainly their outcomes. Many of these, after resolution, are resulting in counter suits against the agencies which conducted the seizures. Also take note in these articles, that many seizures are taking place WITHOUT warrants, (yes, you read that right) are being obtained by falsifying information (yes, you read that right) and are conducted far outside the parameters of that warrant, if it does exist. A warrant SPECIFICALLY states WHAT is to be searched, and WHAT specifically is being searched for. Many citizens are asked to VACATE their property DURING the search and seizure WHICH IS ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We as citizens have rights, and they are being TRAMPLED and IGNORED completely. And for the state to be able to separate you from your pets without the burden of proving you guilty in a court of law, should frighten you deeply. How we have become a nation that protects our innocence ONLY if we have the finances to do so…is also deeply troubling. You might find this article interesting as well… http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/hsus_wildlife_policy_guilty_until_proven_innocent The fact that agencies or individuals can “prey” on those ill-equipped to financially protect themselves is a crime. That revenge or jealous attacks can be made on citizens through this process, and the citizen NOT protected by our laws, is also a crime. That misleading facts, or untrue facts, are used in reporting these cases is a crime. That the media jumps on these stories without the merest hint of fact-checking, is so lacking in responsibility as to be dangerous to the citizens they supposedly serve. So, I’m going to start adding this information to the website as well. If you have stories that are apropos…please send them to me, and if applicable…we’ll get them on the website. I’m hoping to be a bit more active on the site, now that things in my life have slowed a bit, so keep checking in for new “goodies”.
A few thoughts on “No-Kill”
Well, I’m covered under in work, but ran across this blog this morning, and it “sparked” my curiosity, and then got me all riled up again. And you know I can’t keep my mouth shut when I’m riled up. Here is the link: http://oisforonward.com/2010/09/denial-aint-just-a-river-in-africa/ And THANK YOU!
No-Kill is becoming more visible by the day. More and more bloggers, more and more rescuers, more and more people who simply love animals and work on their behalf, are picking up on it AND sharing it. More importantly, and more encouragingly, it is being blogged in POSITIVE light. Sure, we’ve talked about “No-Kill” for years, or more accurately, “THEY” have talked about it…about how it doesn’t work and have resorted to attacking the messenger in the person of Nathan Winograd. But sometimes, great paradigms evolve as a small, almost singular point of light, which continues to spread as it’s truth is revealed. We are watching the birth of a new paradigm.
This is my response to the wonderful blog above…
I also invite the world to start looking at a “little” municipal shelter in Plano, TX. They are a beacon for success in our area, and I don’t think anyone even knows about them. They have placement rates consistently in the 80 percentiles, year round…had over 50,000 people through the shelter last year, and had 8,000 volunteer hours. They have a clean, bright, happy facility, and just added a new addition to the shelter, a surgical suite and additional kenneling, and are making improvements in the outside areas around the shelter, so that several different, safe, enclosed, play yards can be provided, including those under shelter. It is happy place.
I think there are many shelters out there, unknown, unappreciated…that are doing fabulous work in our communities…and probably doing IT without any knowledge of “No-Kill” philosophy or Nathan Winograd per se. Plano is a community of approximately 275,000 people, and has a municipal, open-admission shelter, that receives it’s budget through Code Compliance, which in some cities is a HUGE problem since animal services are treated in much the fashion tall weeds and condemned buildings. Plano is just more proof of how something CAN still be successful, even when in other cities, it is a huge detriment. There is not one-size-fits-all for “No-Kill”. That is the beauty of “No-Kill” as Nathan has provided. Each community has the latitude in which to design and custom fit “No-Kill” within their community, as long as the basic framework is laid as the foundation. ”No-Kill” can work in a variety of environments. When it worked in San Francisco, that was “explained away” as an anomaly…and the inference as to why was based on bigotry and prejudice. Everywhere it was successful, there was a reason why it worked “there”, but a plethora of rantings would naturally follow as to why it couldn’t work in the mainstream. Well, a lot of those little “creeks” and “ditches” are draining into the “main stream”, folks.
I don’t care what they “call” it in Plano…but it works. The manager, Jamey Cantrell, stated that killing for “space” is an extremely rare occurrence (about a dozen animals last year) and one which they strive to completely end. They had ONE case of disease, a case of kennel cough, which was treated, and the animal placed. They have a state-of-the-art “green” shelter, with a highly efficient air recycling system, and a highly qualified, and highly motivated staff, AND volunteer corp. The animals are bathed, groomed, socialized, even trained by volunteers when available, and even cared for with injuries or minor conditions, AND placed. They even have donors, groups AND individuals, and veterinarians that will care for the serious cases that come in, IF their long term prognosis is good, and if good quality of life can be reasonably expected. Even dogs which are hit, or are heartworm positive, have hope in this shelter.
In addition, we have several other communities in the area that are seeing their placement rates increase significantly…Lewisville, Carrollton, Flower Mound. And many shelters in the area, are now beginning to place MORE than they kill. Perhaps not “flagship” status yet…but we are moving in the right direction as a region (DFW) if shelters in the area are beginning to place more than we kill. And I think once a shelter “tastes” success it becomes “addictive” and spurs them on to greater success. And when there is success, when there is a “feeling” of good, then the community will be drawn to help as well…and the success continues even further. NONE of this success can take place without the support of the public, to HELP AND to ADOPT! But NO ONE is drawn to dark, depressing environments, to work, or to access a new pet. Shelters that understand and invite their communities to be part of the solution, find that most communities WILL volunteer. And offer their suggestions. When volunteers are perceived as “snoops”, or as potential “hoarders”, or as an “opponent”…well, guess what…they won’t help. Which in some cases, in some shelters…I strongly believe is the intent. I don’t believe placement is the goal in too many shelters. I think maintaining the status quo is the goal. But I think the tide is turning, because for every successful shelter we KNOW about…I think there are FAR MORE we don’t know about…that just go about their work, and do it well.
How many of these stories do you hear? There’s a LOT of good going on out there.
And then, there remain the hell holes, the equivalent of the inquisition, the literal torture chambers, where cats starve in walls of the shelter, where a cat is removed from the night drop with a catchpole, breaking it’s jaw, tearing flesh from it’s legs, tearing out it’s nails, and bursting the blood vessels in it’s eyes, and where ACOs are called to accident scenes, where a dog with mutiple breaks in both rear legs, it approached by the ACO, who first forces the dog to try to walk, and when it cries, pulls it up by the rear fur, and when that has no success, drags the dog to the truck with a catchpole. Until the police officer on the scene takes over, and transports the dog. AND REPORTS the ACO. Yes, the Dallas Animal Shelter. $17.3 million dollars BOUGHT WITH TAXPAYER’S MONEY less than three years ago… It was touted as one of the FLAGSHIP shelters in the country. Totally “green”, wastewater recycling (doesn’t work), complete air reclamation/recycling (doesn’t work), surgical theater to inexpensively spay/neuter all outgoing animals (?????), air-conditioning hasn’t worked most of the summer (several reports of over-heated and extremely uncomfortable animals…big fans were brought in…), drains in the floors in several areas of the building have never worked…and it goes on and on…those are just the highlights. And then couple that with the above acts, all of which occurred within weeks of each other…and you have yourself some kind of “FLAGSHIP”!
However, those of you that know me, know that I’m a very positive person, and that I hate ending stories on a anything but a happy note…so here we go…from the Humane Society of North Texas, just this past week… link:
“Today we celebrated 105 years of life.
At a quiet but happy luncheon, our September numbers were reported. For the first time in HSNT’s 105 year history, we are running out of adoptable animals. Simultaneously, euthanasia numbers are at a historic low. Never before in the entire history of the Humane Society of North Texas have we faced the dilemma of “not enough adoption animals.”
Halleluia!
Cooperation…Animal Rights…Animal Welfare…Rescue…Breeders….Pet Owners and the larger Community…
Well, we agreed in my last blog that things are falling apart at the Dallas Animal Shelter. And, that something must be done. That “SOMETHING” cannot be accomplished without the cooperation of the ENTIRE Dallas community. What this blog attempts to address, is the definition of the “entire” community. It “should” mean EVERYONE…and it’s not just as simple as “animal rights”/ “animal welfare” distinctions. I think that there are concerned, compassionate, educated and knowledgeable individuals within those two VERY broad camps, but the distinctions blur into each other, and go SO much further than these two over-simplified labels.
There is a very healthy and active “Animal Rights” community within Dallas (see original blog post…) and that’s not necessarily a bad thing…but it IS a bad thing, when they are the ONLY “voice”. When they are the only ones “working” on behalf of what they believe is best for animals. When they are “SEEN” as the ONLY ones working on behalf of animals by the community and the media. Unfortunately, many within the rescue community have discovered just how harmful the 2008 ordinances were for them as well. Most rescues lost the majority of their fosters in Dallas…and it seems that many rescues are viewed in much the same light as breeders. Rescues continually fight the perception of “hoarder” since the passage of the ordinance. Rescues, by ordinance, are subject to unannounced home or facility inspections. DAS has a strained relationship with rescues, and I still remember Kent Robertson when he first came on board, in September of 2008, when asked why 501 (3) C rescues could not just “pull” animals, and why an adoption fee was required, he stated, and I quote, “Why should rescue make a profit on a healthy, adoptable animal, when we can?” Quite obviously, DAS was NOT about getting animals out, IF they had ANY possibility of monetary value that DAS “might” be able to reap. And if not? Well, the animals just become another “euth” stat. He did think “thoughtfully” for a moment and then agreed, that if the animal was heartworm positive, or severely injured or sick, that he “could” possibly consider those cases, on a case-by-case basis, and perhaps let some of ”those” go to rescue at no charge. In ALL the years I have pulled for my rescues, not one shelter has EVER charged a fee. Most will only let 501 (3)C non-profits pull, and they require the rescue to provide a list of APPROVED persons who can “pull” on behalf of the rescue, but most make a copy of my driver’s license, ask me to sign their paperwork, and usually try to pawn another one or two dogs off on me, before I leave. I’ve never paid a penny for any rescue I’ve pulled from a shelter, municipal, private, or otherwise. When asked about the “inspection” requirement of the ordinance (and this is not a one-time home visit, many rescues have been harassed by multiple, multiple visits…) Kent replied to the rescue volunteers in the room, “Well, we have to make sure you are not a “hoarder”. I guess DAS just assumes that WE are all criminals, until proven otherwise. Of course, these past couple of months seem to be proving the REAL criminals are AT DAS!!! In addition, much of what goes on at DAS or it’s commission, is simply “vindictive” in nature.
The breeders and professional canine and feline groups were ostracized greatly with the passing of the 2008 ordinances. They were basically told by the council that their “contributions” were not important. Opposition groups called them murderers and worse. Their events brought great financial reward to the city, in lease income from the sites in which they hold their event, in the hotels and restaurants they stay at and eat in, and in partaking in all of the culture and entertainment that Dallas has to offer. They are the ones producing healthy, well-tempered pets. Much of that has been lost since 2008. Fanciers and breeders still show at events, but rarely stay in the city, or eat in the city, or purchase their gas in the city. Or “play” in the city. They refuse to support a city which refuses to support them. They continue to support the “clubs” which supported them, even though it wasn’t successfully. The citizens of Dallas now also suffer a loss of quality animals being accessible to them as pets. Many breeders have left the city. The “pet limits”, breeder requirements, additional licensing and permit fees, and most certainly the greatly increased penalties and fines for non-compliance, have convinced many reputable breeders that it is too expensive, and too large an invasion of their privacy, to continue breeding. Many of these are highly reputable breeders, who breed because their hobby is showing well-bred animals. Most breeders ARE involved in rescue, especially in their breed rescues. That have extensive experience in reproduction, in whelping, in raising puppies or kittens or whatever the species may be, in dealing with health, nutrition, and various other fields of animal husbandry. Responsible breeders are experts in temperament and in behavior. The overwhelming number of GREAT breeders is completely ostracized because they “breed”. A few large scale, unethical breeders now are the “face” of ANYONE who ever has a litter. Or shows a dog or cat. Or even competes with one. The experience of the GREAT breeders we have here would be invaluable, but it’s been made quite clear, their expertise is actually despised, because they “breed”. Their wealth of expertise could have an incredible impact upon DAS and their policies AND their success. But because they “breed”…they are the devil incarnate. But don’t fear, Dallas….the bad breeders will still be here, because they ignored the old ordinances, and they’ll ignore these too…but they will keep pumping out puppies…so your supply won’t go away…just the quality…but don’t worry, those will be the next generation of euthanasia statistics.
We hear consistently that volunteers are non-existent at DAS. Well, take a look at the volunteer application. Six pages, the last time I looked. It is so invasive, and so presumptive of the volunteer’s potential “guilt”…why would anyone wish to bother? In addition, the atmosphere at the shelter has to be dismal and depressing, and it appears that non-disclosure statements are required as well. Yet, the shelter in my area (not Dallas), had almost 8,000 volunteer hours last year. 50,000 citizens walked through it’s front doors, and it’s facilities, looking for a new family member. This shelter requires those who wish to volunteer, to provide their personal information, and a background check. And a willingness to share your time, and your ability to be reliable and be at the shelter when you state you will. They have the same, beautiful, green shelter, and strangely… EXCEPT…everything THERE…works! The air conditioning, air-reclamation, recycling system, (resulting in a single case of kennel cough last year) and a very dynamic volunteer force. They are adding a spay/neuter surgical suite, and additional kenneling space. And enjoy roughly an 80%+ placement rate. They virtually do not euthanize for space. It’s as close to “No-Kill” as there is in the area, and I’m sure Winograd would be proud. They recognize, appreciate, and IMPLEMENT the ten REQUIREMENTS needed for successful “No-Kill” and they are most definitely an open admission shelter, and actually assist other local shelters by taking in additional, adoptable animals. It works, and anyone who says it doesn’t, is confusing “No-Kill”, with “no-kill”, didn’t implement the necessary steps, or simply didn’t try. The irony is, that I don’t believe my local shelter “perceives” their model as Nathan Winograd’s model…but, they have implemented the same requirements, and enjoy the resulting success.
In mandating spay and neuter, without having a REAL low-cost, or NO-COST option for those who can’t afford it privately…you have put citizens between a rock and hard place. What happened in Los Angeles as soon as mandatory spay/neuter passed? Yes, the vets in the city substantially INCREASED their spay/neuter fees…because now, legally everyone had to get their pet sterilized, so vets took advantage of the public, who knew that the public legally had to do this. Oh yeah, the coupons that LA promised would be available to those that could not afford the surgery? The city has budget problems, so those have all been terminated with one day’s notice. So, I guess those that don’t have the discretionary funds to sterilize their animals, legally should surrender them…since they are breaking the law. How does that drop euthanasia rates? Incur the cost of the surgery, or incur even more in fines, citations and fees. Or lose your pet. We can talk about “overpopulation” in another blog…but citizens are not criminals because they don’t spay or neuter their dogs. Or at least they “shouldn’t” be considered criminals. And the policy borders on racism in most communities. In Dallas, in three of the poorest districts, there are virtually NO veterinary practices, and those that do exist, aren’t taking on new customers and have elderly veterinarians. But go to North Dallas? Yes, there’s a veterinary practice on EVERY corner. And I do plan to discuss the benefits AND RISKS of spay/neuter surgeries in future blogs. And risks there are! And owners should be made aware of both the benefits and risks and make an informed decision. If government is going to FORCE the surgery, then the government should be responsible for paying recompense to owners whose animals die in surgery, and those which are left with lifetime consequences. I figure a few court cases against any city that enacts MSN, and are sued for damages…will rethink the policy. Now, you think I’m anti-spay/neuter. Far from it. I think that’s reason that we have been SO successful in radically reducing our euthanasia over the past forty years, when we euthanized over 13 million animals, and the population of companion animals was a fraction of what it is today. So voluntary spay neuter is a very critical piece of continuing to reduce our killing rates in shelters. About 21 million folks are looking to acquire a pet in any given year. So, it’s not a lack of homes, nor is it overpopulation. It is a failure of shelters to work. It’s too easy to kill.
It always amazes me, that cities and organizations that claim to work on behalf of animals believe that brow-beating the population, ASSUMING AND IMPLYING the citizen is the problem, and attempting to “scare” them with extremely punitive laws and measures….will find success. Exactly the opposite is true. Encouragement is the key. Reward is the key. Dallas desperately needs a LOW cost mobile spay/neuter unit. It needs to identify the poorest and neediest areas of the city, and offer those services at no-cost. It can offer the same services in other areas of the city, but at a slightly increased cost, to help offset the costs for the poorest neighborhoods. Offer discounted registration and micro-chipping with vaccination. Or vice-versa. If you have “targeted” breeds which you wish to see sterilized on a greater scale, offer a small gift card or rebate, to bring in the “targeted” breed for surgery, registration, and micro-chipping. Give a little to get a LOT! These are just a few “ideas”…and every community does it differently. Some cities offer a free travel voucher on metro transportation if taking an animal for a spay/neuter. Those in low-income neighborhoods often own ONE vehicle, if any…so transportation to a vet is problematic. Or one parent works, and one stays home with small children. And makes it impossible to be compliant. The potential solutions are endless and can be uniquely “fitted” to any community. If they are creative, compassionate (to both animals AND citizens), and able to “encourage” compliance by owners, instead of frightening them to death, and taking their animals…unique solutions will be found. I suspect an initiative such as this, might even find financial support from local clubs, in a cooperative effort. Breeders believe in spay/neuter, and most require it in their contracts for animals that aren’t going to be bred. Breeders are an incredible wealth of knowledge in whelping and raising neonates. They make great fosters, or great mentors. Rescue volunteers? Good god…they are the salt of the earth…and to assume up front, they are hoarders and sick people, will not help you place needy animals. And here’s a concept…a home that doesn’t work out, is still a helluva an option as opposed to being killed. Yes, I agree that in “some” cases, euthanasia is the kinder option. But the very, very, very last act of desperation. There’s things much worse than placing an animal in a home that doesn’t work. We have become so critical of people and homes, that we have basically eliminated all but the obsessive/compulsive cleanaholic from consideration. And then wonder why so many animals are in shelters and rescues. Yes, you need guidelines and homechecks…but old dogs don’t always need fenced yards with active adults, zero-lot line homes should allow 80 year ladies to tether their toy poodle for a couple of hours, and big dogs CAN live in apartments successfully. As for limits…they only limit the number of potential homes for needy animals. The Gideons are obviously able to care for 17, yes….SEVENTEEN animals, most of them elderly, most of them on meds….and yet I know people that can’t adequately care for one healthy animal. So, do numbers indicate responsibility?
We need to sit at the table, all of us, with equal voice, and listen to each other. AR/AW/rescue/breeder/pet owner…and once and for all, make those who govern us, listen to what we each offer, and what we each expect, and then do something incomprehensible…compromise, and find what really works for the animals. The show communities, which have been severely hurt by the ordinances, have a rare opportunity to reach out, become involved in the solutions that MUST take place. We were ignored once…and look what happened. There are many good ideas out there. They need to be heard. Contact your council representatives…contact Mary Suhm and Tom Leppert. We all have the opportunity to re-shape DAS, and the community, and perhaps bring a new dawn of cooperation and understanding. It’s easy to say, “I told you so”, but much harder, and much more noble to put that aside, roll up our sleeves and offer to help. And if ”we” don’t, then we let someone else do so…without our voice and our example.
In addition, the incredibly harsh and punitive ordinances do not work. They certainly haven’t had any effect on the CORE issue, for which these ordinances were even EVER considered. I believe that REASON was loose, roaming, and aggressive dogs in South Dallas. I don’t see a decrease in their numbers, and in fact, we have seen a rise in attacks. We certainly haven’t seen ANY decrease in euthanasia or impounds at DAS in TWO years. Matter of fact, the stats are slightly worse. Behavior at the shelter, is literally criminal. All volunteers and rescues are viewed as “hoarders”. And the breeders in Dallas (including some of the most reknown, respected, and successful in the country) have moved from the city, or are “underground”, accessing veterinary care and vaccination outside the city, or, worse…other lower income owners, in fear of losing their animals, because they are not spayed or neutered, are no longer going to the vet at all, and are not registering animals. And what will happen when they are caught? They will be fined so harshly, they won’t be able to afford to keep the dog, so another “euth” stat gets in line. So, shall we become the Gestapo, and go door-to-door to every citizen’s home, and wrench the family pet away, children crying??? Because we don’t spay or neuter? How does this reduce impounds and euthanasia? We kill the majority there now, how will bringing MORE in, help? We have lost our minds.
And here’s my “told you so”… $25,000 in 2001, and $25,000 April, 2010…paid to HSUS to “evaluate” and make recommendations as to how to “improve” the policies and conditions at DAS. Kind of makes you wonder what kind of “advice” you get for $50,000 these days. And if this is REALLY HSUS advice and evaluation…perhaps what we are hearing about HSUS is true as well. (again…that’s another blog)
That’s it for today, kids. Back to the grind of a real job. And you’re probably quite relieved that I don’t blog everyday!
Problems at DAS
Don’t know if anyone’s been keeping up…but the Dallas Animal Shelter is a mess, an embarrassment to the city, and in a complete tailspin and dive…not that it always hasn’t been…but usually the mess is swept under the rug, AND fairly successfully too! Well, it appears it’s now “full” under the rug, and the dirt is spilling out for all the world to see. And there’s nowhere to hide it anymore. The rug simply isn’t big enough. So I thought I’d share a little bit of the dirt…as a foundation to my next blog entry. I would also like to thank a handful of bloggers ALL of whom have been more than helpful in lifting up the rug, AND beating the hell out of it! Their devotion to animals, justice, and the TRUTH is inspiring!
PJ Boosinger pjboosinger.viviti.com/ PJ’s site is a varied one, but often includes animal topics, usually issues surrounding owners, with her own unique and highly critical eye.
Larry Powell http://readlarrypowell.typepad.com/ Larry is on top of all things “rescue”, “shelter”, and animals and events supporting them all, in the DFW/North Texas area.
Feline Provocateur feline-provocateur.blogspot.com/ This is the website for all things DAS from a public perspective. This site is critical reading for anyone wanting to keep up on shelter policies and politics!
_________
IT ALL BEGAN….earlier this year, with the Gideon “case”…which started horrifically for the Gideons, and ended up being a complete embarrassment to the city of Dallas. Sadly, it was one completely within Shelter Director, Kent Robertson’s, ”discretion”. He was not “discrete” nor did he choose wisely. As a result, Dallas was left with a great deal of “egg on their face”.
(By the way…A LARGE ”shout-out” to my bud…Judy Griggs at R-PAL and her “posse” in the rescue community, for bringing this to light…and for working non-stop on the behalf of the Gideons…along with many other bloggers, including the trio above, who made a critical impact!)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rpal/109995675684666
http://www.r-pal.org/rpal_news_066.htm
And more on the Gideon case...and a special thanks to their attorney, Byron Woolley, who ultimately “saved” the Gideon’s pets.
http://pjboosinger.viviti.com/entries/general/gideon-case
_________
AND THEN…there was the “cat-dying-in-the-wall” incident. Resulting in the indictment of the manager, Tyrone McGill. Links are easier to provide and if you google the words Dallas, shelter, cat, wall, and Mcgill, it will , unfortunately, result in so many articles on the story, you will simply be overwhelmed.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/081110dnmetcatinwall.29c92e8.html
html http://www.scribd.com/doc/35638779/Tyrone-McGill-Affidavit http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/Cat-Dies-Trapped-in-Animal-Shelter-Wall-100433709.html
________
AND THEN…the Director, Kent Robertson (yes, “THE” Kent Robertson of Houston BARC infamy) either “resigned” , or was “down-sized”, depending on who you believe (City Manager, Mary Suhm, has since “reinstated” the “position”…under significant public pressure), but either way, Robertson, is thankfully, gone. The same Kent Robertson who allowed puppies to “wash” down uncovered drains, and die, at BARC. (Well, at least he’s consistent. The horror stories surrounding this man abound!) And yes, more links for your reading enjoyment…
feline-provocateur.blogspot.com/
(and an excerpt from www. zootoo.com:) “Then, just a week ago an employee supposedly tried to remove a frightened cat from the overnight drop box using a catchpole. Another employee caught him beating the friendly, chubby cat with the pole. Her jaw was broken in several places & several of her claws were ripped out. She also suffered strangling, an injured leg, & hemorrhaging in her eyes.
Daisy survived her attack, was taken into rescue & is being treated for her extensive injuries, but how many more nameless cats & dogs are going to be allowed to suffer before the city steps in & cleans up this House of Horrors?”
________
BUT WAIT!!!! We’re not done…yet. Latest gossip…is that a DALLAS ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER tried to FORCE A DOG WHICH HAD BEEN HIT, and was laying alongside the road (due to a very empathetic Dallas Police Officer stopping to keep the dog from moving back INTO traffic…) WITH SHATTERED BONES in its rear legs TO STAND AND WALK, and when IT DIDN’T, PULLED it up by THE FUR, and when it STILL DIDN’T WALK on it’s own, and was CRYING IN PAIN…decided DRAGGING IT WITH THE CATCHPOLE was a satisfactory option. When is it going to stop?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/090910dnmetdog.24fc9a9.html
http://dallasanimaladvocates.wordpress.com/why-change-has-to-happen-now/
Excerpt from Larry Powell http://readlarrypowell.typepad.com/read_larry_powell/2010/09/on-a-rainy-day-reasons-to-be-moody.html?cid=6a00d8341c4e0853ef0134871fd3a5970c
“Word zipped around yesterday afternoon about an unpleasant handling of an injured dog by an animal control officer.
According to the folks at Dallas Animal Advocates, and to some discreet e-mails, this event was witnessed by the Dallas police officer who had called Dallas Animal Services for help in dealing with the dog.
The report is that the police officer kept the dog from going back into traffic while waiting. When the DAS officer arrived, he immediately got out a catch pole. The injured dog “wasn’t aggressive until he tried to get it to stand on shattered legs and then pick it up by its rear fur….only then…and it didn’t try to bite him.”
This insensitive handling has set off a storm in the animal community. As it turns out, the dog was transported to Dallas Animal Services, examined by a veterinarian, declared to be too injured to save and euthanized.
(Larry aside: Had it been my dog or your dog, perhaps it would not have been too injured to save. But it was a stray and it was in the Dallas Animal Services system and, as you know, the philosophy of the City of Dallas is this: “Got an animal problem? Let’s kill it.”)
Elaine Munch, president of the Metroplex Animal Coalition and moving force in Dallas Animal Advocates, distributed a reliable account of the event and uses it to call for change at the City of Dallas, specifically moving Animal Services out of the Code Compliance Department and making it a separate department led by an animal-knowledgeable individual.
And, Rebecca Poling, president of the education program Companions for Life and a member of the Dallas Animal Shelter Commission, wrote Mayor Tom Leppert and the City Council yesterday about moving Animal Services into a separate department and giving it strong leadership.”
…and for a good, overall condensed version, visit Larry Powell, September 08, 2010, pm edition…
________
NOW…I have basically brought you up-to-date, and laid the foundation for my next blog entry…. :>)