Last week, in the wake of the reality that Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon is a dog killer, The Toledo Blade has begun reporting a listing of all dogs adopted, and all dogs killed, at the Lucas County shelter at least until changes are made in the shelter. From the 11/14 report, which features 17 dogs killed, and 4 adopted, it seems that little is being done in the short term to bring an end to shelter killing.
But it is a dog on the 11/13 report that caught the eye of one of my readers in the comment section, that is th inspiration for the blog posting. Here's the part of the report:
Dogs Killed
"Pit bull," tan/white young female "with pink toe nail polish," North University, Toledo, running at large, no muzzle
Reading this can't help but break your heart. Obviously, this dog was someone's dog. Clearly behind the scenes here was an owner that cared dearly about their dog....they loved the dog so much they POLISHED HER TOENAILS. This isn't some inner city dog fighter like Tom Skeldon would have you believe is the "typical" pit bull owner and why he needs a ban. It was a caring person, who clearly had a connection with their dog.
Somehow, the dog got free (which anyone who owns a dog can tell you, can happen, even to a responsible owner), ended up in the animal shelter, and killed.
Now, most shelters would have workers and volunteers who are compassionate about animals. They would see this dog, realize the dog had an owner, and work their butts off to find that owner. They would post flyers in the North University area. They would talk to neighbors (I mean, come on, someone HAS to know the owner of the pit bull that polishes their toenails) and would work to find the owner who loved this dog. But this was in Toledo, where only 13% of the dogs make it out alive, and thus, the dog is dead.
But then that got me thinking, what about the dogs in shelters across the U.S. that have owners, but aren't wearing pink toenail polish?
Dogs can get loose for a variety of reasons. Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were out hiking and at the trail head, this dog came up to us. We pet the dog and checked out his collar -- his name was Huck. We have Huck some of our peanut butter sandwhich, a couple of carrots and a little drink of water. Huck was a little dirty and we couldn't find an owner, anywhere. We called the phone number on his tag and no one answered. We decided that most likely someone was looking for the dog and that we would leave him there. If Huck was there when we finished the hike, then we'd start searching for his owners.
We later met a woman on the trail, who was a little frantic that her dog had somehow wandered off while they were out hiking together and she didn't know where he went. I assume Huck and his owner were reunited.
But the moral of the story is, this was a caring owner, who was taking their dog out hiking, and the dog got loose. It happens. And the dog, gone from his owner for no more than a couple of hours had found water and mud and had gotten dirty. He looked a little disheveled.
But what would have happened if Huck had made it to a shelter and somehow lost his tags? Would the shelter have assumed that he was abandoned out in the woods? Would they have assumed that he was homeless because he was so dirty? Would they have assumed that the owner was not caring and irresponsible for letting their dog run free? Or ould they have busted their butts to try to find Huck's human hiking companion?
I guess my point is that a lot of dogs that find their way into the shelter are owned dogs. They have owners who love them, care about them, and sometimes paint their toenails pink. But what if their toenails aren't pink? What if the signs of ownership are not as obvious and the dog is a little dirty. Do we assume the dog is a stray? Or assume the dog is lost? And what resources do we put into finding the dog's home vs finding the dog a new home?
Do we think lost, not stray, even when the dog does not wear pink toenail polish or have other obvious signs of being owned? We should.
Last week, the New York Times ran a great article on various animal groups around the country that are helping people in low-income areas to provide food for their pets.
Pets make wonderful companions for people of all income levels, but sometimes it can be very difficult for people to financially afford the best for their pets. While some can judge the folks as not properly caring for their pets, to them, it's the best they can do.
Ollie Davidson, of the Tree House Humane Society in Chicago realizes he's helping both parties when they help pets: "We're helping people," he said. "In times of stress, it's always good to keep people with their pets."
And the help also allows dogs and cats that might otherwise end up in a crowded shelter from ending up there --- and any opportunity to keep a pet in a home is a great opportunity.
The Times article features several groups around the country, including Spay/Neuter Kansas City and Northland Pet Food Pantry in my city, that are helping people with low incomes to have adequate food, dog houses, dog bedding, etc. It really is a great program and I'm thrilled to have them in our city. Other groups featured were Tree House Humane Society and PAWS in Chicago, the Petco Foundation and their "We are Familie Too" program, Young at Heart Pet Rescue's Nina's Pet Food Pantry of Palentine, IL, and Northeast Community Lutheran Church in Minneapolis -- which is also providing pet food for needy families.
There's also a great photo album associated with the story here (go for no other reason than to check out the picture of the beautiful red bully). Most of the pics are from Kansas City.
The article ran in a special "giving" section of the newspaper last week.
If you have organizations like these in your home town, I strongly recommend a simple food donation, or time donation to help deliver the food, to help these organziations out. And if your city doesn't have one, how many human and animal lives can be improved if you started one? Don't hesitate. Start one in your home town.
--------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, there is a second story that I think is a must read. The story involves a dog named Oreo (get it, he's black and white). Oreo's owner was apparently a piece of crap of an individual and decided to throw Oreo off the side of a 6 story building. Oreo sustained major injuries including two broken legs, and a broken rib.
The ASPCA in New York raised money for Oreo and helped him to recover from his physical injuries -- unfortunately, Oreo wasn't able to overcome his emotional ones -- at least not in the time that the ASPCA alloted. The ASPCA determined that Oreo was too aggressive to go into a home*. Another organization, Pets Alive, that apparently specializes in dealing with rehabilitating dogs like Oreo, offered to take Oreo from the ASPCA and work on his rehabilitation -- and even if he was never able to be completely rehabbed, would be allowed to live out his life in their Sanctuary where dogs get walks and attention every day from volunteers.
* I should note that Oreo seems very calm in this photo taken by the ASPCA and far from "overly" aggressive"
The ASPCA opted to kill Oreo instead.
First off, I must say, that I support rescue groups' decisions to euthanize dogs that really are too aggressive to adopt into homes. There are too many great dogs in the world to not take that risk.
But I also believe that the vast majority of dogs with behavioral issues can be rehabilitated with tons of love and training by a dedicated person or group of people. And I believe that euthanasia is the "solution" only when there are absolutely no other options. It is the very last option, the end of the line. It's the end of the line for the dog, and thus, should be our very last resort.
It sounds as if the ASPCA euthanized Oreo, even though other options were available for Oreo. And I do have a problem with that.
I'm not going to go into a lot of details on this -- instead, I'll provide some links -- but I just want to emphasize that euthanasia is the VERY LAST RESORT, the end of the line, for pets. It should only be used when every single other safe option has been exhausted. And we need to hold our national organizations like the ASPCA to that standard.
Meanwhile, it sounds like Oreo's owner, Fabian Henderson,is scheduled for sentencing on December 1st after pleading guilty to aggravated animal cruelty.
Pets Alive Blog -- Failing Oreo.
ASPCA to Euthanize Oreo - from the New York Animal Welfare Examiner.
Deluge of pleas to spare Oreo thrown off roof -- the NY Times Blog
Oreo the abused pit bull is euthanized -- The New York Times
Oreo is dead, the blame game is not -- The Gothamist
ASPCA Statemen on the Euthanasia of Oreo - the ASPCA
ASPCA Euthanizes Oreo -- YesBiscuit!
The meaning of Oreo - Winograd
"Unsaved": When the shelter that "rescues" a dog turns around and kills her -- Pet Connection
The idea behind animal shelters is simple. Sometimes people are jerks, or careless, or victims of bad luck -- and the dog they committed to "for life" ends up homeless. The animal shelter the last resort for animals that have nowhere else to go.
I could use this column to go on about how shelter kill more healthy dogs and cats than any other cause of death. They call it euthanasia, but the end result is still death for the animal.
But today I won't. Today I want to ask, what happens when the dogs end up in a shelter where the people who run the shelter who don't really care about animals? Where the abuse they suffer is worse than it would be if the dog was just left out on the street?
Sadly, it happens. And it apparently did in amazing fashion recently in Memphis. On August 18, the dog pictured to the left entered the Memphis Animal Shelter as a seemingly healthy, vibrant puppy.
On September 4th -- only 3 weeks later -- the dog was found starved to death in the shelter. And this puppy wasn't the only case -- but was actually one of three dogs in the shelter that was found starved to death. Veterinarian reports note that the dog had not eaten anything in at least 72 hours prior to his death.
What -- the- hell?
The city animal control department is responsible for actually enforcing the city's animal cruelty laws -- not violating them on their own. And apparently, problems have been going on for awhile --- as the death rates in the city shelter have risen sharply over the past few years -- from 75 animals dying in the shelter in 2006, to 119 in 2007 to 193 in 2008.
The Memphis Mayor, AC Wharton, seems legitimately concerned about the issue -- and has halted all shelter euthanasia (which is at 250 animals per week -- 13,000 animals a year) until the criminal investigation is complete.
We can, and must, demand better from our animal control departments. These departments are tasked with not only providing public safety from animals -- but providing safety for animals from the public, both in terms of cruelty and abuse, and in terms of minimizing and eliminating shelter euthanasia. Memphis is major need of a dramatic overhaul of the entire department -- and I hope someone sees jailtime over this one.
Hat tip to YesBiscuit! on this, who has been following the story from the start:
Here's her original coverage on the raid.
And her understandably emotional response to the story about the puppy above (including the "after" image)
And For the Love of Dogs has some very thorough coverage of the events there as well.
