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.
Marketing guru and author Seth Godin had a great blog posting yesterday entitled "The Why Imperative". Here's a clip:
That's not what we do," is the backbone of strategy, it determines who you are and where you're going.
Except in times of change. Except when opportunities come along. Except when people in the organization forget to ask, "why?"
If the only reason you don't do something is because you never did, that's not a good reason. If the environment has changed dramatically and you are feeling pain because of it, this is a great reason to question yourself, to ask why.
The correlation with animal rescue and sheltering really struck me. It seems that many places do a lot of things (and don't do others) largely because that's how they've always done things -- or because they just don't do it that way.
And by and large, people are so busy to stop and ask "Why?" or "Why not"?
Does your rescue/shelter organization have blanket rules that prevent more animals from being dopted?
Fencing requirements?
Not going to a home with an altered dog?
Not going to homes because they have a same-sex dog?
The dog is going to be a "farm dog"?
The dog owner lives in an apartment?
The potential adopter may not have "enough money" to afford the worst case scenerio for veterinary care -- even if that is likely to never come up?
Have you asked yourself why these exist even though there are many perfectly good homes that would be denied for one or more of these criteria?
Or how about things your organization doesn't do?
Adopt dogs out close to the holidays?
Adopt out black cats close to Halloween?
Hold off-site adoptions in high-traffic locations? Every Day?
Remain open in the evenings, weekends and holidays when people with "day jobs" can easily visit?
Why not?
In the business world, strong businesses are constantly challenging the status quo, looking at what works for other organizations, and changing to take advantage of new opportunities.
In the animal welfare world, we're in the "business" of finding homes for adoptable animals. Are there opportunities out there that we are not taking advantage of that are causing animals to die in our care? Why is your organization not taking advantage of those opportunities?
I usually try to add this as part of the weekly roundup, but there have been some great posts from around the internet the past 10 days or so and I just really want to put them out there for some excellent reading. I really do encourage you to click through -- some great stuff out there.
Sam theDog Trainer has a very good new article on some of the causes for dogs biting young children. The keys are supervision children and dogs, providing proper training and exercise for your dog, and not creating a stressful environment for your dog.
Great news from Austin Pets Alive -- the Austin city council unanimously passed the resolution to make the necessary steps to make Austin a no-kill city. Here's a link to the shelter recommendations on how they plan to achieve no kill.
The folks at Animal Ark Foundation in Minneapolis have a great You Tube video they put together on how the animal welfare industry lost their way -- based on the book Redemption. It's very much worth watching -- it's 20 minutes long but goes very quickly.
Fred at One Bark at a Time has a really great article about dog bites. The reality is that most dog bites happen for a reason -- and it is usually caused by something the human did wrong. The more we understand dog behavior, the more we can properly assess whether a biting dog is truly aggressive or not. Fred shares a couple of personal stories that provide great examples for discussion. I'm a fan of Fred's writing (and photography), but I think his telling of personal stories like this are him at his best.
Christie had a great article in the San Franscisco Chronicle about why dog advocates aren't moving on when it comes to Michael Vick's unpaid dues. Vick's actions went far beyond dog fighting and into nearly unspeakable animal cruelty...for which Vick has never shown even the slightest bit of remorse.
This one is seemingly a bit random, but this is an article by John Stossel one what he feels like is a double-standard that journalists seem to have about bias. When Stossel first started as a journalist, he mostly reported about companies that were trying to screw over consumers (he has some interesting thoughts on this), and when he was doing it, other journalist liked him. But now that he has turned his focus onto the government and media and its constant fear mongering. I think it's a pretty good read following my series on the Science of Fear a few weeks ago. For what it's worth, I did a write-up about Stossel's Series: Fear Mongering in America back in 2007 - -you can read those installments here, here, here and here.
PBRC has launched a new blog called Pitter Patter. The site is mostly really cute pictures of 'pit bulls' in really funny moments and with funny headlines. Think of it as the LOLcats for 'pit bulls'. Nearly guaranteed to bring a smile to your face.
YesBiscuit has a good commentary on "What if we all neutered our pets today?" in response to the push for mandatory spay/neuter in Northeast Georgia.
A week after acommittee provided recommendations for how Lucas County Dog Warden tom Skeldon should perform his duties, County leaders in Lucas County have made it very clear that the status quo was no longer acceptable.
Skeldon has vowed to "redouble" his efforts to adopt out more animals -- curbing the shelter's abysmal 80% euthanasia rate - but provided no specifics on how he would do it. Upon learning about Skeldon's response to the committee's recommendations, Lucas County Commission Presdident Pete Gerken said he would call a face to face meeting "to make sure he knows what he needs to do. If he needs some creative thinking, I'll be happy to give some."
Ouch.
Last November, under the same pressure, promised to get the shelter's adoption rate, which was then at 13%, up to 24% by the end of 2009, and up to 34% at the end of 2010. However, as of August 22, the shelter adoption rate was still at an abysmal 16.1%.
As of October 23, 62% of the dogs in the shelter had been euthanized this year -- to which, Skeldon responded "We are a success story. We are to be emulated." Meanwhile, Skeldon spent most of the article blaming everyone except himself for the problems in the shelter.
With a reaction like that, I sincerely doubt Skeldon has any desire or ability to make the changes possible to meet the demands of the public.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've written about this before, but society's views on the roles of animal control are changing. No longer is animal control seen as just a department that is designed to protect people from dogs -- a notion that came out of the fear of rabies decades ago. But it is also now seen as an important for animal control to protect animals from people - -including our very own shelters.
Skeldon, and many others who are of the "old school" mindset fail to recognize this and continue to kill animals in an effort to improve "public safety" -- with no regard whatsoever for animal welfare.
It is no longer an acceptable form of animal control (if it ever, indeed was).
What may be worse is that in 2008, Toledo saw a 23% increase in dog bites -- so they're not really working on the public safety angle either. It is a failure all around.
I'll talk more about this next week, but the ideas surrounding no-kill and public safety are NOT mutually exclusive. It is possible -- and being done - that cities are both promoting public safety AND improving the welfare of animals. They can, and do, work hand in hand.
And the sooner we put good managment in charge of our animal control divisions -- that see that there are two sides of animal control -- protection of people from animals, and protection of animals from people - the sooner we will make true progress toward becoming a no-kill nation -- one that is truly animal-friendly.
The world is changing - -and our views on animals are changing. And the sooner those who are in charge recognize that, the better.
