Wednesday, May 11, 2011

You set the scene

You go through changes, it may seem strange Is this what your put here for?
You think you are happy, and you are happy
That's what your happy for
There's a man who can't decide if he should
Fight for what his father thinks is right

There are people wearing frowns who'll screw you up
But they would rather screw you down
At my request I ask for nothing
You get nothing in return
If your nice you'll bring me water
If you don't I will burn

This is the time and life we are living
You'll face each day with a smile
For the time that I've been given such a short while
And the things I do consist of more then style
There are places I am going

This is the only thing I am sure of
And that's all that lives is going to die
And there'll always be people here to wonder why?
And for every happy hello, there will be goodbye
There be time to put yourself up

Everything I've seen needs rearranging
And for anyone who thinks it strange
Then you should be the first to want to make this change
And for everyone who thinks that life is just a game
Do you like the part your playing?

I see your picture, it's in the same old frame
We meet again  - Arthur Lee

Alone again my dear

Ohio Puppy Mill Victim

Yeah, said it's alright
I won't forget
All the time I've waited patiently for you
And you'll do just what you choose to do
And I will be alone again tonight my dear

Please come get me

Yeah, I heard a funny thing
You said it's alright
I won't forget
All the times I waited so patiently for you
Now, you do just what you choose to do
And I will still be alone again tonight my dear

Will I Ever Get Out?

Somebody said to me
You know I could be in love with almost everyone
I think that people are
The greatest fun
But I will be alone again tonight my dear

While many people may be familiar with the term "puppy mill" few are aware of the magnitude of the horrors associated with them. Puppy mills are facilities that mass-produce puppies for sale to individuals or for pet stores throughout the country as well as to emerging foreign markets. From back yard breeders to those selling via the Internet, thousands of puppy mills aren't even regulated or inspected by the USDA since they sell directly to the public.

Whether they are born in a licensed facility or not, puppies face a dismal and uncertain fate at the hands of individuals who are motivated by greed. Some die while being transported to pet stores or shortly thereafter and others find themselves in the hands of irresponsible or abusive guardians.

Dogs used for breeding suffer an endless misery imprisoned in small cramped cages, often soiled with their own excrement, breeding litter after litter till they can no longer reproduce.

They are, alone again my dear

Puppy Millers Breed Pain, Suffering, Death

For all the "puppy mill apologists" who claim puppy mill breeders are not responsible for shelter kill numbers - watch this video.  Not only do millers dump the dogs they don't want to bother killing, but millers "have no regard for animals".  Here's a video:

Sadly, as the report suggests - there is NOTHING illegal about running a puppy mill in Mississippi.  When the profits failed to materialize, these millers simply abandoned their mill and left their dogs behind for the animal shelter.  They won't be charged for running a puppy mill but will be charged with animal cruelty.  Puppy mills are a major player in the pet overpopulation problem that's prevalent throughout the south.

The enemy within the shelter reform movement?

"As an organization committed to shelter reform, part of our efforts include revealing the truth about organizations that CLAIM to be working towards shelter reform, but whose funding is actually going elsewhere. We’re often accused of “bashing” the big three (the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)). But “bashing” isn’t our purpose or intention. What we’re doing is alerting people to the realities of where their hundreds of millions of dollars in donations are going."

I had hoped to not have to answer No Kill Nation's recent blog which attempted to give "reason" to the endless attacks on large animal protection groups coming from the No Kill "movement".  Since this blog doesn't allowed "uncensored" responses on their blog site I will instead respond here on an uncensored format.

While I have no intention of defending the "honor" of the extremist views perpetuated by PETA - I will explain the distortion that have been expressed on HSUS, Best Friends and the ASPCA.  For clarity, over the years I have written a number of articles critical of HSUS and the ASPCA for positions these groups took on shelter issues including the support given failed temperament testing protocols, lack of vision on pit bull issues, shelter euthanasia methods and a failure to lead on the shelter reform movement in general. 

However, HSUS and the ASPCA do offer progressive programs that protect animals not limited to educational programs encouraging responsible pet ownership, but more importantly these groups are front and center in lobbying for reform of the laws which regulate state and national laws that regulate puppy mills, animal cruelty laws, factory farming reform , wildlife abuse, combating dog fighting and a fur free America.  Are these programs advocates would like to see ended as well?

Since the  No Kill movement devotes a considerable effort trying to rewrite history by suggesting we don't have a "pet overpopulation" issue by perpetuating the "myth of pet overpopulation" which originated in breeder support circles the question that really needs to be asked is "who's side are the No Kill cultists really on? 

Ask yourself how many blogs coming from the leaders of the "No Kill" movement discuss the cruelty and killing that goes on in puppy mills? Do YOU support the concept on allowing MILLIONS of dogs to be held captive in substandard conditions far worse then those conditions in even our the worst of our public shelters?  I was saddened the other day when I read a quote from the leader of "Pet's Alive" who announced he was distancing himself from the long accepted battle cry of advocates like myself who vehemently opposes puppy mills by removing his bumpersticker which said "Don't buy puppies while shelter dogs die" or another "no kill advocates lame excuse for not supporting Missouri's Prop B because he questioned the involvement and support of HSUS on issues in the bill including the provision of "only" allowing commercial breeders to have 50 dogs in their breeding program?. 

Are these positions YOU support as a no kill advocate because if they are you have lost this shelter reformist support.  Over the years I have worn the shoes of both a shelter reformists, puppy mill advocate and a rescuer.  In that role I have participated in rescuer hounds from both public kill shelters and the rewarding efforts participating in "purchasing" breeder "rejects" at many of the breeder auctions in Missouri. 

On the later there has been no greater reward then knowing I was able to prevent a dog who has spent years locked up and confined only to be pulled out to produce another litter from either being sold to another irresponsible puppy miller or killed.  Now the No Kill Movement wants me to forget about all the beautiful hounds I have rescued from puppy mill abuse by standing shoulder to shoulder with these same breeders who are ardent supporters of the No Kill Movement.

"Every social movement in U.S. history culminated in the passing of laws. The goal was not to get promises and commitments that we would strive to do better as a society. The focus was always on changing the law to eliminate the ability to do otherwise, now and for all time."  Nathan Winograd

Why is it that Nathan  supports laws that focus on shelter reform but is silent in his support of laws that crack down on ;puppy mills?  Wouldn't eliminating the ability to abuse animals by enslaving them now and for all time also be a noble cause?  Yet, how many of Nathan's blogs offer encouragement to the animal protection groups like HSUS who are out front waging the battle to change the laws that protect this abuse?  Could it be that Nathan is concerned over losing the support of breeders in the process? 

No Kill Nation wants me to support a platform that protects and in fact encourages irresponsible breeders to continue with exploiting hounds I love by breeding even more for a pet store market I deplore as well.  

Why is it that the President of No Kill Nation has no experience on her resume with shelter reform but does rub shoulders with hobby/show breeders instead?  Are those the qualifications we follow in a No Kill Nation movement?  Fact is, none of the leaders with No Kill Nation have any success in THEIR past reforming even the shelters in their own backyard.  True leaders lead by experience not by regurgitating mindless rhetoric.

"We shouldn’t just want a promise that shelters will try to do better. We already have such promises—and millions of animals still being killed despite readily available lifesaving alternatives show just how hollow such promises are. We must demand accountability beyond the rhetoric. And we shouldn’t simply be seeking progressive directors willing to save lives. We should demand that the killing end, now and forever, regardless of who is running the shelters. And we get that in only one way: By passing shelter reform legislation which removes the discretion of shelter directors to ignore what is in the best interests of animals and kill them."  Nathan Winograd

Really think puppy mill breeders value life?
Nice concept, after all would take exception to the thinking that there are alternatives to simply killing shelter animals.  But why doesn't that same concept apply to the victims of puppy mill and irresponsible breeding abuse?  Shouldn't we be equally to supporting the animal protection efforts lead by groups like HSUS, Best Friends and the ASPCA in their efforts to pass laws that would put an end to THIS cruelty and this killing as well?  Is Nathan or are you naive enough to believe that puppy mills don't bury their dead?

The silence on this form of animal abuse is deafening while their attacks on the only voices demanding an end to puppy mill abuse is disturbing.    and excuses blaming the animal coming out of the No Kill leaders. 

Are "WE" not partners in the noble cause of ending irresponsible pet ownership (dog fighters - hoarding) and of ending the political correctness that we have a right to breed irresponsibly while shelter animals continue to die?

When I made the decision several months ago to discuss the issues surrounding the "movement" I did so because of my commitment to be the voice for all animals who are being exploited or abused and not just the abuse that goes on in our shelters. Unlike the leaders of No Kill Nation and even Nathan my "resume" includes a long history as a reformist on not only shelter reform but puppy mill reform as well yet Nathan responds to my voice with the following comment he posted on his Facebook page where he wrote:

Winograd - "Jack, I am not going to allow Randy to use this Facebook page for his defense of the status quo and his defense of those who needlessly kill animals as he has done on other pages. He can go defend killing on HSUS' Facebook page:" 

I'll ignore the insult of claiming that I defend "those who needlessly kill animals" because it is a comment that is so absurd it doesn't deserve a comment, but I will ask Nathan why he ignores the truth behind his own support through his silence and ignorance pushing a flawed concept on pet overpopulation isn't he supporting the senseless abuse and killing done at the hands of irresponsible breeders.  The truth is you can't run from issues simply because your concerned it may have an effect on book sales.

I write this article not in an attempt to win over your support on views.  I certainly an not interested in selling you books, webinars or a seat at the next no kill circus as well.  I'm only interested in hoping that some of you will use reason and do your own homework on these issues and focus your support on the animals we all claim as THEIR VOICE?  Are the animals better off without the protections provided by the large animal protection groups or are we simply being asked to send our donations to an unproven and flawed group that supports the real enemy within - those irresponsible breeders who perpetrate this abuse?

Monday, May 9, 2011

Strange bedfellows provide support for the "No Kill" movement

National Animal Interest Alliance - Mofed supports No Kill and sled dogs?
For all who are rightfully outraged at the slaughter of 100 sled dogs in  British Columbia the National Animal Interest Alliance supports the rights of those who choose to own "sled dogs".  This would be the same NAIA who is now one of the staunchest supporters of the no kill movement as well.  To date no one in a leadership role has pointed out how an animal use group liked the NAIA can support the use of animals in puppy mills, used for research and in this case sled dogs as well.

Why would an animal use group known to oppose any and all regulations for the "animal use industry" also be an ardent supporter of Nathan Winograd and the "no kill" movement?  One needs only look at the position statement's Winograd promotes with his "no kill movement" that creates a false impression that pet overpopulation is a myth (it is not) and the position that it isn't irresponsible pet breeders and irresponsible pet owners who are responsible for the millions of dogs and cats still being killed in our publicly funded shelters but it is solely the fault of shelter managers who do the killing. 

Of course, there is no explanation on the role of forcing millions of innocent dogs and cats to live out there entire lives without human contact and oftentimes in cruel and substandard conditions. 

Animal rights groups like the Animal Liberation Front wrote this about the NAIA's support of the puppy mill industry. 

It seems disengenous for the leaders of the No Kill Movement to constantly attack animal welfare groups that include Best Friends, the ASPCA, and HSUS simply because of policy positions these groups have that differ from those positions held by the no kill movement itself.  Why not call out these major animal use players as well?

It is important that we are judged by the "company" we keep and for this reason I can no longer support a movement that places all the blame on shelters while turning a blind eye to supporters of that movement - especially in light of the trend to capitalize on the no kill movement itself.  To read more about the animal "use" groups please do your research on the major including:

National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA)

Meet the Animal Interest Alliance Board - (note - you won't find any shelter reformists in this group)

Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (Mofed) - lobbied for opposition to Prop B in Missouri and has been linked to a bill which would have criminalized activists taking pictures of puppy mills or pets stores without permission.

To read NAIA position on sled dogs

So, the question remains - why is the No Kill Movement willing to enable those who use pets for personal gain by silently soliciting their support?

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Are you an enabler of the needless killing of shelter pets?

Our battle for a No Kill nation is not against the public. It is against the cowards of our movement who refuse to stand up to their colleagues and friends running shelters that are mired in the failed and defunct philosophies that allow (indeed, cause) killing. Our battle is against those who claim to be part of our movement but fail to recognize the killing of millions of animals every year as an unnecessary and cruel slaughter and to call it what it is. It is against those who will not do for the animals that thing which is their solemn duty to do: to change themselves and to demand that their colleagues change, when that is what the situation calls for.Nathan Winograd

While I read Nathan's comments in his book "Redemption" and as it's been repeatedly been used in other conversations about the No Kill movement I never realized that those involved in rescue like myself are the "enablers" who are in fact causing this senseless slaughter of our nations shelter pets.

This gets pointed out in Shirley's "YesBiscuit" blog "Are YOU an enabler of the needless killing of shelter pets?" when she emphatically states

"Rescuers who pull animals from a shelter in order to save them while remaining silent about the needless killing of healthy/treatable pets there are enabling those who kill shelter pets." 

I first noticed this blog when it was posted on the No Kill Revolution Facebook page.  While I expected NKR to set the record straight on the foolishness of her comments instead they chose to defend her comments.  Since I'm blocked from commented on No Kill Revolution I will share my opinion here.

For those of you unfamiliar with Shirley - she is the resident "No Kill Nation" blogging expert who writes about everything no kill including shelters she has never visited.  In fact, Shirley's never been involved in rescue except for an occasional stray dog she's claims to take in.  Now that Shirley has a following on No Kill Nation she has been ordained as an expert on "all things" No Kill and in fact will be a featured speaker at the upcoming No Kill Conference in Washington DC later this summer.

So what are Shirley's viewpoint on rescuers who "only" rescue dogs and cats from kill shelters?  Here's what Shirley has to say about US enablers as she writes: 

While I can understand the idea that saving a few is better than saving none, I tend to maintain a broader view.  I say, speak up for no kill policies and let the shelter director ban every last rescuer from the place.  Organize and go to the people above the director, to the media, and to the public.  Shine a light on the needless killing going on at the shelter and the director’s efforts to prevent rescuers from saving pets. 

Common sense, which appears to be lacking with the No kill Nation leadership team would suggest that if all rescuers took this confrontational approach with high kill shelters that NO dogs or cats would be rescued and rather then saving "some" lives we would save No LIVES.  While Shirley the the No Kill Nation team may be willing to sacrifice innocent lives in this Armageddon against kill shelters I am not.  I hardly suggest it is my right to choose to sacrifice an innocent dog or cat solely to promote a poorly conceived agenda of superiority that "YesBiscuit" suggests.  Thinking like this is not only ignorant but lacks any moral compass I would be willing to follow.  The zealots leading this so-called No Kill Movement need to step back and tell us all what the end game is all about.  Certainly they would lose or have lost support from those of us who have spent years agonizing over dogs and cats in our kill shelters and who have sacrificed so much so even a FEW might live.

I won't apologize for EVEN one of the hounds I have been fortunate to save even if that effort required me to "look the other way'.  I'm reminded of years ago when I tried in vain to rescue a single beagle I called Hunter from the Spalding shelter.  I knew full well that Spalding had a horrible record of not providing adequate care for their shelter dogs/cats and I knew full well that the community's silence played a role in the many dogs and cats who died horrible deaths in that shelter's gas chamber, but it was my silence that made rescuing Hunter a possibility.  In Hunter's case my efforts failed. 

When I showed up at this horrible shelter the doors had been locked by the Department of Agriculture in order that all the dogs be killed because of a parvo outbreak.  For days I wrestled with my conscience and mourned the loss of a single beagle I had never met.  I suppose I could have slammed the shelter director, who was only following the advise of the DOA, I suppose I could have attacked the county commissioners who allowed this to happen, I suppose I could have blamed myself for not reacting quicker to pull poor Hunter to safety.  In the end, I remained silent.  Does that silence make me an enabler?

The fact is I chose a different course because experience had taught me that reacting with anger would only prevent me from rescuing other beagles in the days and years to come - while this anger may have fueled my ego on being a vocal advocate this anger would not bring about the change needed nor would it bring Hunter back.  Ultimately, those of us who actually rescue have played out this lesson over and over again.  While we have failed innocent dogs like Hunter time and time again we have to understand the significance for the perhaps the hundreds we have saved by funneling our anger in a more productive way. 

In time change did come to Spalding, but that change didn't come as the result of hot headed rescuers who were willing to toss out the baby with the bath water.  It came from working in partnership with other advocates who cherished EVERY dog and cats right to be rescued even if those efforts failed from time to time.  Those of us who choose to open up our hearts, our homes and our wallet's to dogs like Hunter do so because we cherish the shelter dogs we get involved in/  Anyone who tries to explain away that love by accusing us of being "enablers" is not only wrong but ignorant as well.

Advocates need to get involved in our local shelters and in our local communities as well.  My advice for Shirley is that if she truly cares about making a differences she might try volunteering and supporting change at her local shelter first.  My guess is she's not as interested in getting involved locally as she is in being on the national stage. 

YesBiscuit "ARE YOU ENABLING THE NEEDLESS KILLING OF SHELTER PETS? Our battle for a No Kill nation is not against the public. It is against the cowards of our movement who refuse to stand up to their colleagues and friends running shelters that are mired in the failed and defunct philosophies that allow (indeed, cause) killing...  Enablers make the continued practice of killing possible.  No shelter director can go it alone.  He counts on the support of those who are sympathetic to his lies about being “forced” to kill friendly pets.  Strip away that support.  It’s time to sink or swim.  Learn.  Grow.  Change.  Join us.

So there you have it - we who silently rescue are the cowards of our movement who not only allow this killing but cause it as well.  Should I say more about this twisted physiology of hate spewing from lour "No Kill" movement?  Shirley, your going to have to "go it alone" because what YOUR asking is too high a price too pay.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Playing the Shelter/No Kill Blame Game

The "irresponsible public" that shelters so much blame for their killing, is the same public who has made it possible for other shelters to become no kill.  Shelters are blaming YOU, for their deaths, for killing healthy and treatable animals with YOUR tax dollars. -  Nathan Winograd

One of the basic tenants from Nathan Winograd's book "Redemption" is the repeated claim of shelters blaming YOU for the killing done in your public shelters.  It is common for shelter managers to explain away the number of dogs and cats killed by placing blame on the "irresponsible public" that breeds indiscriminately, fails to spay/neuter their pets and/or violates various local animal ordinances.  A case could be made that any pet owner who's pets end up at the shelter are indeed "irresponsible" pet owners.

Shelter managers are NOT blaming "responsible" pet owners for having to kill their pets because as a responsible pet owner WE DON'T ALLOW our pets to be in a public kill shelter in the first place.  It's also fair to say that those who show an interest in shelter reform or even an interest in the "No Kill" movement by nature are not "irresponsible" in providing care for their pets but are blatantly responsible in all aspects of caring for their pets.  Shelter managers are NOT blaming US for the deaths of dogs and cats at our community shelters but are rightfully placing the blame where it belongs - with those pet owners who are NOT responsible.

Properly put in perspective, "irresponsible" pet owners and "irresponsible" breeders are responsible for the dogs and cats entering our shelter - responsible pet owners and responsible breeders are not.

Winograd goes on to state "in communities which have ended the killing of savable animals, it is the public which made the difference: in terms of adoptions, volunteerism, donations, foster care, and other community support."

Is this statement even remotely accurate in explaining the "No Kill" revolution?  One could argue that those same irresponsible pet owners/breeders who are part of the equation that drives intake numbers are NOT going to represent any "difference" in terms of adoptions - what responsible rescue group or shelter manager would adopt out any dog or cat to someone with a history of being an irresponsible pet owner?  Nor will we see huge numbers of irresponsible pet owners volunteering their time or money either and who in their right mind would trust an irresponsible pet owner with the enormous responsibility of fostering a shelter pet?

What Winograd does point out (in Redemption) "These (No Kill) communities have proved that there is enough love and compassion in every community to overcome the irresponsibility of the few."

This statement seems to contradict his earlier statement releasing the public of all blame in shelter killing.  The fact is, in order to successfully move from high kill to no kill a huge part of the solution lies in educating those pet owners who might have been "irresponsible" in the direction of becoming responsible pet owners by providing critical services including low cost spay/neuter programs, pet retention services, micro chipping and licensing programs that return more lost pets to their owners and expanding the reach of low cost vaccination programs as well.  In effect, a community evolves towards killing less by educating it's citizens on becoming more responsible with their pet ownership.

Thus, Winograd's statement "So we need to put to bed, once and for all, the idea that dogs and cats = animals most Americans now consider cherished members of their family - need to die in U.S. shelters because people are irresponsible and don't care enough about them."

In a perfect world Nathan, what we need to put to bed is the notion that all pet owners WOULD be responsible and treat their cherished pets as such.  Until we reach that Utopian state WE must continue to educate and legislate those who own and breed pets irresponsibly.  Giving out blame free passes to those who fuel our shelters and placing the burden of saving and rescuing the pets who have irresponsible owners is simply an irresponsible solution that will never work

Knowing one regressive shelter manager doesn't make you a "know it all"

"No Kill Nation's" Hannah Sentiac attempted to address the role of replacing regressive shelter director's in implemented the infamous but highly suspect "No Kill Equation" needed to successfully become a No Kill community.  In an blog posting called "Know One Regressive Shelter Director - Know Them All" many of her comments deserve clarification.

Sentiac "One of the many, many things I took away from this event was the concept that communities across the US are incredibly alike when it comes to the shelter system. Every state, county, city generally thinks they’re unique, given their community’s particular demographics, history and set of circumstances. But the truth is, when it comes to regressive shelter management, they’re all very much the same."

Actually, the above comment should be reversed - all public kill shelters are unique based on the demographics, budget, history, politics and an assortment of other tangibles features that make the communities themselves unique.   In other words, Tompkins is not like Austin, Tx which is not like Miami Dade when it comes to it's citizens, economic issues and the politics which forms it's culture.  Shelter manager's tend to mimic the community values that hired them in the first place. 

Sentiac "Regressive shelter directors are cut from the same mold. They trot out the same tired excuses, and make the same horrible mistakes. They don’t have enough resources, the public is irresponsible, the animals are unadoptable … etc., etc."

All "regressive" shelter managers are not cut from the same mold but instead have the same "tired excuses" that include not being given adequate resources or not having the critical support from the community they need.

Sentiac "Of course, you need to take your region into consideration when it comes to local politics, but the key thing to remember is that that the fundamental approach should be the same as it’s been in numerous successful communities across the US. What is the approach? Well, lucky for No Kill advocates across the US, it’s been documented. Check out The No Kill Advocacy Center’s comprehensive document, Reforming Animal Control. "

Now, if only the leaders of No Kill Nation, including Hannah, would read and follow the "road map" to shelter reform from NKAC's Reforming Animal Control".  It is a logical approach that seems to get tossed out the window in favor of unleashing a mob mentality seeking to blame everything on an over-burdened shelter director instead.

From "Reforming Animal Control" we find:
“In the face of what is construed as “entrenchment”, how can local advocates put an end to the killing at MDAS? If you follow the recommendations for reforming entrenched shelters the answer lies in a five-step process: 1. Inform; 2. Negotiate; 3. Prepare for Battle; 4. Fight; and, when successful, 5. Rebuild.”

The first rule of effecting change is the need for No Kill advocates to be reasonable and professional. That starts with going through the steps, one at a time, so, for example, if NKN advocates believe conflict with Miami Dade Animal Services is unavoidable, it will be clear that attempts to work within the system were rebuffed by an uncaring bureaucracy and not from an “uncaring advocacy” movement instead.

Change starts with the right message, which addresses four aspects crucial to a successful animal services program; saving animals, protecting it’s citizens, exercising fiscal responsibility with the taxpayers money mitigating liability. If only one of these (saving lives) but not the others is addressed progress will be hampered.

As important as the right message is, it is imperative to send the right messenger. Along that line No Kill Nation has failed miserably. When No Kill Nation made the determination to call or allow others to call Dr Sara Pizano “Dr Death” they effectively ceased to be a partner in MDAS's future.

When No Kill Nation threw support into public protests demanding her resignation/firing, including one protest at her (Dr Pizano’s) residence they effectively removed themselves from being taken seriously as anything but the thugs they were behaving like.

It is questionable whether No Kill Nation as an entity will ever be accepted as a reasonable partner working towards a common goal of ending shelter killing in Miami Dade. Instead of presenting a vision of the future of partnering with MDAS in bringing about positive change, No Kill Nation’s approach was adversarial, demanding and demeaning.

In it's only meeting with MDAS staff, no blueprint for change was ever presented.  Instead, an unreasonable proposal to simply “stop the killing” was presented and when management was unable to comply it’s manager was labeled as “regressive”. 

The No Kill Nation’s leadership team should have understood the importance of identifying in writing exactly what changes were needed.  Instead, the No Kill Nation focused on the mantra rally call demanding only that MDAS “Stop the killing” without a reasonable discussion on the effect this would have on the rescue community and the animals themselves. 

With no CLEAR place for the 100 plus dogs and cats that enter the shelter each day to go one could make a case that forcing animals to live in the inhumane, disease infested shelters wasn't a solution either.

This meeting wasn’t about the future of MDAS, it wasn’t about partnering to saving more animals, it wasn’t even about offering reasonable solutions to problems that have nagged MDAS for years – it was about taking advantage of an opportunity to gain publicity and grow it’s own organization – the No Kill Nation. It was about being deceptive in their intention and negotiating in bad faith.

If we are to believe Nathan’s math on successful No Kill shelters are we to believe that less then twenty shelters across the country have successful no kill directors meaning that the other 3,480 plus shelters that fall short need new “compassionate” directors?

Let’s hope your no kill movement uses a little more common sense in replacing all of these directors rather then the short sighted approach used in Miami Dade. After all, the animals we are trying to save are counting on it.  It's time to put the focus on  seeking solutions that will save more dogs and cats from MDAS in front of the agenda of "growing" another animal welfare organization that seems to have forgotten those needs.