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.
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.
