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
Showing posts with label shelter reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shelter reform. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Knowing one regressive shelter manager doesn't make you a "know it all"
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)