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:
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/puppy-mill-owners-dumping-dogs-at-shelters/1d0rgf6od?q=puppy+mill&FROM=LKVR5>1=LKVR5&FORM=LKVR5
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.
Showing posts with label winograd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label winograd. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
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
http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/sleddogs.htm
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?
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."
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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"
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.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Update on Miami Dade Animal Services
From the desk of Dr Sara Pizano
As you know, we invited the University of Florida Shelter Medicine Team to do an analysis of the shelter and evaluate the level of infectious diseases between March 21 and 23. Initially, 45 shelter dogs and puppies were tested for Distemper and a variety of other diseases including Streptococcus zooepidemicus (Strep zoo). 30 tested positive for the Distemper virus and 12 tested positive for the bacteria Strep zoo.
Based on the increased number of cases of reported Distemper, in particular on March 23, we decided to temporarily suspend the intake of puppies and dogs as well as the unconfined stray dog pick up and the Rabies/Microchip Clinic. There are several reasons that the infectious disease level escalated that include:
- An inadequately designed facility that is impossible to appropriately thoroughly disinfect
- The absence of both a Clinic Supervisors and Kennel Supervisors to ensure the flow of shelter pets and staff not paying attention to the risks of cross contamination
- Severe overcrowding
The University of Florida is still working on site with us and will eventually have a full report and list of recommendations, many of which are already being implemented.
March 24
- Press Release sent announcing temporarily suspended services to media, area shelters and local veterinarians
- The adoption of dogs/cats/puppies and kittens was never suspended
All shelter dogs and puppies received 48 hour-acting penicillin injection because 12 dogs tested positive for Strep zoo. (Some of you may also remember that there was a problem in the shelter in February of 2008 with the bacteria Strep zoo. At that time, we partially closed the shelter while all shelter pets received antibiotics. Little is known about how or why Strep zoo infects certain dogs and not others but 12 dogs were lost during that outbreak in 2008, which was controlled immediately. This is in comparison to another mid-west shelter that lost over 1,000 dogs due to a Strep zoo outbreak.)
March 25
- Began publishing daily Action Plan for staff and volunteers so everyone was aware of daily changes and plans
March 26
- Thanks to the University of Florida, Pfizer donated over $8,000 of the week-long acting antibiotic injection Convenia. Since we did not know if the strain of Strep zoo was sensitive to the Convenia, adopters and rescue partners were also given a prescription for free antibiotics at Publix. Once the culture proved that the Convenia would kill the Strep zoo, all adopters and rescues were contacted with that information so they could safely stop the oral antibiotics.
March 24-27
- The shelter staff stayed open late each night to help all interested adopters and Rescue Partners
- Over 500 shelter pets went to a Rescue Partner or were adopted
- All dogs/puppies went with a Medical Release due to the Distemper exposure or infection and people informed they were responsible for medical care and to not expose them to other canines.
- The University of Florida sets up an online survey and hotline so all exposed dogs and puppies can be tested for Distemper and over 100 samples have already been collected
March 26 and 27
- County Manager waives pull and adoption fees for remaining shelter population
- All adopters categorized so enforcement officers can follow up and ensure the cats and dogs were in the registered home and being cared for (as of April 6, 77 adopters have been visited or contacted)
March 26
- 40 x40 tent set up on property with walls, air conditioning and lights for injured dogs/puppies, police cases and confiscations. This tent was considered GREEN, or healthy pets, because none of those pets were exposed to the original population.
March 27-present
- Staff stationed at front gate to ensure Distemper pets do not enter building and clients educated about available services
March 28
- In communication with Humane Society of Broward County and Animal Control
- West wing disinfection begins
- Drains cleaned by sewage company (done on a monthly basis anyway)
- Drain covers removed and cleaned
- Disinfection of walls, floors, etc. monitored
- Disinfection of adoption building begins
- Open cinder blocks with roaches and mice under banks of cages found, coordinated with pest control companies
- Demolition of concrete slabs and cinder blocks begins so can put cage banks on wheels
- Planning of projects
- Add runs in back of N adoption runs so dogs can be placed there instead of tethering so safe during disinfection
- Trees cut down behind N runs because leaves were clogging drains
- All adoption cages removed from building, disassembled and disinfected
- Tile floor removed in entire adoption hallway
- All cages in recovery and T removed from building, disassembled and disinfected and plastic walls removed from walls
- Floors in T and recovery demolished
- Company hired to fabricate bases with wheels for cage banks
- Cat condos ordered
- Painting of west wing almost completed
March 29
- Culture proves Convenia sensitive to Strep zoo so University of Florida and Animal Services staff begin calling adopters and rescues to let them know they can stop the cephalexin antibiotic and to check pet’s health
- 20 x 20 tent set up on property with walls, air conditioning and lights for 4 remaining dogs from original population. Staff in this RED or exposed tent, were not permitted in the GREEN tent to avoid cross contamination
March 30
- Puppy brought in by owner, not adopted from Animal Services, to be euthanized for Distemper
- Dogs from GREEN tent with respiratory signs added to RED tent
- These are several examples proving the endemic nature of Distemper and respiratory disease in our community. Three of those dogs from the GREEN tent tested positive for Distemper
March 31
- Moved dogs from GREEN tent into the west wing
- Moved dogs from RED tent into RED section in west wing
April 3
- Opened Rabies/Microchip Clinic for the public
- Increased MAC spay/neuter days from 2 to 4 so Monday/Tuesday dogs for $25 and Thursday/Friday for cats for $15
Current Status and Timeline
Adoptions remains in the west wing for dogs and puppies and Cat Receiving is serving as receiving and cat adoptions.
The concrete slabs in 7 adoption rooms have been demolished which has been very time consuming so we are now in the process of doing the floors in the entire shelter area. Once the surgery and recovery areas are done, we will be scheduling spay/neuter surgeries for our adopters as we have a backlog of several months. Those pets adopted recently will not have surgery for two months to ensure they are not going to break with Distemper or be shedding the virus.
Once the floors in the shelter area and N runs have been redone we will be able to resume normal services. We are unsure when the vendors will be finished all the necessary work at this time but are trying to expedite all projects. We do not anticipate resuming all normal services for approximately 2 weeks.
We are in the process of updating several Standard Operating Procedures with respect to sanitation, flow of pets, holds and the handling of shelter pets with respiratory signs. The University of Florida has continued to re-train staff in these areas.
Plans to Decrease Shelter Intake
Every shelter struggles with infectious diseases and Distemper is disturbingly common in our community due to lack of immunity/vaccinations. One of the reasons that the infectious disease load became so widespread at Animal Services is because of the sheer volume of animals abandoned each day and being overcrowded due to constant requests to extend holds. We want nothing more than to have every pet saved but it is inhumane to overcrowd the shelter and continue to expose so many animals to infectious diseases. We have introduced or are introducing the following in hopes that people can make a more educated decision about leaving a pet with us and look for alternatives:
We have invited our Rescue Partners to stay in receiving and pull animals directly from receiving, before the pet enters the shelter. Partners must contact Xiomara Mordcovich at mailto:xmordco@miamidade.gov to schedule time. As usual, contacts would have to approve all pets being transferred. We were scheduled to begin this program April 4 but have postponed it due to the renovations.
- If a pet is being surrendered by their owner, the Rescue Partner has the option of signing the pet directly over to them and not paying a pull fee. In that case, no services would be provided by Animal Services.
- If a pet is being surrendered by their owner and the Rescue Partner wants all regular services, the pet would be signed in and then transferred to the Rescue Partner at the regular fee and surgery scheduled at a later time if needed.
- If a pet is a stray with a mandatory hold, the pet will be signed in and the picture taken for the foster board and signed out to the Rescue Partner at the regular pull fee under foster care.
A recommendation of the University of Florida and at least one commissioner, is to stop taking in owner-surrendered pets since we do not have the facility or staff to care for them properly. The Department is not obligated by law to do so and we are looking at ways to create alternatives for these pets. This is not in the official plan right now but under consideration.
Plans to Decrease Length of Stay
We are making every effort to get pets out of the shelter as fast as possible so their exposure to infectious diseases is minimized and we are better able to handle the number of animals in the shelter.
- There will no longer be adoption holds placed on pets, it will be first come, first serve in an effort to get pets out of the shelter as soon as possible.
- Anyone in Miami-Dade County may be part of the Foster-to-Adopt program if interested in a pet during the stray hold (they must be a Miami-Dade County resident and the pet have no traceable identification). They would sign an agreement stating they understand they would have to return the pet should the owner be found within the stray hold and understand they are not the official owner until the stray hold is over. They would pay the regular adoption fee and spay/neuter deposit if necessary, all of which would be reimbursed if the pet was returned to their owner.
- Interested adopters from other counties would have to wait until the stray hold period is over and again, it would be first come, first serve.
All current holds on shelter pets are being honored. Beginning April 14, we are trying a pilot program in attempt to fast track shelter pets. Rescue Partners, in addition to being able to schedule time in receiving, will be able to place 24 hour holds for pick up.
All spay/neuter surgeries would be scheduled after the dogs and puppies received a second booster vaccine.
Upcoming Events
Sunday, April 10
Second Distemper Vaccine Event at Animal Services, 10am-4pm
Sunday, April 17
Free roaming cat spay/neuter day sponsored by Commissioner Jose ‘Pepe’ Diaz Saturday April 30 and
Sunday May 1
'Nothing Like a Pet’ ASPCA Partnership Community Adoption Event at Animal Services, the Humane Society of Greater Miami and the Spay/Neuter Clinic in Cutler Bay with Cat Network.
Ways to Help
Many people have asked how they can help make a difference for our shelter pets and help change what happens at Animal Services.
- Make a financial donation to the Animal Services Trust Fund by donating online at http://www.miamidade.gov/animals . The fund is used to supplement the spay/neuter program on the MAC for the public, to purchase items for shelter pets like toys and beds and can be used to improve the building.
- Become a volunteer at Animal Services and help care for our shelter pets, work in receiving educating those surrendering, help with adoptions or virtually with our Pet Detectives Club reuniting pets with their families or become a Puppy Foster Parent.
- Make a financial donation to the Spay/Neuter Miami Foundation, Inc. (formerly the Animal Services Foundation) that is focusing on funding low cost spay/neuter programs. Most recently, the foundation sponsored the last free roaming spay/neuter event and 115 cats were sterilized with volunteer vets.
- Print and distribute our Wish List from our website.
Dr. Sara Pizano, Director
Miami Dade Animal Services Department
7401 NW 74 Street
Miami, Fl 33166
Phone: (305) 805-5982
Fax: (305) 805-1619
Contact the shelter for more information
To learn more on how YOU can help the dogs and cats at MDAS follow us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Miami-Dade-Rescue-Railroad/150163931678946
Miami, Fl 33166
Phone: (305) 805-5982
Fax: (305) 805-1619
Contact the shelter for more information
To learn more on how YOU can help the dogs and cats at MDAS follow us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Miami-Dade-Rescue-Railroad/150163931678946
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Drinking the No Kill Nation's "Kool Aid"
Thought I'd share this from a fellow blogger on how incredibly simple implementing the No Kill Equation is - makes one wonder why only a hand full of the 3,500 shelters out these have been successful in implementing the steps.
The Incredible Simplicity of the No Kill Equation
It’s funny how many people have the same reactions when faced with the concept of No Kill.
“There are too many animals, not enough homes.”
“There just aren’t enough resources.”
“Pet overpopulation is due to public irresponsibility.”
“It’s going to take a long time to become No Kill.”
“We need to punish irresponsible owners.”
Etc., etc., etc.
All erroneous. Well meaning, maybe, but erroneous. The No Kill equation is so brilliantly simple. Some concepts MAY seem counter-intuitive to those who are used to blaming the public, assuming that it’s the fault of bad pet owners, etc., but when you look at the facts – it’s so damn clear.
For example, mandatory spay/neuter programs DO NOT work. They’ve been demonstrated ineffective time and time again.
There is no pet overpopulation. No Kill can happen overnight when a shelter is determined to make it happen.
Often, No Kill can actually happen UNDER a community’s budget – resources are not the real issue.
And so on.
Below are the steps of the No Kill Equation. This formula is PROVEN effective. Click here to learn more about the NKE and how to implement it. Please, please, educate yourself. Then, you can educate others – and the No Kill movement will grow, and spread, the way that ideas whose times have come, do.
I. Feral Cat TNR Program
II. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter
III. Rescue Groups
IV. Foster Care
V. Comprehensive Adoption Programs
VI. Pet Retention
VII. Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation
VIII. Public Relations/Community Involvement
IX. Volunteers
X. Proactive Redemptions
XI. A Compassionate Director
Of course, despite several attempts at getting clarification from the leaders of No Kill There are serious questions about implementing these steps. They include:
I Community TNR Program - Are there adequate feral cat rescue groups to handle all the feral's needing rescue from MDAS? Does the county commissioners endorse Trap/Neuter/Release as a viable option for feral's?
II Low cost spay/neuter - MDAS already has a number of low cost spay/neuter programs in placed including a mobile bus that goes into neighborhoods - how would NKN suggest that program be expanded and where will the resources come from to pay for that expansion?
III Rescue Groups - MDAS has expanded it's "rescue partner" program since Dr Pizano took over - specifically what other changes would NKN suggest?
IV Foster Care - in this context the NKE calls for shelters to foster out dogs/cats who have not been adopted. Since the shelter is killing about 400 dogs/cats a week exactly how many foster homes would be needed EACH week to handle that number? Who would pay for the cost of fostering - including food and medical care? Who would manage/inspect the foster care homes. Those who are involved in rescue know all too well how difficult it is to find enough foster homes - does NKN know something the rescue community doesn't?
V Comprehensive Adoption Programs - Adoptions from MDAS have increased dramatically under Dr Pizano's watch. Specifically what adoption methods could be utilized and who picks up the cost involved and staffs those programs?
VI Pet Retention - As an open admission public shelter MDAS has a major problem with owners surrendering pets at the shelter. Specifically what programs does NKN recommend to alleviate that problem?
VII Medical and Behavioral Rehabilitation - Who picks up the cost of evaluating and treating the 100 dogs/cats that enter the shelter each day? What are those costs projected to be? If we use a figure of $100 per dog/cat for a physical exam and shots wouldn't the cost projection be in excess of $3.5 million? This area alone could easily add two to three times that amount to the expense of running the shelter? Can the county justify that expense during an economic slowdown where many social programs are facing serious cutbacks? Of course, that figure would not include treating/rehabilitating the huge number that enter the shelter lacking any type of medical care by their owners. Considering the fact that the county ordered budget cutbacks that resulted in cutting the shelter's innovative volunteer program how does NKN get the commissioners to reverse the budget cutbacks?
How does one control disease in a high volume shelter that was never designed for this purpose?
VIII Public Relations/Community Involvement - this is one area where common ground dictates success just as was witnessed with the recent effort to save those who potentially could be exposed to the distemper outbreak. Can the shelter management team rely on the community to step up next week when there isn't a crisis?
IX Volunteers - The volunteer program has been expanded dramatically under Dr Pizano's watch. Specifically what programs have been overlooked?
X Proactive Redemptions - How does the shelter overcome the problem of owners surrendering pets in huge numbers that has plagued MDAS for years?
X! A Compassionate Director - Who specifically does NKN have in mind when it suggests a "compassionate" director will be able to end the killing? What can and should that director do differently to overcome the limitations placed on the shelter operating with the same budget and regressive animal ordinances - including the ban on pit bulls. How do you increase the number of pits and pit mixes rescued when there is a breed ban that needs repeal?
These are the questions that NKN leadership works diligently at dodging. These questions are NOT welcome on the NKN Face Book question. If implementing the No Kill Equation is so simple why aren't the answers to advocates questions quite as simple to find?
“There are too many animals, not enough homes.”
“There just aren’t enough resources.”
“Pet overpopulation is due to public irresponsibility.”
“It’s going to take a long time to become No Kill.”
“We need to punish irresponsible owners.”
Etc., etc., etc.
All erroneous. Well meaning, maybe, but erroneous. The No Kill equation is so brilliantly simple. Some concepts MAY seem counter-intuitive to those who are used to blaming the public, assuming that it’s the fault of bad pet owners, etc., but when you look at the facts – it’s so damn clear.
For example, mandatory spay/neuter programs DO NOT work. They’ve been demonstrated ineffective time and time again.
There is no pet overpopulation. No Kill can happen overnight when a shelter is determined to make it happen.
Often, No Kill can actually happen UNDER a community’s budget – resources are not the real issue.
And so on.
Below are the steps of the No Kill Equation. This formula is PROVEN effective. Click here to learn more about the NKE and how to implement it. Please, please, educate yourself. Then, you can educate others – and the No Kill movement will grow, and spread, the way that ideas whose times have come, do.
I. Feral Cat TNR Program
II. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter
III. Rescue Groups
IV. Foster Care
V. Comprehensive Adoption Programs
VI. Pet Retention
VII. Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation
VIII. Public Relations/Community Involvement
IX. Volunteers
X. Proactive Redemptions
XI. A Compassionate Director
Of course, despite several attempts at getting clarification from the leaders of No Kill There are serious questions about implementing these steps. They include:
I Community TNR Program - Are there adequate feral cat rescue groups to handle all the feral's needing rescue from MDAS? Does the county commissioners endorse Trap/Neuter/Release as a viable option for feral's?
II Low cost spay/neuter - MDAS already has a number of low cost spay/neuter programs in placed including a mobile bus that goes into neighborhoods - how would NKN suggest that program be expanded and where will the resources come from to pay for that expansion?
III Rescue Groups - MDAS has expanded it's "rescue partner" program since Dr Pizano took over - specifically what other changes would NKN suggest?
IV Foster Care - in this context the NKE calls for shelters to foster out dogs/cats who have not been adopted. Since the shelter is killing about 400 dogs/cats a week exactly how many foster homes would be needed EACH week to handle that number? Who would pay for the cost of fostering - including food and medical care? Who would manage/inspect the foster care homes. Those who are involved in rescue know all too well how difficult it is to find enough foster homes - does NKN know something the rescue community doesn't?
V Comprehensive Adoption Programs - Adoptions from MDAS have increased dramatically under Dr Pizano's watch. Specifically what adoption methods could be utilized and who picks up the cost involved and staffs those programs?
VI Pet Retention - As an open admission public shelter MDAS has a major problem with owners surrendering pets at the shelter. Specifically what programs does NKN recommend to alleviate that problem?
VII Medical and Behavioral Rehabilitation - Who picks up the cost of evaluating and treating the 100 dogs/cats that enter the shelter each day? What are those costs projected to be? If we use a figure of $100 per dog/cat for a physical exam and shots wouldn't the cost projection be in excess of $3.5 million? This area alone could easily add two to three times that amount to the expense of running the shelter? Can the county justify that expense during an economic slowdown where many social programs are facing serious cutbacks? Of course, that figure would not include treating/rehabilitating the huge number that enter the shelter lacking any type of medical care by their owners. Considering the fact that the county ordered budget cutbacks that resulted in cutting the shelter's innovative volunteer program how does NKN get the commissioners to reverse the budget cutbacks?
How does one control disease in a high volume shelter that was never designed for this purpose?
VIII Public Relations/Community Involvement - this is one area where common ground dictates success just as was witnessed with the recent effort to save those who potentially could be exposed to the distemper outbreak. Can the shelter management team rely on the community to step up next week when there isn't a crisis?
IX Volunteers - The volunteer program has been expanded dramatically under Dr Pizano's watch. Specifically what programs have been overlooked?
X Proactive Redemptions - How does the shelter overcome the problem of owners surrendering pets in huge numbers that has plagued MDAS for years?
X! A Compassionate Director - Who specifically does NKN have in mind when it suggests a "compassionate" director will be able to end the killing? What can and should that director do differently to overcome the limitations placed on the shelter operating with the same budget and regressive animal ordinances - including the ban on pit bulls. How do you increase the number of pits and pit mixes rescued when there is a breed ban that needs repeal?
These are the questions that NKN leadership works diligently at dodging. These questions are NOT welcome on the NKN Face Book question. If implementing the No Kill Equation is so simple why aren't the answers to advocates questions quite as simple to find?
Please educate yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)