I am so sick and tired of seeing stats quoted from Karen Delise and the National Canine Research Council. The NCRC is thrown out there as if it is an official body and it appears no one takes the time to research the NCRC to find out the true mission, lying about pit bulls.
So I thought it was time for us, the advocates of human life over that of pit bulls, to give ourselves a new name, one official sounding like the NCRC. I'm looking for suggestions.
How about the Worldwide Council on Pit Bull Myths, WCPBM? I'm sure that my readers can come up with a better one. I like DBO representing DogsBite but we need something that encompasses all of us including no kill. So send in those suggestions. Our motto can be something like "Save humans, not pit bulls". Our mission statement can be that the question is no longer how to save the pits, but rather how to save ourselves from the pits. I'm not that imaginative so I need your help. If Karen Delise can pass herself off under the guise of a misleading name, then surely we can pass ourselves off as a legit effort.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
King County ACO Guild Files Lawsuit
This is great news!!! Hopefully we can see the conspiracy that has developed between certain council members, the Seattle Humane, and the Whino.
http://kcanimalcontrol.blogspot.com/
According to Michael Brannan, attorney for the Animal Control Officers Guild, “It is time for the truth to come out, and the truth is those who pushed most strongly for the services to be handled by non-county run shelters appear to have the most to gain.”
“We support the County’s decision to reduce euthanasia,” stated Sgt. John Diel, President of the Animal Control Officers Guild, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “Animals housed in the shelter require food, medical attention and adequate care. We have managed to do that in a fiscally responsible – and humane – manner,” Diel said. “Our reputations have been smeared, jobs have been lost, and in my opinion, this happened as a result of political favor. Taxpayers will likely field the bill for a sweetheart deal worked out between King County and the Seattle Humane society.”
http://kcanimalcontrol.blogspot.com/
According to Michael Brannan, attorney for the Animal Control Officers Guild, “It is time for the truth to come out, and the truth is those who pushed most strongly for the services to be handled by non-county run shelters appear to have the most to gain.”
“We support the County’s decision to reduce euthanasia,” stated Sgt. John Diel, President of the Animal Control Officers Guild, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “Animals housed in the shelter require food, medical attention and adequate care. We have managed to do that in a fiscally responsible – and humane – manner,” Diel said. “Our reputations have been smeared, jobs have been lost, and in my opinion, this happened as a result of political favor. Taxpayers will likely field the bill for a sweetheart deal worked out between King County and the Seattle Humane society.”
The same sweetheart deal that was worked out in Reno. I agree with Sgt. Diel and hope the truth comes out before King County is screwed.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Feral Cats 0, Wildlife 1
The feral cats of LA will have to start looking for homes, which should have been the case all along.
This comes as good news/bad news. The good news is that TNR is no longer acceptable in LA due to a lawsuit. http://birdchaser.blogspot.com/2009/12/birds-1-feral-cats-0-court-orders-la-to.html The bad news is what happens to these "feral" cats now. I doubt that these "caregivers" will step up and do the right thing by taking them off the streets.
Songbirds of Los Angeles may get a reprieve from feral cat predation. Six conservation groups won a lawsuit on Friday against the City of Los Angeles and its Department of Animal Services to stop the practice of encouraging feral cat colonies until the legally required environmental impact reviews are performed.
The Los Angeles Superior Court found that the City of Los Angeles had been “secretly and unofficially” promoting “Trap-Neuter-Return,” a controversial program to allow feral cats to run free, even while the Department of Animal Services promised to conduct an environmental review of the program. The Court ordered the City to stop implementing TNR. The plaintiffs, The Urban Wildlands Group, Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society, and the American Bird Conservancy, sued the City in June 2008 to ensure that the controversial program to sanction and maintain feral cat colonies was not implemented before a full and public environmental analysis.
The groups decided legal action was necessary after their investigation revealed that the City had been unofficially implementing a so-called “Trap-Neuter-Return” program and the City repeatedly declined their request to stop implementing the program until environmental review was performed.
Although the City insisted that no such program existed, the Court concurred with the conservation groups and concluded in its Friday ruling that, “implementation of the program is pervasive, albeit ‘informal and unspoken.’”
“Our goal was to see that the City follows the California Environmental Quality Act by thoroughly assessing the program’s impacts on the environment and considering alternatives and mitigation measures before making specific programmatic decisions,” said Babak Naficy, attorney for plaintiffs. “Feral cats have a range of impacts to wildlife, human health, and water quality in our cities. The impacts of institutionalizing the maintenance of feral cat colonies through TNR should be discussed in an open, public process before any such program is implemented,” Naficy said.
In June 2005, the Los Angeles Board of Animal Services Commissioners adopted TNR as the “preferred method of dealing with feral cat populations as its official policy.” Thereafter, the Board directed the General Manager to prepare an analysis of the program under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This analysis was never completed but the Department implemented major portions of the program anyway.
The Department issued coupons for free or discounted spay/neuter procedures for feral cats being returned to neighborhoods and open spaces, including parks and wildlife areas. It also began refusing to accept trapped feral cats or to issue permits to residents to trap feral cats. The Department assisted outside organizations that performed TNR by donating public space, advertising their services, and referring the public to their TNR programs. The Department even encouraged and assisted in establishing new feral cat colonies at City-owned properties.
The Superior Court recognized these actions as illegal implementation of the TNR program that could have an impact on the environment and enjoined the City from further pursuing the program until it complied with CEQA. Dr. Travis Longcore, Science Director of The Urban Wildlands Group, said, “Feral cats are documented predators of native wildlife. We support spaying and neutering all cats in Los Angeles, which is the law, but do not support release of this non-native predator into our open spaces and neighborhoods where they kill birds and other wildlife.”
Even when fed by humans, cats instinctively hunt prey, including birds, lizards and small mammals. Colonies of feral cats, often thriving with the aid of handouts from humans, harm native wildlife and contaminate water bodies with fecal bacteria. Longcore continued, “TNR is promoted as a way to reduce feral cat populations but scientific research shows that 70–90% of cats must be sterilized for cat populations to decline. This is virtually impossible to achieve in practice, but population reduction can be achieved with only 50% removal.”
The City must now stop its TNR program and any further proposal to implement such a program must undergo objective scientific review as part of the CEQA process. This will ensure that the public has adequate opportunity to comment and that significant impacts on parks, wildlife, water quality, and human health are avoided.
It's a shame it had to come to this but it was inevitable. TNR was doing nothing more than trading cats' lives for those of other creatures. Cats do kill for fun, playing with their kill and sometimes not even ending their prey's suffering. Not to mention that leaving cats outside is the ultimate cruelty.
This will have quite an effect on "No Kill". This along with the bans on pits that are coming on board daily should put "No Kill" in serious jeopardy as it should be. I predict that many places will now stop their formal or informal TNR programs because of this court case. I have no problems with that.
This comes as good news/bad news. The good news is that TNR is no longer acceptable in LA due to a lawsuit. http://birdchaser.blogspot.com/2009/12/birds-1-feral-cats-0-court-orders-la-to.html The bad news is what happens to these "feral" cats now. I doubt that these "caregivers" will step up and do the right thing by taking them off the streets.
Songbirds of Los Angeles may get a reprieve from feral cat predation. Six conservation groups won a lawsuit on Friday against the City of Los Angeles and its Department of Animal Services to stop the practice of encouraging feral cat colonies until the legally required environmental impact reviews are performed.
The Los Angeles Superior Court found that the City of Los Angeles had been “secretly and unofficially” promoting “Trap-Neuter-Return,” a controversial program to allow feral cats to run free, even while the Department of Animal Services promised to conduct an environmental review of the program. The Court ordered the City to stop implementing TNR. The plaintiffs, The Urban Wildlands Group, Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society, and the American Bird Conservancy, sued the City in June 2008 to ensure that the controversial program to sanction and maintain feral cat colonies was not implemented before a full and public environmental analysis.
The groups decided legal action was necessary after their investigation revealed that the City had been unofficially implementing a so-called “Trap-Neuter-Return” program and the City repeatedly declined their request to stop implementing the program until environmental review was performed.
Although the City insisted that no such program existed, the Court concurred with the conservation groups and concluded in its Friday ruling that, “implementation of the program is pervasive, albeit ‘informal and unspoken.’”
“Our goal was to see that the City follows the California Environmental Quality Act by thoroughly assessing the program’s impacts on the environment and considering alternatives and mitigation measures before making specific programmatic decisions,” said Babak Naficy, attorney for plaintiffs. “Feral cats have a range of impacts to wildlife, human health, and water quality in our cities. The impacts of institutionalizing the maintenance of feral cat colonies through TNR should be discussed in an open, public process before any such program is implemented,” Naficy said.
In June 2005, the Los Angeles Board of Animal Services Commissioners adopted TNR as the “preferred method of dealing with feral cat populations as its official policy.” Thereafter, the Board directed the General Manager to prepare an analysis of the program under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This analysis was never completed but the Department implemented major portions of the program anyway.
The Department issued coupons for free or discounted spay/neuter procedures for feral cats being returned to neighborhoods and open spaces, including parks and wildlife areas. It also began refusing to accept trapped feral cats or to issue permits to residents to trap feral cats. The Department assisted outside organizations that performed TNR by donating public space, advertising their services, and referring the public to their TNR programs. The Department even encouraged and assisted in establishing new feral cat colonies at City-owned properties.
The Superior Court recognized these actions as illegal implementation of the TNR program that could have an impact on the environment and enjoined the City from further pursuing the program until it complied with CEQA. Dr. Travis Longcore, Science Director of The Urban Wildlands Group, said, “Feral cats are documented predators of native wildlife. We support spaying and neutering all cats in Los Angeles, which is the law, but do not support release of this non-native predator into our open spaces and neighborhoods where they kill birds and other wildlife.”
Even when fed by humans, cats instinctively hunt prey, including birds, lizards and small mammals. Colonies of feral cats, often thriving with the aid of handouts from humans, harm native wildlife and contaminate water bodies with fecal bacteria. Longcore continued, “TNR is promoted as a way to reduce feral cat populations but scientific research shows that 70–90% of cats must be sterilized for cat populations to decline. This is virtually impossible to achieve in practice, but population reduction can be achieved with only 50% removal.”
The City must now stop its TNR program and any further proposal to implement such a program must undergo objective scientific review as part of the CEQA process. This will ensure that the public has adequate opportunity to comment and that significant impacts on parks, wildlife, water quality, and human health are avoided.
It's a shame it had to come to this but it was inevitable. TNR was doing nothing more than trading cats' lives for those of other creatures. Cats do kill for fun, playing with their kill and sometimes not even ending their prey's suffering. Not to mention that leaving cats outside is the ultimate cruelty.
This will have quite an effect on "No Kill". This along with the bans on pits that are coming on board daily should put "No Kill" in serious jeopardy as it should be. I predict that many places will now stop their formal or informal TNR programs because of this court case. I have no problems with that.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Just a Reminder About Winograd's "Success"
The Whino is still running around bragging about Reno/Washoe when in actuality "no kill" was rejected there.
http://m.rgj.com/news.jsp?key=215926
After hearing that current practices ensure that few healthy animals die at the Regional Animal Control Services Center, the Washoe County Commission on Tuesday agreed not to adopt an official "no kill" policy.
It also agreed to hold a community forum to educate the public about the center, which includes the Nevada Humane Society.
The commission agreed that it did not need to create a task force to draft a formal policy to become a "no kill" community, one option that was presented by staff in an update on the joint facility that opened in 2006.
That policy is misleading, said Mitch Schneider, interim animal control director. Vicious animals and very sick animals, not likely to survive, are euthanized under a "no kill" policy.
He said he prefers "pet friendly" as animal services' goal.
Commissioner Kitty Jung made a plea to create an oversight committee to review operations and policies at the center. Chairman David Humke and Commissioner John Breternitz said they didn't have enough information to consider whether that's needed.
In 2008, Washoe County animal control euthanized 188 dogs and 238 cats because the center had run out of space, and no one wanted those animals, Schneider said.
"There were a lot of pit bulls. There's just not enough homes who want them," Schneider said. "The Humane Society is not going to take all pit bulls."
The Washoe County euthanasia rate is 7.4 animals per 1,000 population. That compares with the national average of 12.5 animals per 1,000 population.
The center took in 11,494 animals in 2008, including wild animals and dead animals. Schneider said the number was up by about 300 from 2007.
"I'm grateful the economy hasn't caused a tremendous number of abandoned animals," he said.
Animal control saw that 3,290 animals were returned to their owners in 2008 and its staff delivered a number of them. Another 5,906 animals were rescued by the Humane Society and other groups.
A closer look
Animal control and the Humane Society moved into their new building in February 2006. The Humane Society raised $4.5 million to build its share of the building and pays a lease covering operating and maintenance costs.
Its members also helped push for a successful bond issue/tax override to create the regional animal control service that involved merging county, Reno and Sparks operations.
The Humane Society found homes for 8,635 animals in 2008, up from 8,030 in 2007 and 4,536 in 2006. "This community is incredibly animal friendly," said Bonney Brown, society executive director.
Connie Johnson, a Humane Society volunteer, urged the commission to visit the center and watch the staff and volunteers at work. "It's so heartwarming," she said.
Each time an animal is adopted, staff members comes out of their offices to cheer, said Gina Cole, another volunteer. She said staff comes in early to make sure animals are ready for the public. And other commented on the shelter being opened daily to encourage adoptions.
See, even this Humane Society won't take pits, just like San Francisco. The Whino distorts the truth about his "successes". With a 58% euthanization rate for pits nationwide his proclaimed successes are contributing to this rate by refusing to take pits. They should be forced to take all the pits because pits get a "bad rap". I say actions speak a lot louder than words, Winograd.
http://m.rgj.com/news.jsp?key=215926
After hearing that current practices ensure that few healthy animals die at the Regional Animal Control Services Center, the Washoe County Commission on Tuesday agreed not to adopt an official "no kill" policy.
It also agreed to hold a community forum to educate the public about the center, which includes the Nevada Humane Society.
The commission agreed that it did not need to create a task force to draft a formal policy to become a "no kill" community, one option that was presented by staff in an update on the joint facility that opened in 2006.
That policy is misleading, said Mitch Schneider, interim animal control director. Vicious animals and very sick animals, not likely to survive, are euthanized under a "no kill" policy.
He said he prefers "pet friendly" as animal services' goal.
Commissioner Kitty Jung made a plea to create an oversight committee to review operations and policies at the center. Chairman David Humke and Commissioner John Breternitz said they didn't have enough information to consider whether that's needed.
In 2008, Washoe County animal control euthanized 188 dogs and 238 cats because the center had run out of space, and no one wanted those animals, Schneider said.
"There were a lot of pit bulls. There's just not enough homes who want them," Schneider said. "The Humane Society is not going to take all pit bulls."
The Washoe County euthanasia rate is 7.4 animals per 1,000 population. That compares with the national average of 12.5 animals per 1,000 population.
The center took in 11,494 animals in 2008, including wild animals and dead animals. Schneider said the number was up by about 300 from 2007.
"I'm grateful the economy hasn't caused a tremendous number of abandoned animals," he said.
Animal control saw that 3,290 animals were returned to their owners in 2008 and its staff delivered a number of them. Another 5,906 animals were rescued by the Humane Society and other groups.
A closer look
Animal control and the Humane Society moved into their new building in February 2006. The Humane Society raised $4.5 million to build its share of the building and pays a lease covering operating and maintenance costs.
Its members also helped push for a successful bond issue/tax override to create the regional animal control service that involved merging county, Reno and Sparks operations.
The Humane Society found homes for 8,635 animals in 2008, up from 8,030 in 2007 and 4,536 in 2006. "This community is incredibly animal friendly," said Bonney Brown, society executive director.
Connie Johnson, a Humane Society volunteer, urged the commission to visit the center and watch the staff and volunteers at work. "It's so heartwarming," she said.
Each time an animal is adopted, staff members comes out of their offices to cheer, said Gina Cole, another volunteer. She said staff comes in early to make sure animals are ready for the public. And other commented on the shelter being opened daily to encourage adoptions.
See, even this Humane Society won't take pits, just like San Francisco. The Whino distorts the truth about his "successes". With a 58% euthanization rate for pits nationwide his proclaimed successes are contributing to this rate by refusing to take pits. They should be forced to take all the pits because pits get a "bad rap". I say actions speak a lot louder than words, Winograd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)