Monday, August 29, 2011


UPDATE: The investigation report has been release with no surprises for the non "No Kill" people.
Pretty scathing I would say and all so typical of what happens when an open door shelter adopts the Whino's program. 

I have predicted that Austin will be the quickest failure of the Whino but guess what folks, another one has beat Austin. This one has gone down in less than a month. I can just hear Nathie Boy whining over his Big Mac now. (By the way, I am just assuming that Nathie prefers Big Mac over BK because his idol, Richard Avanzino and the Maddie's Fund has stock in McDonalds, wonder if they bought it because of the weight of Nathie Boy?)

Here is the proclamation of Baton Rouge going "No Kill" dated just a mere five days ago.

East Baton Rouge Parish Animal Control And Rescue Center (EBRP ACRC) is the organization responsible for animal control in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.  The parish contains the city of Baton Rouge, which is the capital of Louisiana.  The Companion Animal Alliance of Baton Rouge (CAA), a non-profit,  has entered into a public-private partnership with EBRP-ACRC to provide sheltering services for the parish.
Laura Hinze recently took over as director at CAA, after serving as director at PAWS Chicago, Chicago’s largest no-kill humane society.  She has committed to making the parish no-kill.  CAA posts its statistics on its website, and the organization admits that the current statistics are “alarming.”  In 2010, the parish euthanized more than 6000 animals.  CAA has laid out a plan for the future though, consisting of action in three areas.  First, reducing the number of animals who come into the shelter by providing intake counseling, establishing a Trap-Neuter-Return program for feral cats, and promoting spay-neuter.  Second, making sure that animals are healthy and safe while in the shelter by establishing medical and cleaning protocols.  Third, reducing length of stay in the shelter by increasing the number of animals returned to their owners, implementing creative adoption programs, and developing a foster program.
The impetus for change in Baton Rouge was the same as we’ve heard from many other communities — local animal welfare advocates who had been convinced that killing was necessary changed their minds after reading Nathan Winograd’s book Redemption and hearing about no-kill success in other cities.  As CAA executive committee secretary Nancy Jo Craig said, “It’s really been part of an awakening that’s happened all over the country.”


But earlier in the week, some of the 4-by-6-foot enclosures held as many as seven dogs, according to complaints aired before the Metro Council.
Some dogs were kept in restrooms and storage rooms in recent weeks as the new staff struggled to find places for the steady flow of incoming strays without having to resort to massive euthanasia.
“We do have more animals,” Hinze said. “And we are employing spaces that were not employed previously to house animals.”  (Employing spaces such as restrooms and storage rooms???? Where does the employees go when they need to take a dump???)

But just three weeks after the CAA took control, complaints began to trickle in about overcrowding and inhumane conditions.
Animal Control Director Hilton Cole, whose office oversaw the sheltering operations prior to CAA’s takeover, has opened an investigation into the complaints. (That has to be the all time record, sorry Austin.)

Christy Wyatt, a shelter volunteer of two years, filed a formal complaint against the shelter because of the overcrowding.
“It’s based on an ideology that cramming seven dogs in one cage and having them trample all over each other is better than euthanizing them,” Wyatt said. “They (CAA) didn’t have the planning in place, and what happened as a result is they overlooked the inhumanity of the situation.” (You can't plan when the incoming is more than the outgoing. Plus since when does "No Kill" care about the suffering it creates?)
But what CAA needs is more foster homes to ease overcrowding and volunteers to help operations, Hinze said.  (Interpretation needed here, what the CAA wants to do is pimp off animals onto unsuspecting persons, little do they know that it will be permanent, not temporary. All in the name of those numbers, folks.)

Just 3 1/2 weeks after taking control of the parish’s animal shelter services, the Companion Animal Alliance was accused of inhumane treatment of its animals by a Metro councilman and other members of the public.
Councilman Ulysses “Bones” Addison visited the animal shelter unannounced on Wednesday morning and said he witnessed “horrific” and “unacceptable conditions” for the animals. (Kudos to this Councilman, I love those surprise visits!!)
Addison, prompted by emails from constituents, said he saw overcrowding of kennels, including one cage with eight dogs.
He said the kennels with animals were stacked on top of one another, stored in bathrooms and spilling out into the lobby. (Be sure and buy stock in crate companies when "No Kill" rears it's ugly head!! Let's not forget Doug Rae of PACCA fame and his putting cats in the ventilation ducts, now that is creative thinking.)
“I have never seen anything like it. I won’t accept it as a council member, I won’t accept it as a citizen and it needs to be corrected forthwith,” he said. “If we’re going to save animals, we can’t put them in inhumane conditions.” (You're right Councilman, but this is "No Kill" that we are talking about, and that is just fine by them.)
CAA Executive Director Laura Hinze said after the council meeting Wednesday that she disagrees with the statements about animals being put in inhumane conditions. (Staying true to "No Kill", can't see nor admit the suffering they create.)

Susan Aronson, who spoke to the council Wednesday evening, said she filed a complaint after visiting the shelter.
“The cages are seriously and very dangerously overcrowded, several large dogs were in cages with cowering smaller dogs, food aggressive dogs in one cage were fighting, a cage clearly marked ‘aggressive’ had two dogs together, and the worst was a nursing dog in a cage with four large dogs,” she wrote in her complaint.
“The animals are no longer being euthanized, but now, due to stress and fear of being in these overcrowded cages, (the animals) are more likely to fight, be severely injured or killed,” Aronson wrote. (Imagine putting a nursing mom in with other dogs, if her milk drying up from stress doesn't put the puppies in jeopardy, the other four dogs will. Just how cruel can "No Kill" be?)


Anonymous said...

Oh dear, seems that Baton Rouge has been taking lessons from No Kill Austin. This gives Austin a glimpse into their future.

"In addition, we are meeting with other groups from around the country, like from Baton Rouge, San Diego, and Scottsdale, to advise them on our model to help them increase live outcomes in their shelters."

Anonymous said...

The fact that you can call someone Whino loses all credibility that you may have had. If I were him, I'd think about a defamation lawsuit. We may have free speech, but there have always been restrictions on that freedom where it serves the common good. Just saying.

This is Pat Dunaway said...

Hey, Anon:20, go tell that shit to the Whino, haven't you read his shit about me? Using anonymous letters to accuse me of being a child and animal abuser. Now that is defamation, dumbass. And if you were him, you'd be a lying, fat, short piece of shit. I wish he would sue me, I want his fat, BK eating ass in court. I want the truth to come out to the public. The only free speech you want is the lies of the Whino. I call him Whino because he whines all the time, the same shit over and over again. He's evil and you are evil for defending him.

This is Pat Dunaway, now kiss my ass.

Dez Crawford said...

With respect to everyone, calling someone a childish name is just that - childish. It is not defamation. Defamation of character occurs when something is openly and publicly written or spoken that causes damage to a person's reputation. Libel is written or printed, slander is oral. TRUTH is defense to all of the above. Name-calling does not qualify as defamation, libel or slander. Declaring that person "A" is a jackass, a dummy or making a pun on their name does not damage their character. Public figures, such as well-known authors, must endure a higher thresh-hold of name-calling than private citizens because they are PUBLIC FIGURES. You can call Nathan Winograd "Whino" all day long and it does not damage his reputation. If you claimed that you saw him stomp a puppy to death, however, you'd better have proof or you'll be in court. Using a hypothetical example, such as the previous sentence, does not count as libel.

Some other examples: One could call David Vitter a whoremonger all day long. Because it's true. One cannot call him a crack dealer, however, because he is not a crack dealer. Calling David Vitter a whoremonger cannot damage his reputation both because it is true and because his reputation is already damaged BECAUSE he frequented prostitutes.

Now that we are done with name-calling, the fact is that no-kill cannot happen overnight, many no-kill ideas are ineffective, and there are better ways to both reduce intake AND reduce euthanasia. BUT, they cost MONEY -- not too much, but still MONEY -- which requires TAX -- not much, just a few dollars per citizen, but it is still TAX -- and getting ANY funding for things needed to reduce euthanasia is a long, long shot under the current mindset of the dominant political party.

HonestyHelps said...

Dez, I agree with you on the various alternatives to reach the goal of not having to euthanize in open door shelters for time and space.

My thought is that the humane community needs to change it's prospective on getting this from the open door shelters. I feel that the humane community is letting the shelter animals down. What about programs of free obedience training for those who adopt a shelter dog and it is sponsored by a non profit? Offer things that can help owner retention rather than a lecture and a brochure. This is where the humane community needs to do some work, not just concern itself with adoptions. Programs they can fund whereas government won't fund them.

They say you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If the humane community would step up, you can't kill 'em if they ain't there. Either stop the influx or rescues need to earn that title.

ShellyB said...

I feel like it's necessary to say that the bathroom that the dogs were stored in was no longer a functioning bathroom - it was in an old vet clinic that is now used to keep more animals. It seems unnecessary to me that there is now a ton of space, not being used, because the media wants to talk about it being ugly. Yes 7 dogs in a cage is excessive... but using a room that was previously a bathroom to put animals in crates instead of killing them? You tell me if it's wrong.

HonestyHelps said...

ShellyB, you've missed the entire point but then again when has a Whinonette ever gotten any points? The point is that there was severe overcrowding and do you know what happens when there is overcrowding? Disease outbreaks, dog fights, and the poor animals get little to no attention. Maybe you can look at this situation and think it is better than "killing" but I look at it as worse than death for an animal. Get off your Frankenstein bandwagon and realize that just because they are "alive" doesn't mean they have a life.