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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Legacy of No Kill or How to Make Animals Suffer Even More
The Toronto Humane Society has been in the news this past week. Another perfect example of why "No Kill" doesn't work in large open door shelters. And there is a confidential report in the comment section that tells the tale.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/animals-shouldnt-suffer-78118682.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontohumanesociety/article/732212--bandit-serial-attacker-death-row-inmate-beloved-office-pet
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontohumanesociety/article/732023--humane-society-it-seems-like-house-of-horrors?bn=1
Shades of Lied, NV!!!! What kind of people are attracted to this "No Kill" movement has to be a question asked. Lied employees had no idea that all those animals were sick and obviously Toronto Humane didn't either. Doug Rae in Indy was hiding cats in the ventiliation ducts to keep from euthanizing them. And this was after the house of horrors he created in Philly. Rancho Cucamonga, CA issued a report for 08 showing a tremendous increase in animals dying in their cages. When questioned about this from a cruelty officer, they immediately issued a new report that put them in a better light. It's only a matter of time before the news picks up on this shelter.
And whose fault is all of this? Not animal control, they are just going a job for the public. It is the fault of the humane community, the very ones who yell no kill. There would be no euthanasia in our shelters if the humane community would step up to the plate. If they complain about animals dying in the shelter, why don't they take them out? Because there is a double standard when it comes to the definition of "adoptable". Most of the animals in an open door shelter are rejects from "No Kill' groups. Yet these same groups expect animal control to work miracles and adopt out their version of "unadoptable". The "No Kill" groups turn away owners and where do those pets end up? Either as road kill or being euthanized in an open door shelter. So what does that make these rescues, hypocritical. They have the blood on their hands even more than animal control does. They are the ones dictating the doom of animals.
A case comes to mind in LA of this. Zepher was a dog that was brought into the shelter sick. The shelter tried to treat the dog but in the end the medication failed to work. A "rescuer" had a hold on the dog, which means she intended to take it rather than it being euthanized. This "rescuer" walked by that dog many times as she bailed out other cute, fluffy dogs. The day before Zepher died in the kennel, this "rescuer" actually took a picture and the picture showed that the dog was dying. When asked by a reporter why she didn't take the dog then, she replied that her vet was already closed. Duh, as if there aren't after hour vets???? So she allowed the dog to suffer and die, and she failed Zepher. I felt all along this was a set up and Zepher was sacrificed. Then this "rescuer" had the nerve to fill a lawsuit against the County, along with Winograd.
Other open door shelters are being subjected to this type of setup. King County, WA has been setup for failure and it is a mess there. Memphis may be in the throes of a set up, will wait and see. This seems to be a trend to make the shelters look worse to the public. What does that accomplish? It sends the public to "rescues" and to breeders. Both of which are the friends of Winograd's "No Kill" movement. Yes, indeed, the Whino does love the breeders and they love him. Instead of helping bring the public into the shelters, "No Kill" drives them away and more animals go down as a result.
We have spent the last decade focusing on this "No Kill" movement and the numbers are showing it. Before all is lost, we need to defeat the Whino's movement. It can work in private shelters that pick and chose, it can work in smaller shelters probably. But it cannot work in large open door shelters and has proven, thus far, to be a detriment in those shelters. Keep in mind that the Whino has only taken care of about 10,000 animals in his "career", not nearly enough to classify him as an "expert". And he hasn't been in a shelter that handles over 3000 animals a year. Look at the SF SPCA and SF Animal control, their numbers are low. The Whino fails to explain that SF has mandatory spay/neuter for pits and that the SF SPCA doesn't take pits from the shelter. And the SF animal shelter euthanized pits. Read between the lines, do your research, don't fall for this hoax (according to Roger A. Caras, longtime President of the ASPCA). It is robbing our shelters of volunteers and it is making more suffering than is necessary. I classify it as the singularly most evil thing that has happened for animals in my lifetime.
MORE: They were letting them die in their cages rather than euthanize. "No Kill" is beyond evil to do this to the animals!!! Twice as many animals died in their cages than they euthanized!http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00048/By_the_numbers_48221a.PDF
Rancho Cucamonga, CA is doing the same thing. Check out an earlier posting about Rancho on this blog.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/animals-shouldnt-suffer-78118682.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontohumanesociety/article/732212--bandit-serial-attacker-death-row-inmate-beloved-office-pet
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontohumanesociety/article/732023--humane-society-it-seems-like-house-of-horrors?bn=1
Shades of Lied, NV!!!! What kind of people are attracted to this "No Kill" movement has to be a question asked. Lied employees had no idea that all those animals were sick and obviously Toronto Humane didn't either. Doug Rae in Indy was hiding cats in the ventiliation ducts to keep from euthanizing them. And this was after the house of horrors he created in Philly. Rancho Cucamonga, CA issued a report for 08 showing a tremendous increase in animals dying in their cages. When questioned about this from a cruelty officer, they immediately issued a new report that put them in a better light. It's only a matter of time before the news picks up on this shelter.
And whose fault is all of this? Not animal control, they are just going a job for the public. It is the fault of the humane community, the very ones who yell no kill. There would be no euthanasia in our shelters if the humane community would step up to the plate. If they complain about animals dying in the shelter, why don't they take them out? Because there is a double standard when it comes to the definition of "adoptable". Most of the animals in an open door shelter are rejects from "No Kill' groups. Yet these same groups expect animal control to work miracles and adopt out their version of "unadoptable". The "No Kill" groups turn away owners and where do those pets end up? Either as road kill or being euthanized in an open door shelter. So what does that make these rescues, hypocritical. They have the blood on their hands even more than animal control does. They are the ones dictating the doom of animals.
A case comes to mind in LA of this. Zepher was a dog that was brought into the shelter sick. The shelter tried to treat the dog but in the end the medication failed to work. A "rescuer" had a hold on the dog, which means she intended to take it rather than it being euthanized. This "rescuer" walked by that dog many times as she bailed out other cute, fluffy dogs. The day before Zepher died in the kennel, this "rescuer" actually took a picture and the picture showed that the dog was dying. When asked by a reporter why she didn't take the dog then, she replied that her vet was already closed. Duh, as if there aren't after hour vets???? So she allowed the dog to suffer and die, and she failed Zepher. I felt all along this was a set up and Zepher was sacrificed. Then this "rescuer" had the nerve to fill a lawsuit against the County, along with Winograd.
Other open door shelters are being subjected to this type of setup. King County, WA has been setup for failure and it is a mess there. Memphis may be in the throes of a set up, will wait and see. This seems to be a trend to make the shelters look worse to the public. What does that accomplish? It sends the public to "rescues" and to breeders. Both of which are the friends of Winograd's "No Kill" movement. Yes, indeed, the Whino does love the breeders and they love him. Instead of helping bring the public into the shelters, "No Kill" drives them away and more animals go down as a result.
We have spent the last decade focusing on this "No Kill" movement and the numbers are showing it. Before all is lost, we need to defeat the Whino's movement. It can work in private shelters that pick and chose, it can work in smaller shelters probably. But it cannot work in large open door shelters and has proven, thus far, to be a detriment in those shelters. Keep in mind that the Whino has only taken care of about 10,000 animals in his "career", not nearly enough to classify him as an "expert". And he hasn't been in a shelter that handles over 3000 animals a year. Look at the SF SPCA and SF Animal control, their numbers are low. The Whino fails to explain that SF has mandatory spay/neuter for pits and that the SF SPCA doesn't take pits from the shelter. And the SF animal shelter euthanized pits. Read between the lines, do your research, don't fall for this hoax (according to Roger A. Caras, longtime President of the ASPCA). It is robbing our shelters of volunteers and it is making more suffering than is necessary. I classify it as the singularly most evil thing that has happened for animals in my lifetime.
MORE: They were letting them die in their cages rather than euthanize. "No Kill" is beyond evil to do this to the animals!!! Twice as many animals died in their cages than they euthanized!http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00048/By_the_numbers_48221a.PDF
Rancho Cucamonga, CA is doing the same thing. Check out an earlier posting about Rancho on this blog.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Pit Nutters That Purrrrrr
To begin, I do not use "outside" to describe a cat. I don't believe in cats being outside unless supervised. Cats have never stuck me as being capable of taking care of themselves outside. Therefore, I do not accept Trap, Neuter and Release (Abandon in my book) as a viable way to manage cats. I came across this article and wanted to pass it along, some excerpts and my comments.
http://www.westword.com/2009-11-19/news/fixers-feeders-and-the-strange-hidden-world-of-feral-cats/5
Animal-welfare activists have requested that the address be withheld; they say that revealing the location of a colony encourages people to dump unwanted cats there.
http://www.westword.com/2009-11-19/news/fixers-feeders-and-the-strange-hidden-world-of-feral-cats/5
Animal-welfare activists have requested that the address be withheld; they say that revealing the location of a colony encourages people to dump unwanted cats there.
But people do know about feeding stations and colonies. This allows them to dump their cats knowing that the "crazy cat lady" will take care of it. It also means the punks know where to get cats for their perversions.
Working with RMACA, Des Marais and other volunteers are trying to reduce the kill rate by trapping ferals, spaying or neutering them, then returning them — in effect, transforming the entire colony from feral to sterile so that it will eventually die out on its own. But trap-neuter-return, or TNR, is a controversial solution, often unpopular with communities afflicted by the colonies.
Great in theory, doesn't work that way in real life. When will occur to these people that if they put food out there, cats will come? There will always be new ones. The perfect example of this was the Los Alamitos colony in LA that was 45 years old!!!! There recently was controversy because the cats were causing problems at a nearby day care center. Children were becoming sick from allergies to parasites. And it was traced back to the cats. So, to keep the Whinonettes off their backs, the city tried to work with the TNR people. When they started the count was 130 cats, a year later the count was 200. It never ends.
That appears to be the case at this apartment complex. Des Marais tracks down the tenant who invited her here, a man named Santos. He says things are getting worse by the day. He caught a neighbor shooting at the cats with a BB gun and asked him to stop.
"He said, 'Those aren't your cats,'" Santos recalls. "He told me to mind my own business."
Another tenant saw a coyote eating a cat. Cats have been found with their entrails hanging out. One was decapitated. Santos doesn't think all the mutilations are the work of coyotes. "People can be cruel," he says.
What an understatement, people can be cruel!!! I have seen worse than this in colonies. It changed my mind rather quickly that TNR is actually the ultimate cruelty. Where is a concern for quality of life?
It's a formidable task. Not only is there no magical place in the country for them to go, but feral cats are highly territorial. Relocating them requires keeping them confined for weeks until they get comfortable in new surroundings. Contrary to the myths about cats being able to fend for themselves — the same myths that have helped create the feral cat problem in the first place — a feral released in the country will try to find its way back to its colony and probably perish in the attempt.
Another myth about cats being territorial is that they will keep other cats from coming into their colony. THAT IS NOT TRUE, particularly when cats are altered. They do not sit at the feed station protecting it. That's why colonies never go away and TNR lies about this aspect. Now this conflicts with the Whino because he is now saying to relocate them. Who's right?
"Even people in the animal-welfare community think tame cats are one issue and feral cats are another, and they're not," she says. "Everything is connected. Tame is one end of the spectrum, feral is the other. But there's all sorts of shades of gray in between."
And who makes the decision as to whether a cat is truly feral or another domestic gone wild? Too many times I have seen a cat classified as feral come out of a trap friendly. Too many times I have seen cats in colonies who would greet you, rub against your leg, and want to leave with you. Those aren't feral, they shouldn't be left in those colonies. Think about this, imagine a kitten trying to survive outside long enough to become "feral". Yeah, right.
The effort to establish a grassroots TNR program in the city is enthusiastically endorsed by Doug Kelley, director of Denver's Municipal Animal Shelter. As an "open admission" operation, the shelter takes in every type of stray or homeless pet. Cats labeled as feral will be euthanized — but not before they've already taken up space and expense in feline housing that often operates near capacity.
Of course he supports it but not for the reasons you think. Otherwise all those cats would end up in the shelters and screw with the euthanasia numbers. Let the other fools pay for it, keep the cats out, and he looks more like hero.
Many of the volunteers in the TNR movement are violating the city's five-pet limit by virtue of the number of cats and kittens they are in the process of rescuing, fostering or otherwise housing; putting out food for a colony can result in further violations. Consequently, many feral-cat people tend to operate furtively, setting up feeding stations in alleys and hiding their work from the neighbors and animal-control officers. "We need an exemption for ferals," says Angelilli, who's been meeting with city councilmembers over proposed changes in local ordinances.
Wait a minute, the reason for the problem is too many cats per household, people being allowed to have that many and no licensing, no responsibility. And what about those who don't want the colonies around them for various reasons, medical, etc? We don't let dogs run around in colonies, why make exceptions for cats? That is not fair.
Kelley would rather not see his office embroiled in neighborhood complaints about feral cats, but they keep coming. "If somebody really pushes, then we have to take some sort of action, and we'll contact Neighborhood Inspection Services," he says of the city agency that handles such matters. "It's a fine line between being a responsible person who helps take care of a colony and being a hoarder. We've certainly been on properties where well-meaning people have a hundred-plus cats. Then it becomes a health and safety issue."
Ah, now we are getting to the gist of it. I do believe that much of the TNR movement is nothing more than giving hoarders a way out. I think of it as a type of hoarding. Letting the great outdoor be your kennel.
"Sometimes it's hard to tell a feral cat from one that's very unsocialized or one that's just nasty," Kelley explains. "What we're calling feral cats aren't always feral cats."
And that is the moral and ethical side of the issue. As I said imagine a kitten outside surviving on it's own long enough to become truly feral.
"We have people who are considered caretakers, who are feeding the cats but not fixing them," Aubart says. "They get overwhelmed, and they have to choose between feeding and fixing. They choose feeding, of course. But all that does is make it so that you have to feed more."
Thus, the biggest problem of TNR. And if you provide food, then they will reproduce.
No, I don't want them killed. I want them fixed. I want these types of people to put ALL their efforts behind spay/neuter. I want these people to realize that they really aren't doing these cats a big favor, they are just prolonging the suffering. I want these people to realize that they are putting owned cats in danger, they cross streets, etc. coming to a food station. Not all the cats in a colony were dumped, the food and the colony attract cats that have a home. There needs to be regulations, policies, oversight for these TNR colonies to make sure they do what they intend to do.
Another myth about cats being territorial is that they will keep other cats from coming into their colony. THAT IS NOT TRUE, particularly when cats are altered. They do not sit at the feed station protecting it. That's why colonies never go away and TNR lies about this aspect. Now this conflicts with the Whino because he is now saying to relocate them. Who's right?
"Even people in the animal-welfare community think tame cats are one issue and feral cats are another, and they're not," she says. "Everything is connected. Tame is one end of the spectrum, feral is the other. But there's all sorts of shades of gray in between."
And who makes the decision as to whether a cat is truly feral or another domestic gone wild? Too many times I have seen a cat classified as feral come out of a trap friendly. Too many times I have seen cats in colonies who would greet you, rub against your leg, and want to leave with you. Those aren't feral, they shouldn't be left in those colonies. Think about this, imagine a kitten trying to survive outside long enough to become "feral". Yeah, right.
The effort to establish a grassroots TNR program in the city is enthusiastically endorsed by Doug Kelley, director of Denver's Municipal Animal Shelter. As an "open admission" operation, the shelter takes in every type of stray or homeless pet. Cats labeled as feral will be euthanized — but not before they've already taken up space and expense in feline housing that often operates near capacity.
Of course he supports it but not for the reasons you think. Otherwise all those cats would end up in the shelters and screw with the euthanasia numbers. Let the other fools pay for it, keep the cats out, and he looks more like hero.
Many of the volunteers in the TNR movement are violating the city's five-pet limit by virtue of the number of cats and kittens they are in the process of rescuing, fostering or otherwise housing; putting out food for a colony can result in further violations. Consequently, many feral-cat people tend to operate furtively, setting up feeding stations in alleys and hiding their work from the neighbors and animal-control officers. "We need an exemption for ferals," says Angelilli, who's been meeting with city councilmembers over proposed changes in local ordinances.
Wait a minute, the reason for the problem is too many cats per household, people being allowed to have that many and no licensing, no responsibility. And what about those who don't want the colonies around them for various reasons, medical, etc? We don't let dogs run around in colonies, why make exceptions for cats? That is not fair.
Kelley would rather not see his office embroiled in neighborhood complaints about feral cats, but they keep coming. "If somebody really pushes, then we have to take some sort of action, and we'll contact Neighborhood Inspection Services," he says of the city agency that handles such matters. "It's a fine line between being a responsible person who helps take care of a colony and being a hoarder. We've certainly been on properties where well-meaning people have a hundred-plus cats. Then it becomes a health and safety issue."
Ah, now we are getting to the gist of it. I do believe that much of the TNR movement is nothing more than giving hoarders a way out. I think of it as a type of hoarding. Letting the great outdoor be your kennel.
"Sometimes it's hard to tell a feral cat from one that's very unsocialized or one that's just nasty," Kelley explains. "What we're calling feral cats aren't always feral cats."
And that is the moral and ethical side of the issue. As I said imagine a kitten outside surviving on it's own long enough to become truly feral.
"We have people who are considered caretakers, who are feeding the cats but not fixing them," Aubart says. "They get overwhelmed, and they have to choose between feeding and fixing. They choose feeding, of course. But all that does is make it so that you have to feed more."
Thus, the biggest problem of TNR. And if you provide food, then they will reproduce.
No, I don't want them killed. I want them fixed. I want these types of people to put ALL their efforts behind spay/neuter. I want these people to realize that they really aren't doing these cats a big favor, they are just prolonging the suffering. I want these people to realize that they are putting owned cats in danger, they cross streets, etc. coming to a food station. Not all the cats in a colony were dumped, the food and the colony attract cats that have a home. There needs to be regulations, policies, oversight for these TNR colonies to make sure they do what they intend to do.
Look at cats outside. Most of the time they looked terrified. Would you want your cat to live that way? Only if you would be willing to put your dearly beloved cat in a colony should you support this treatment of cats. These cats can be brought in from the cold via cat enclosures. TNR is the lazy way out, the cheap way out. It requires less of the caregiver but puts more on the cats and the neighborhood.
I recommend http://www.tnrrealitycheck.com/ to those thinking of engaging in TNR. There's more to the story. Cats are a non native species and we are all familiar with what a predatory non native species can do to the native species. Plus cats in areas such as LA attract coyotes. These coyotes feed on people's pets as well. Is it right to sacrifice one life for another? Is it right for cats to take prey from coyotes, birds, etc. in the wild? And cats don't kill just to eat, they kill for fun. That's what makes them dangerous to native species, the prey and those that prey. California hasn't had canine rabies in years but there is feline rabies every year. What about diseases carried by cats? The children in Los Alamitos who had allergies, those who ended up with tapeworms. Cats are mobile, meaning fences don't stop them. They go into people's yards, leave their little gifts. And they carry fleas, fleas that can carry plagues, plagues that have wiped out thousands of lives.
Can you see the mentality between the pit nutters and the TNR "No Kill'ers"? Ain't a lot of difference is there?
Friday, November 13, 2009
My New Blog
After repeated requests for there to be a blog that shows media headlines on pit bull attacks on a state by state basis, I decided to get it done.
www.pitattacksbystate.blogspot.com
Comments are welcome but nutters will be treated for what they are, dirt. They want to spar with me, then bring the big gloves.
Pits are attacking in epidemic numbers, nutters want us to accept that. Nutters want us to change rather than change the dogs. Ain't gonna do it. These dogs are dangerous and need to be treated like anything else that can come into your home and kill your children. Thanks DBO for making me a wiser person, you may have saved my life.
www.pitattacksbystate.blogspot.com
Comments are welcome but nutters will be treated for what they are, dirt. They want to spar with me, then bring the big gloves.
Pits are attacking in epidemic numbers, nutters want us to accept that. Nutters want us to change rather than change the dogs. Ain't gonna do it. These dogs are dangerous and need to be treated like anything else that can come into your home and kill your children. Thanks DBO for making me a wiser person, you may have saved my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)