I’ve always said that how you treat a dead animal indicates how you treat a live one. I bring up this issue today when several of our local police officers were discovered cutting up a dead homeless person. Pretty outrageous. They didn’t even cut off their body cameras; pretty stupid as well. I have a lot of respect for police officers, but these guys do not measure up to the level I expect of their position.
Acronyms
Acronyms are undermining society. This should not be a surprise because social media is at the root of the new language that sprung forth from our cell phones. At least once a week, I’ve been stumped (ALOAWIBS) (LOL) when I come across an unknown acronym.
As professionals, you would think that we would avoid the overuse of acronyms, but we are just as bad as the rest of the social media world. For example, anyone outside the animal welfare world would not know what HBC (Hit By Car) means. We would say the animal was dead, but no, we have to say “dead on arrival” (DOA). It gets confusing when dispatch wants to know if our DOA was HBC. You get the point.
It is a confusing world. On a lark, I Googled to see if there is an app that can help us out. Much to my surprise, there is. The app that I found can only be used on iPhones. Who decided that people who have Apple phones need the acronyms finder more than Android users? Then it hit me, iPhone users are more likely to overuse acronyms. As an Android user, when I come across an acronym that I don’t recognize, I just move on. If the person has to use an acronym to make their point, then the point isn’t all that important.
Soon, I am sure, that there will be an app that help people invent new acronyms. I am hoping that the Android version comes out first. I could shorten my emails with acronyms of my choosing.
Of course, it might be a mistake to ignore acronyms in all places; especially hospitals. I can see why hospital staff might shorten their language in an emergency. However, after the emergency, it would be nice if they moved back to a “normal” language.
We have been using acronyms for so long that some of them are becoming quite annoying. I could live without LOL or RLOL, which really should be ROTFLOL. If you don’t know what any of those mean, you are not missing much. Actually, you aren’t missing anything.
Some in the world would say that I’m wrong. I get that quite often. What would the world be like without a few LOLs in our life?
Say What?
In looking at my last post, no one can accuse me of smooth-talking. So? What do I do with it? Do I throw it out or do I try to sift through it? Let’s try again.
Animal Welfare is looking at each individual animal and attempts to do what is best for it given current resources. Animal Rights is looking at the plight of groups of animals and shifting the mindset of society to raise the animal’s plight to higher importance.
From an Animal Welfare approach you look at the condition of an animal and determine if you can improve the animal’s condition given the resources at hand. It becomes most noticeable when determining whether an organization should treat a medically compromised animal. What factors do you consider? Probably the most important factor is if there is any home where the animal’s owner will show up and assume financial responsibility for the animal. Organizations with limited budgets will be more likely to treat an injured animal if the animal is wearing some form of identification, hinting that an owner might be out looking for their pet. The difficulty is trying to get inside the mind of that owner as to what they would accept as a reasonable amount that they would pay out for their pet.
When treating an injured animal, the organization has to decide if care for the one animal outweighs the care for the other animals in your care. The one notion that people cannot get their heads around is that animal shelters do not have unlimited resources. I have witnessed many incidents in which an animal’s owner would surrender their pet, as a stray, to the animal shelter because they didn’t want to pay the cost for the medical treatment that their pet needed. These folks seem to be the least understanding when the shelter decides that the cost of treatment is beyond them as well. People think that the shelter should throw any amount of funds so that the owner can come return later to adopt back their own pet. So, seeing an ID on the animal is not always an indication that someone is out there in the world to accept financial responsibility of the pet. It does, however, give shelter staff hope and I am more likely to hold the animal longer at the shelter and offer up more money to help the animal with ID.
From an animal rights perspective, the decision to treat the animal is easy. All animals deserve the right to live. The only exception is the animal is demonstrating that it is in such pain and the animal would be better off being put to sleep. Animal rights folks would browbeat anyone standing in the way to prevent treatment. The animal rights folks would just as likely treat a potentially dangerous animal as it would any other.
From an animal welfare perspective, a shelter might hold off on treatment of an animal that doesn’t offer any return on investment. In other words, is the animal adoptable, or after a long stay you are going to have to euthanize the animal anyway? And then you are out the funds that you could have used to save other animals. From an animal rights perspective, you see that one animal representing every other animal and that if you don’t save the one, then that is your attitude towards all the rest. In the case of potentially dangerous animals, the animal rights folks have me pegged. I would rather keep a dangerous dog comfortable during its stray holding period than throw a bunch of money towards it when I have no notion of returning the animal back into the community.
From an outside perspective, one group makes the decision and moves on to help the animals that they are capable of helping. From the other perspective, the groups sees that failure to help that one animal is evidence that other animals won’t be helped either. As such, animal rights groups will attempt to teach you a lesson and go public to try to turn your community against you. The best beating, in their minds, is from the people who fund your organization.
Animal Rights groups cannot wrap their heads around the fact that animal shelters have limited resources. They are not smart enough to understand that communities that fund the animal shelter also have limited resources. Time after time, when I was fighting for funding for my shelter, I heard other voices crying out that funding that was allocated to me would take away from allocations to children in the community. Animal Rights folks can’t understand the competition that animal shelters face for funding.
An Animal Rights group might offer limited funding to push their efforts, but they expect the animal shelter to continue funding the project after it gets off to a good start. The problem is that communities are more sensitive to the economy than are the animal right folks. If the economy is hard now, it is likely to be worse when the pilot program ends. You can’t make a promise to fund a project two or three years down the road when you can’t afford it now.
Notwithstanding the economic climate; the animal rights folks will feel slighted because they feel their cause is higher than any other that communities might face in the future. As such, they will make a public spectacle to bloody the community leaders and the animal shelter staff. I have had to fight this battle many times in my career and for that reason, I don’t think much of animal rights groups. If there is any message to send them; despite what they feel are their priorities, in budget deliberations, children trumps animals every time. Animal Rights folks believe that their cause is the only one that matters; that is their world. Communities have to deal with a much larger world.
A public animal shelter rarely gains financially when they become No-Kill. Animal Rights groups, on the other hand, can access private funding for punishing animal shelters into submission. In the end, public animal shelters have to go through great financial hardship when pushing the No-Kill agenda, but the taskmasters are financially rewarded. There is example after example of governmental organizations spending tons of money to gain and hang on to their No-Kill status. Read about the City of Austin going through it. Just ask Google: Mainly, no-kill created shelter overcrowding, forced shelter staff to reduce the quality of care for their animals, and came at a great expense. Was it worth it? Depends on who you ask. It mostly depends on the amount of available cash that a city has to spend on such efforts. Most cities could not have pulled off what Austin did… none that I ever worked in. That doesn’t mean that we didn’t have our own success stories. I found that the most successful programs that we pulled off were ones in which we made it financially feasible for animal rescue groups to join our cause.
~~~~~~~~
Why do I bother with this now? As a governmental employee, I had to wear a muzzle throughout my career. When I retired, I was able to throw off my muzzle and speak my truth, even if it first appeared as gibberish on paper. At least, it is unfiltered gibberish. And, I hate bullies. When I see bullies, in any form, I’ll lash out. Animal Rights groups are eager to bully an animal shelter into compliance. Sometimes it is justified but usually, it isn’t
Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights
I have a tremendous appreciation for animal welfare organizations and little appreciation for animal rights organizations. It recently dawned on me as to how I can distinguish between the two. I am quite surprised as to how it took me so long. Much of it has to do with the evolution of an organization.
Most of us start out wanting to help animals; it is a noble task. We become so effective at helping animals that we are motivated to want to change society to help animals. When we take on this task, we have to assure ourselves that the task is noble and the cause is righteous.
Today, we frequently see folks taking on causes that are not accepted as righteous. All of the bullying in the world will not make a cause righteous; if anything, it makes it worse.
We frequently see this in the animal welfare movement when other organizations or people want to force their ideology upon us. Oddly, if forced upon us long enough the cause actually might shift to righteousness. No-Kill was shoved down our throats long enough that we began to see the benefits of drinking that in. It still becomes problematic when the goal of becoming No-Kill is just a statistical issue and not a moral issue.
I can remember back when the board of a major humane society would call me at night telling me that I was doing a disservice to my community by not killing 90% of the animals that came into my care. Now, we are assaulted if we are forced to kill over 10% of our animals. The humane society lost its contract with the county due to its large euthanasia numbers and it felt that its cause was righteous because the board members were convinced that 90% of the animals were too dangerous to put on the streets of the community. Well, looking back at that, we see that they caved to stupidity.
But, is the 10% that we deal with today also an effort in stupidity? It’s just a number! It is just a statistic! Well, it is not. That number represents everything to animal rights organizations. It is the difference between calling shelter staff saviors or killers. It has become a number that keeps the bad guys bad and the good guys good.
How important is that number? Are we willing to adopt out dangerous animals just to meet our statistical goal, so that we can look like the good guys on paper? Are we willing to turn domestic cats out into a cold winter, so that we can call ourselves no-kill? What is it worth to us? Are we willing to be inhumane so as to meet a statistical number? If the answer is yes, then you might want to look again at your mission statement.
It is possible to reduce euthanasia to zero. Is that helping or hurting your community? What about the animals?
I recently watched one of my favorite organizations move from animal welfare to animal rights. I grieve for them and for the rest of us.
Trap, Neuter, and Release (TNR) Programs
One of our local cities forfeited a million-dollar grant to reduce the city’s feral cat program through a program of trapping, neutering, and releasing (TNR) the sterile cats back into the community. There are two sides to this issue and from my perspective, I’ve never seen a positive long-term outcome with TNR programs. Unless feeling good is your desired outcome. Sure, a number of years ago, organizations touted success stories, but many of those proved unfounded over time.
Communities began seeing surplus cats in communities because many people saw cats as too independent to be considered pets; so they didn’t invest in spaying or neutering their cats that seem to come and go from their households. When things are going well for cats, they like to breed. Most species are the same way. The offspring of these “domestic” cats started becoming feral. A feral population is dependent on the carrying capacity of the community. As food became scarce, the cats would stop breeding.
“Little Old Ladies” upset the carrying capacity of the community by setting out food for the cats to eat. The cats would start to breed again until they exceeded the carrying capacity again. Like raccoon populations, disease would wipe out the population when the population is stressed with too many animals. Raccoons are usually on a seven-year cycle.
The problem with TNR programs is that in addition to spaying and neutering the cats, the cats are offered vaccinations, thus reducing the possibility of death through disease. Another problem with managing feral cat problems is that an excess removal of cats allows vermin to increase. I recall that in one neighborhood that was aggressively against cats discovered that rats grew in population corresponding to the removal of the cats. Anytime you are messing with animal populations, you are messing with Mother Nature.
Cats became a growing concern in animal shelters wanting to become no-kill. It seemed at the rate that cat’s breed, that having a 90% release rate was looking like a passing dream. Some shelters, to meet their no-kill goal, started taking the cats surrendered at the shelter and treating them as part of a TNR solution. They were taking the cats surrendered by their owners and sterilizing them and then releasing them back into the community. The trick was to release them into an area where the owners would not know what they had done. Some believed that throwing a domestic cat in the wild to starve to death was inhumane. No one reported on the impact of these starving cats. So they may or may not have survived. The point was that by doing this, the shelter could boast that they have reached no-kill. Many began to say that TNR stood for Trap, Neuter, and Re-abandon.
The notion, if people continued to feed feral cats, it was better to feed a sterile cat than a fertile cat. Or so we thought. It seems that over time, populations adjust. Even in a population of sterile cats, if the carry capacity increases, the population will adjust for that increase. Cats from other areas will move in. Thus the reason that TNR programs fail. They are good for a while, but if left unattended the fertile cats take over again and they do so quickly.
No-kill is a constant goal for animal shelters and even a short time win looks good for statistics and that is what no-kill is all about is finding other solutions for the animals in our shelters because killing an animal just doesn’t seem like a good solution. I have always advocated that the best solution to killing animals is to prevent their births. Not enough is being done to sterilize every pet. Shelters continue to adopt intact animals…. stupid….. very stupid. Pet owners cannot be trusted to take care of sterilizing their newly adopted pet. Trust me, I have years and years of experience in this area. It is shocking the number of men who tie their testicles to that of their dog’s.
So? Is TNR worthwhile? It is a short-term solution to a bigger program. It makes us feel good by helping with our statistics and staff doesn’t have to perform euthanasia. It provides additional business for our local veterinarians. While you are doing it, it’ll feel good. A few years down the road, you’ll look back and wonder if you had made any impact at all.
Mother Nature maintains everything in a balance. The best way to upset that balance is to introduce humans into the equation (something that I picked up in college and later realized in life). For TNR to be successful over a long period of time, you’ll have to continue your efforts. As we have discovered that TNR usually has an immediate impact that you can feel good about; but, when you stop TNR, the feral population will rebound.
Ribbons
Have you ever watched a movie in which a person in their dress military uniform comes into the room with a chest full of decorations? Your first reaction is that the person has witnessed a lot of action in the military. That may or may not be the case. The first ribbon you get in the military is the one that shows you survived boot camp. It’s probably the only ribbon that you feel that you have earned. My second ribbon was the Marksman Ribbon. The idea is to hit your LARGE target 90 times using 90 bullets. My target had 104 holes, so I earned the Marksman Ribbon. I later discovered that the shooter next to me was shooting into my target. Shooting at the wrong target doesn’t count towards your own Marksman Ribbon. It is nearly impossible to not pick up an Outstanding Unit Citation Ribbon. They are handed out like candy and I can no longer remember how I earned mine. Granted, I was only in the military for four years, but the most prodigious ribbon was the Philippines Presidential Ribbon. I know, you probably think that I saved the President’s life, but I am not sure that I did. While serving in the Philippines, I donated blood to the Red Cross and earned that ribbon. My father should have been the one to receive that ribbon because he took all of his kids down to donate blood on a regular basis. Donating in the Philippines just seemed like the natural thing to do. I probably earned other ribbons, but I didn’t keep track, I don’t think the military did either. You could just go down to the BX and buy whatever ribbons suited you.
This thought path that has taken me, and now you, reminded me of a guy that I went to college with. He got a job as a part-time law enforcement officer in a small town near the college. The town was nothing more than a speed trap along the highway. The guy’s boss went on vacation and for a short time, he became the Chief of Police. When I saw this guy wearing his uniform, I started laughing. I know, you should respect law enforcement authority but this guy was dressed exactly as a Latin American dictator: five stars, ceremonial ropes hanging from his shoulders, and, of course, dark sunglasses. He was proof positive that the uniform doesn’t make the man.
So, at this point, I try to turn this story into something that represents a message for animal welfare workers. The descriptions that we give the public are often undeserved depictions of the animals in our care. Many animal rescue groups lie about the animals, so that they can get them adopted. The pressure of becoming no-kill has caused many organizations to lose their integrity. It became so bad in Virginia that laws had to be created to make it illegal to provide a false narrative about an animal for adoption.
Many communities have pet lemon laws that make it imperative that we be honest when dealing with prospective pet owners. There is nothing better than a Letter to the Editor in your local newspaper to put you in your place.
We have become a nation of false narratives and many animal shelters have jumped into lying as a matter of daily operations. It has become so ingrained in our society that we can no longer encourage people to adopt our animals because we have gained so much mistrust in the communities that we serve. No-kill is a good thing, but not at the loss of your organization’s integrity. The real harm comes when our staff so freely gives out false claims that they can no longer identify truth from fiction. Organizational leaders need to listen to what their staff and volunteers are telling people and take action when they are not being honest.
Athey Creek Christmas 2024
Integrity
“Integrity is a quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. It refers to firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values. People with integrity follow moral and ethical principles in life, including professional areas of work such as decision-making, interacting with colleagues and serving customers or clients.” If you still believe anything that the internet says.
Some says that, “Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching.” But, God is always watching. Integrity is a rare thing. We are all born with equal amounts of integrity, but as we grow older we begin losing our integrity. Some lose it faster than others. The problem with integrity is that once you lose it, you never get back; over time, losing more of it becomes easier and easier.
Mainstream media may never be trusted again, because they have lost their integrity. The easiest way to keep from losing your integrity is to fear God. If God is always watching, then maybe you don’t want Him looking down on you in disappointment. If you have not cut all of your ties with God, you might feel guilt when cheating in life. It is His way to drive you in the right direction.
If you can’t find your way to fearing God, then imagine wearing a polygraph in all of your dealings with the business of your life.
Trustworthy is the first law of being a Boy Scout. You are to, “Tell the truth and keep promises. People can depend on you.” The world needs more Boy Scouts.
What does this have to do with working in animal welfare? EVERYTHING!
Bible passages:
Job 2:3
And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.”
Ps 7:8
The Lord judges the peoples; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me.
Pr 11:3
The integrity of the upright guides them, but the crookedness of the treacherous destroys them.
Pr 19:1
Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.
The Roadkill Hunter
Traumatic times occur in our lives that we forever remember where we were and what we were doing. I’m old enough to remember I was on the school grounds when I learned that Kennedy was assassinated, and I was a few blocks away from the Pentagon on 9/11. You might have attended the same American Humane Conference as I did. Of course, the conference shut down and the smell of burning fuel filled the air. Most of the attendees watched, as all America did, the footage of the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers. A few of us walked the few blocks to see what was happening at the Pentagon.
As the day progressed, the events hit home: what should we do? Flying home was not an immediate solution. I attended the conference with my co-workers from the ASPCA. One of our group managed to rent a van, I think the last one available. It was nuts.
On the way back to Illinois, I invented the Adventures of the Roadkill Hunter. It was a long drive. I proceeded to entertain my fellow riders with episodes of The Roadkill Hunter using my Aussie voice. As our hunter carefully approached the roadkill waiting to see if the flattened piece of fur was either dead or playing possum. After a few hundred miles, my fellow riders gave me an option to either shut up or be left on the side of the road.
When we approached the Champaign Airport, we were stopped by a police car. Clearly, an early morning encounter had not prepared the office for a van full of tire conference goers. It became obvious that the officer didn’t know what to do. Clearly, airport security was stepped up after 9/11, but the plan didn’t include how the police would handle would-be terrorists. The officer didn’t let us approach the airport, nor would he allow us to leave.
The stress in the van was high. I was smart enough not to regale my comrades with another episode of The Roadkill Hunter.
Eventually, the officer allowed us to approach the airport. I suspect that his need for a coffee break outweighed his need to hold us hostage.
Constitutionalists
When I was working in Portland Oregon, I encountered my first Constitutionalist. These folks believe that if it isn’t written in the original Constitution, it isn’t legal. We impounded this guy’s dog for running at large and he refused to allow us to vaccinate his dog for rabies. He is right, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution mentions dog vaccinations, nor does it mention running at large either. The problem was that County law prohibited me from releasing his dog without a dog license. You got it, dog licenses require a rabies vaccination. This guy wasn’t going to budge. I had to be creative so that I could give this guy back his dog.
I waited out the stray holding time when the dog became my possession. I then vaccinated ‘my’ dog. I called the guy and told him he could return to the shelter and reclaim his dog. There was no reason to stir the guy up, so I didn’t mention the vaccination.
We live in a culture in which everyone is pushing the boundaries of the authority that they will comply with. I have to count my blessings that I never had to deal with a sovereign citizen. Who knows how that would have gone?