What's Going on at the Putnam Humane Society?

The Putnam Humane Society (PHS) in Carmel, NY has a sign on their building which reads "Kindness, Justice and Mercy to all Living Creatures". The shelter has been dealing with a legal battle regarding a dog named Hunkie whom the shelter Board voted to euthanize after two biting incidents. A shelter volunteer has taken legal action to adopt Hunkie in an effort to rehab the dog under a strict set of ground rules. The case is awaiting a ruling from a judge I think but it does bring to mind questions about whether the dog came to the shelter with aggression issues or developed them during his time at the shelter. I don't know the answer but it would be interesting to find out in light of another report from the same shelter regarding additional dogs with aggression issues.

In this case, the shelter requested a comprehensive shelter evaluation from Cornell University's Shelter Medicine Program. Among the report's findings:

• The organization's by-laws and mission statement have failed to adequately define its "No-Kill" policy.
• The shelter does not currently have definitions and guidelines for determining which animals are adoptable and unadoptable.
• There is no formal behavioral assessment for dogs.
• The shelter keeps dogs with severe behavior problems for prolonged periods of time.

Among the recommendations for the shelter, many are about killing pets:

• [E]uthanasia will still be necessary for humane reasons for animals with terminal illnesses, severe behavior problems, or who pose a threat to the safety and/or health of people or other animals.
• It is inhumane for shelters to refuse to euthanize an animal because of a "no-kill" policy if they do not have the resources available to provide appropriate treatment and ensure a good quality of life.
• Adopt specific protocols to keep the number of unadoptable dogs entering the shelter to a minimum. (For strays: Unadoptable dogs should be euthanized following any legally required holding period[.] For owner-surrenders: Unadoptable dogs should not be accepted by the shelter.
• Animals with the following conditions should not be accepted by PHS for placement. (List includes dogs with history of resource guarding, high prey drive, bite history to humans, and animals with chronic medical conditions such as diabetes)
• Euthanasia is indicated for the following animals: (List includes dogs adopted and returned for aggression, dogs with history of aggression, resource guarding, high prey drive, and bite history)

Detailed instructions for killing aggressive dogs follow. There are also a number of pages in the report devoted to breaking up dog fights.

These recommendations are puzzling to me in that, to my mind, they reflect a philosophy the opposite of no kill. In fact, they seem far more in line with the antiquated thinking which has resulted in society becoming accustomed to the killing of healthy/treatable pets as the norm. That is, the wrong thinking which those committed to no kill strive to overcome.

As disturbing as it is to read recommendations made in a general sense, it becomes downright tragic when the report gets into specifics on the dogs at PHS:

• Thirty-seven of the 47 dogs being housed at PHS during our visit had been there longer than one year. Of these, twenty-seven dogs had been housed for longer than two years, and 15 dogs had been housed for longer than 5 years.
• The behaviors observed during our visit indicate poor welfare of many of the dogs housed at PHS.

Eight dogs are cited as exhibiting abnormal, repetitive behaviors such as severe spinning and another eight are characterized as extremely fearful/aggressive. One wonders how these dogs got to this unfortunate state. The report seems to answer that question by detailing how the dogs live their lives, day in and day out, year after year at the shelter (I'm paraphrasing this section):

• 17 hours a day in a 6' X 4' run with almost no human interaction, 15 of those hours in total darkness
• 7 hours a day in outdoor pens with some, but not all, dogs receiving occasional human interaction such as a walk
• Behavioral enrichment and aerobic exercise: little to none
• Most dogs can see other dogs at all times which increases stress
• The high anxiety and abnormal behavior displayed by the long term residents negatively impacts new arrivals and is particularly hard on small dogs, perpetuating a cycle of stressed out dogs

Obviously this shelter is not set up as a sanctuary where dogs can live for years, having their daily needs for exercise and human interaction met. It's designed as short term housing for dogs on their way to foster homes, permanent homes, rescue or sanctuary. And yet these dogs not only don't seem to be going anywhere, they seem to be going crazy. The report's recommendations for all these dogs with behavioral issues seems to be: Accept no responsibility for how these dogs got to this point and just give up:

• Behavior modification is unrealistic and inappropriate for the severity and duration of aggression exhibited by many of the dogs housed at PHS.

Couldn't we at least try? Bloody hell, aren't these dogs owed at least that much? There have been many dogs, notably the Vick dogs but others too, who have received substandard and/or abusive treatment for years and, when given an opportunity to live a normal life, take to it quite well. Why recommend the shelter give up on these dogs when it appears that the shelter has at least played a role in developing the behaviors? Perhaps an answer, from the report:

• These dogs compromise the shelter's reputation and public image.

21 dogs are designated as having a bite history. I don't know how the bite history was determined for all these dogs but it doesn't appear clear that the individual dogs have each had an opportunity to be evaluated by a canine behaviorist. Presumably a behaviorist would make recommendations for behavior modification and a program implemented with periodic re-evaluations made on a case-by-case basis. I see no evidence of that. In other words, I see no documented efforts of any kind to help these dogs. The report basically states that any such efforts would fail and "disposition decisions" need to be made for these dogs. And I say, if that's your attitude, why are you involved in no kill?

I don't know what has happened or will happen to the poor dogs described in this report. There has been a recent change in the Board but I don't know what, if any, effects this change will have. In the meantime, I will be keeping a good thought for "Kindness, Justice and Mercy to all Living Creatures" at the Putnam Humane Society.

Treats on the Internets

Pet food rabble rousers (No biscuit!)

Lack of animal control in rural IN

A most excellent story about a "Seeing Eye dog for the mind" in WSJ

SC rescuer is a one woman show

NC Senate Bill 460 seems to have stalled

What's in a Name?

Just ask People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. See they get that you want to sound like you're a bunch of "people", not monsters, who believe in "ethical treatment", not killing, of animals. That's the way to reel in normal people and garner support for your "cause", not total pet extinction plan.

Unfortunately for local government officials in Mumbai, India who attempted to offer a kill solution to the city's stray dog problem, they failed to receive support for their mass slaughter plan:

The large building in Deonar, a suburb of Mumbai was built in 2000 as a “killing center” for the homeless dogs that live on the streets. Local government officials (BMC) had gone to the Bombay High Court to obtain an order that allowed the mass killing of these stray dogs. In preparation for an easy win in court, the BMC built the new facility ahead of time.

But in a surprise twist of fate, the High Court turned down the city’s plan and instead gave the center to an animal rights organization called IDA India with the directive to begin a comprehensive spay and neuter program.

The group moved into the "kill center" and instituted a massive TNR style program for the street dogs. And they've expanded their services with plans for continued growth.

Kinda makes me wonder if PETA's killing center in VA - where they kill nearly every animal they get their icy hands on - was renamed appropriately to reflect the actual work done there, would people still support them?

Welcome to the premiere pet slaughterhouse in the United States, home of Monsters for the Killing of Pets. Please follow me as we tour this state of the art kill facility. Afterwards, we'll have wine tasting outside the Piggly Wiggly dumpster walk-in freezer. Please leave your donations to help us further our efforts.

More on Large Scale Seizure of Suspected Fight Dogs

This article ups the number of dogs seized in the recent multi-state dogfighting bust to 378. And a dark cloud looms over their heads:

"It's just unclear what will happen," said Wayne Pacelle, head of the Humane Society of the United States. "I think it's pretty certain that a lot of those dogs will not pass a behavioral test."

Is there like, an HSUS crystal ball o' death? I don't know how such an outrageous statement could be made within days of the dogs being seized. They haven't even had a chance to get into a routine of full bellies and caring human interaction within their holding facility.

The Humane Society of Missouri, helping to evaluate many of the dogs, again makes an ominous sounding statement:

[Debbie] Hill, incident commander at the Humane Society of Missouri's emergency shelter, declined to discuss specifics from the ongoing case. But she recalled a dogfighting operation broken up in Stoddard County in October 2007. It was, in many ways, easier to deal with because it paled by comparison: three men arrested and 26 dogs seized. One beagle was adopted out. But of the remaining 25 pit bulls, about 12 had to be euthanized, Hill said.

Why?

Obviously, I'll be following developments with interest.

Let's Play Oddball

California's Dept. of Fish and Game partners with HSUS

Don't tase me bro!

Fore! (plus four)

Prairie Dogs: We laugh at your escape-proof habitat!

Proper Dog Grooming, including perfume

Suspected Dogfighting Raids Yield 200 Seized Dogs

Raids conducted in Missouri, Illinois and Texas, per CBS News:

Authorities have arrested about 30 people and seized about 200 dogs in dogfighting raids Wednesday across three states, the Justice Department said.

The release from HSUS lists even more states (Iowa, Oklahoma and Arkansas).

The Humane Society of Missouri is helping in the evaluations for the dogs:

While they are being cared for, each dog will be evaluated by animal behavior experts from the Humane Society of Missouri and other organizations to determine their suitability for possible placement with rescue groups or individual adopters. The Humane Society of Missouri will make recommendations about each animal to the U.S. District Court which will make the final decision for each animal.

“We are committed to giving dogs who have come from such horrible abuse the absolute best chance for a good life,” said Debbie Hill, vice president of Operations for the Humane Society of Missouri and director of the temporary shelter. “It is a tragedy that because of mistreatment by humans for financial gain and so-called sport, many dogs used in animal fighting may not ever be able to be placed in a home situation.”

But not too "many", I hope.

Dangerous Dog Congress?

The Dangerous Dog Congress website is full of sensationalized images of "dangerous" dogs while promoting an event to be held in November in Toronto:

The most significant animal policy event of the century, delineating evidence-based peer-reviewed solutions to the problem of dog-human attacks

The keynote speaker at the event is Adam Goldfarb from HSUS and the host is a company called Dog-Trax which appears to sell some sort of dog bite tracking software. The folks at dogsbite.org indicate the person behind Dog-Trax, Tamara Follett, is a dog breeder. In fact the Dangerous Dog Congress site says:

As a long-time owner and breeder of one of the most aggressive of the protection dog breeds, Tamara is uniquely qualified to assess the practicability and fairness of existing controls on dangerous dogs, and to propose additional controls which specifically target the source of the problem – not specific breeds of dogs, but any dog at high risk of attack, as well as irresponsible owners and breeders.

This seems to me to be saying Ms. Follett is an owner/breeder of a very aggressive breed of dog and that specific breeds of dogs are not aggressive. Make sense? *Head: Wall*

Anyone who can shed any light on this event or the folks involved, please share.

Case Update: Seized Pitbulls in AL

What has happened to the 45 Pitbulls seized from two locations in AL last month? It was reported that one of the men charged pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and resisting arrest. I haven't seen any additional information about the other owner's case. Since the one defendant's case is closed, and it was reported that he surrendered all 25 of his seized dogs, I made some calls to see if I could find out any information on their current status.

Good news: I was told by the DA's office that some rescue groups had contacted HSUS regarding the dogs and offered to take them in for rehab and adoption. And that the judge did not need to make a ruling regarding the disposition of the dogs since the owner voluntarily signed them over to the county and HSUS had custody of the dogs. The 20 dogs belonging to the second defendant are still being held, pending the outcome of the legal case.

At this time, I don't have any other sources of information on the dogs so if you have any details, please share. I will continue to follow the story as things develop.

Jane You Ignorant Slut!

A 10 year old boy was killed in Rusk Co, TX after being bitten by two Pitbulls last month. From what I gather reading the news stories, the area apparently had no leash law and the dogs were roaming unsupervised. A terrible and preventable tragedy.

The two dogs were killed by the county and charges are pending against the owners. As is often the case after such an event, things have spiraled out of bounds:

The family of Justin Clinton is now asking for tighter leash laws in Rusk county and trying to get pit bulls outlawed completely in Texas.
[...]
The family calls their mission "Justice for Justin." They're [sic] goal is get Texans to sign a petition that would outlaw pit bulls in Texas.

The notoriously biased dogsbite.org blog has picked up the story and now the goal seems to have leaped from a statewide Pitbull ban to uh, America:

Among those attending the protest was Cynthia Kent, a Tyler attorney who served for several years as a district judge in Tyler.
[...]
She and others vowed to take the fight to ban pit bull dogs to the national level. Mrs. Kent said she would speak with U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Tyler about the prospect of national legislation.
[...]
The court also adopted a resolution calling for the banning of pit bulls throughout the nation.

Oh and they adopted a leash law for parts of Rusk Co. (in case anyone sensible is still reading).

Leash laws and humane confinement of dogs make sense. So does pursuing legal action against owners who violate those laws. Banning an entire breed because of the actions of some irresponsible owners and the tragic consequences which follow is illogical. Breed bans do not work.

If you live in the 1st Congressional District of TX and want to contact Rep. Gohmert, he has an e-mail form here. Hopefully he will hear from some folks educated on the issue. I'd hate to think the only person contacting him is Mrs. Kent.

Shelter Adoption: The Feel Good Hit of the Summer

The Poodle and Dog Blog has a good post about a man who turned in 5 puppies to a MN shelter claiming to have found them in a box on the road. The local news picked up the story and all the pups were quickly adopted. Turns out, the pups were his daughter's and he had brought them to the shelter from her home:

Since she lived outside the city limits, he was afraid the shelter would not take them.
[...]
The father confessed that he made up the story.
[...]
But I have to wonder at the fate of the puppies if there had been a non story of a man bringing in a litter of puppies that his daughter couldn’t find homes for.
[...]
Since there are obviously many people who want a dog if they know one needs a home, maybe shelters and local media could work together to find creative ways to market dogs when they don’t come in with an exciting story.

Good thinking. It seems like we often hear shelter staff berating the public in the media for failure to neuter their pets and thus, deflecting the blame for killing adoptable pets. And well intentioned rescuers regularly bombard e-mail lists and forums with dire pleas on behalf of shelter pets indicating they will be killed within X hours if no one steps up.

All this strikes me as negative, same old, same old, failed tactics that have gotten us to this point in time where it's become "acceptable" to kill healthy/treatable pets in shelters. The fact is, as illustrated in the story above, people want to help pets in need. The public doesn't want to be blamed, chastised or otherwise made to feel guilty - and even if they did, that approach is not working.

Pet owners need education and access to affordable spay-neuter services. They need help learning about low cost alternatives to providing "ideal" care for pets during hard economic times. They need to feel that their local shelter is a clean, safe, humane facility where they could bring their family to look for a pet or surrender one if it comes to that.

Although not every shelter pet comes with a dramatic rescue story, the public can and should still feel good about adopting. "Feel good" is built-in to any adoption story and shelters need to make the most of that. How shelters use the media to help get pets into homes is up to them. Seeing the overwhelming response from people wanting to help the box o' pups is encouraging. But clearly, the blame game is an epic fail.