Click on title above to read a wonderful article about the above mentioned case by an attorney for the ALDF;
http://legal-eaze.blogspot.com/2009/06/humane-society-of-united-states-v.html
*This lawsuit is an example of the GOOD that the Big Money Mother Orgs do, but oh I think they could do sooo much more with their million dollar budgets. How about initiating legislation that would TAX all breeders for every life they create, and put that revenue towards creating a nationwide chain of no-kill shelters, stables or rescues, or to support the existing ones? We could call it "The Animal Enterprize Exploitation Act / Tax."
Since we cant tell anybody not to breed PERIOD without going afoul of the "free-enterprize" thing, the least we can do is to make it less lucrative.....The tax would act as a dis-incentive to over-breeding. Can that be a bad thing, I ask?
I know the breeders are going to let me have it for suggesting this, but hey, breeders ARE the problem here, big AND small. Of course,
those who do alot of breeding wont like this idea at all. Simple solution: cut way down on the breeding and find new ways to earn income. Diversify. Its the human(e) & right thing to do.
CJ
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Convicted Dog Fuk'r Gets 30 Days in Jail but Has to Wait 2 yrs. Before he can Own or Fuk His Own Dogs Again
The guy was a member of one of these
And he likes to dress like this;
His known victims were two Malamutes;
Beautiful, highly intelligent dogs they are, my fathers favorite breed. He had one as a child growing up. The dogs name was Jack, a red one. He bragged about that dog until he died at the age of 84. There is a sound-bite going round somewhere in the family of him telling the story of "Sleding down Ontario St. in Cohoes Ny with Jack." NOTE TO MYSELF; See if I can get one of my kin-folk to send me the link again. If I can, I will post it here, even though I dont think I could bear to hear it again myself right now. I miss him so very much it hurts. I am glad I had a chance to have alot of good times with him in the years just before he passed.
Here is the article in full; Theres not much to it as you will see.
Man Sentenced for Having Sex with His Dogs
CHEHALIS, WA (AP) -- A Washington state man has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for having sex with his two dogs.
Troy Whitson entered an Alford plea Monday in Lewis County Superior Court, meaning he admitted no wrongdoing but acknowledged he'd likely be convicted.
The 21-year-old from the town of Cinebar is restricted from owning animals for two years.
His malamutes have been placed with new owners.
Prosecutor Michael Golden said Whitson is a member of a group known as Furries who identify with animals and dress the part in makeup, ears and tail.
Golden says Furries gather for social events but having sex with animals is not part of their normal behavior. He says two of Whitson's Furry friends witnessed the animal sex and turned him in.
Click on title above to learn more about the Furry Community. It appears as if that lawyer was wrong when he suggests to us that Furrys arent about sex...check out some of this stuff. WARNING: Some of this stuff is Not suitable for children.
This idiot judge needs a good lamblasting from the animal rights and welfare folk. I say lets let him have it!
And he likes to dress like this;
His known victims were two Malamutes;
Beautiful, highly intelligent dogs they are, my fathers favorite breed. He had one as a child growing up. The dogs name was Jack, a red one. He bragged about that dog until he died at the age of 84. There is a sound-bite going round somewhere in the family of him telling the story of "Sleding down Ontario St. in Cohoes Ny with Jack." NOTE TO MYSELF; See if I can get one of my kin-folk to send me the link again. If I can, I will post it here, even though I dont think I could bear to hear it again myself right now. I miss him so very much it hurts. I am glad I had a chance to have alot of good times with him in the years just before he passed.
Here is the article in full; Theres not much to it as you will see.
Man Sentenced for Having Sex with His Dogs
CHEHALIS, WA (AP) -- A Washington state man has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for having sex with his two dogs.
Troy Whitson entered an Alford plea Monday in Lewis County Superior Court, meaning he admitted no wrongdoing but acknowledged he'd likely be convicted.
The 21-year-old from the town of Cinebar is restricted from owning animals for two years.
His malamutes have been placed with new owners.
Prosecutor Michael Golden said Whitson is a member of a group known as Furries who identify with animals and dress the part in makeup, ears and tail.
Golden says Furries gather for social events but having sex with animals is not part of their normal behavior. He says two of Whitson's Furry friends witnessed the animal sex and turned him in.
Click on title above to learn more about the Furry Community. It appears as if that lawyer was wrong when he suggests to us that Furrys arent about sex...check out some of this stuff. WARNING: Some of this stuff is Not suitable for children.
This idiot judge needs a good lamblasting from the animal rights and welfare folk. I say lets let him have it!
Holstein Needs a Home, asap or will DIE
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:09 PM
Moorehead, KY - DIES FRI 6/5!! - Stolen from Shelter!! - RESCUE now URGENT for HOLSTEIN, Amer. Bulldog!! - Trans Anywhre in US!!!
Holstein is a shelter dog stolen from the shelter one night, and then later found. He had many gashes and wounds on the lower half of his body where the thieves pulled him under the fence which tore him up pretty bad. He has been recovering at vet for a month now. NOBODY will take him.
He LOVES people and showers you with kisses. This is the beautiful boy who was STOLEN FROM THE POUND, and injured as he was DRAGGED through the fence. He was finally found, chained in a pen!
Jan will transport him ANYWHERE in the US!!
Please crosspost this to the MOON & BACK!! We desperately need to move this big boy. Please give Holstein a happy ending!
*Contact ASAP jandacci@roadrunner.com AND staradoptions@yahoo.com
News story on Holstein and Jake http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/43307362.html
Holstein's petfinder link (Click on title above to go there)
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=13331394
Date: Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Morehead, KY - RESCUE NOW URGENT for HOLSTEIN! - Amer. Bulldog -Please help!
PERMISSION TO CROSSPOST FAR & WIDE:
HOLSTEIN, Gorgeous Am. Bulldog, URGENTLY needs a RESCUE; this is the beautiful boy who was stolen from the pound and injured as he was dragged through the fence. He was finally found, chained in a pen, and taken to the vet immediately for treatment of his injuries and infections. He is slipping through the cracks! Please give Holstein a happy ending! He is a sweet, loving boy in URGENT NEED of RESCUE!
**CONTACT: staradoptions@yahoo.com (at yahoo.com).
Holstein is at the vets and is running up a huge board bill. and he is miserable. He is a big 80 lb. dog, and the runs at the clinic are very small. He needs a very experienced rescue ASAP!
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=13331394
Holstein was the American Bulldog that was stolen from the pound. We recovered both Holstein and Jake the beagle. Jake has since gone to rescue with Beagle911 and has recovered beautifully and is so happy. Poor Holstein is falling through the cracks.
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=13331394
If a qualified rescue does not step up soon for him, we may have to make a decision that we DO NOT want to make:( (we feel sick even thinking about it) It's not fair to him to languish in a small kennel at the vets after everything he has been through.
Sue has contacted Best Friends several times and gotten absolutely NO response (no surprise there). Jan has spent hours and hours and hours and many sleepless nights seeking rescues for him to no avail. I have posted and posted with no luck. :(
http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=13331394
*CONTACT: staradoptions@yahoo.com (at yahoo.com).
Jan will transport him ANYWHERE in the US!!
As wild pet ban dies, state declares exotic animal amnesty
Pro-Animal Legislation Failure in Conn.;
Move comes as wild pet legislation dies
By Ken Dixon
and Brian Lockhart
STAFF WRITERS
Posted: 05/29/2009 09:45:18 PM EDT
Updated: 05/30/2009 02:59:04 AM EDT
HARTFORD -- Legislation that would have banned a long list of wild and potentially dangerous animals as pets has failed in the General Assembly this year because lawmakers from Litchfield County want to protect a family-owned farm that has several elephants.
But the state Department of Environmental Protection hopes residents will voluntarily turn over questionable pets on July 25 at an "exotic animal amnesty day" at Beardsley Zoo in Bridgeport.
The wild animal ban was drafted this year after Travis, a 200-pound chimp nearly mauled a friend of his owner's to death in Stamford.
Although the state in 2004 passed limited regulations on exotic pets, Travis was grandfathered because he was a local celebrity.
The proposed ban would have targeted animals large and small, from primates and big cats to certain snakes, tarantulas and scorpions. Only some small monkeys known to be kept by families in the state would have been grandfathered into the ban.
State Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, co-chairman of the legislature's Environment Committee, said Friday the ban will be abandoned because there was disagreement over the continued keeping of pachyderms at the Commerford Farm in Goshen.
"It's dead because there's a piece that was put into the bill that would have not allowed the Commerford family to bring in any new elephants in the years ahead, thereby, essentially closing the business down, which Mr. Commerford, I'm told, was going to being
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
passing off to his family," Roy said.
The farm has several elephants, a petting zoo and a variety of exotic animals including zebras and camels that Commerford drives to fairs and malls up and down the East Coast.
Roy said Goshen-area lawmaker, state Sen. Andrew Roraback, a Republican, and state Rep. Roberta Willis, a Democrat, fought the change.
"The Commerford Farm is a community fixture up in Goshen and it would be sad to see that business have to terminate what it does as it moves into the future," Willis said.
Even though the session ends at midnight June 3, Roy said the bill will not go forward because of it will consume too much time.
"You'll just have a huge debate and I think a huge debate on animal issues would be very, very poor form, especially since we don't have a budget yet," Roy said. "I am disappointed because this was a chance to do something positive. There are a lot of animals that are being kept for pets that shouldn't be; little alligators and all of that and they become dangerous animals, so we should not have those in someone's living room.
State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said he was surprised by the bill's failure.
"The legislation is extraordinarily important and I understand that there were concerns expressed by some legislators, but there's certainly no excuse for not coming up with a reasonable compromise that would assure the safety of the people of our state," he said.
The Commerford dispute was not the only cause of the bill's failure.
Different lawmakers were pursuing a variety of amendments to the bill, from grandfathering existing exotic animals to legalizing bow hunting on Sundays.
"I was hoping we were going to be able to work something out on this but there were too many competing interests," said state Rep. Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, an animal rights activist and critic of Commerford. She also was sponsoring the amendment to let owners keep their wild pets.
Urban said lawmakers had not explained what pet owners were supposed to do should the ban go into effect and feared many creatures would be hidden, released into the wild or even killed.
DEP spokesman Denis Schain said the agency was aware the exotic animal ban "could be dead" but that was not related to Friday's sudden announcement of the amnesty day at Beardsley Zoo.
"We've been discussing it with Beardsley and got it organized and wanted to announce it," Schain said. "Given the attention the issue has had we thought it was a positive step and good program to put in place."
According to the DEP, the amnesty day will "provide a convenient, safe and 'no questions asked' way for people to bring in exotic animals they may own legally or in possible violation of state law."
Zoo director Gregg Dancho said: "We get a lot of people calling us all the time about (exotic) pets that have worn out their welcome. . . . We're trying to utilize this day as an education process to get people to think about what they're doing before they buy something they may not be able to handle."
Dancho said he supported the concept of a wild animal ban and hoped lawmakers could work on refining the bill for next session.
"Talk to us, talk to other professionals," Dancho said. "Can you legislative out all types of pets? Some people know how to take care of them. . . . But the problem becomes where do you draw the line?" Dancho said. "A tarantula -- we use them in our education programs. Most are not a deadly species."
Urban was pleased to learn of the amnesty day and preferred that approach to any hastily crafted ban.
"Government starts the ball rolling, it gets picked up and we don't have to legislate that quickly," Urban said.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_12481377?source=email
Move comes as wild pet legislation dies
By Ken Dixon
and Brian Lockhart
STAFF WRITERS
Posted: 05/29/2009 09:45:18 PM EDT
Updated: 05/30/2009 02:59:04 AM EDT
HARTFORD -- Legislation that would have banned a long list of wild and potentially dangerous animals as pets has failed in the General Assembly this year because lawmakers from Litchfield County want to protect a family-owned farm that has several elephants.
But the state Department of Environmental Protection hopes residents will voluntarily turn over questionable pets on July 25 at an "exotic animal amnesty day" at Beardsley Zoo in Bridgeport.
The wild animal ban was drafted this year after Travis, a 200-pound chimp nearly mauled a friend of his owner's to death in Stamford.
Although the state in 2004 passed limited regulations on exotic pets, Travis was grandfathered because he was a local celebrity.
The proposed ban would have targeted animals large and small, from primates and big cats to certain snakes, tarantulas and scorpions. Only some small monkeys known to be kept by families in the state would have been grandfathered into the ban.
State Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, co-chairman of the legislature's Environment Committee, said Friday the ban will be abandoned because there was disagreement over the continued keeping of pachyderms at the Commerford Farm in Goshen.
"It's dead because there's a piece that was put into the bill that would have not allowed the Commerford family to bring in any new elephants in the years ahead, thereby, essentially closing the business down, which Mr. Commerford, I'm told, was going to being
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
passing off to his family," Roy said.
The farm has several elephants, a petting zoo and a variety of exotic animals including zebras and camels that Commerford drives to fairs and malls up and down the East Coast.
Roy said Goshen-area lawmaker, state Sen. Andrew Roraback, a Republican, and state Rep. Roberta Willis, a Democrat, fought the change.
"The Commerford Farm is a community fixture up in Goshen and it would be sad to see that business have to terminate what it does as it moves into the future," Willis said.
Even though the session ends at midnight June 3, Roy said the bill will not go forward because of it will consume too much time.
"You'll just have a huge debate and I think a huge debate on animal issues would be very, very poor form, especially since we don't have a budget yet," Roy said. "I am disappointed because this was a chance to do something positive. There are a lot of animals that are being kept for pets that shouldn't be; little alligators and all of that and they become dangerous animals, so we should not have those in someone's living room.
State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said he was surprised by the bill's failure.
"The legislation is extraordinarily important and I understand that there were concerns expressed by some legislators, but there's certainly no excuse for not coming up with a reasonable compromise that would assure the safety of the people of our state," he said.
The Commerford dispute was not the only cause of the bill's failure.
Different lawmakers were pursuing a variety of amendments to the bill, from grandfathering existing exotic animals to legalizing bow hunting on Sundays.
"I was hoping we were going to be able to work something out on this but there were too many competing interests," said state Rep. Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, an animal rights activist and critic of Commerford. She also was sponsoring the amendment to let owners keep their wild pets.
Urban said lawmakers had not explained what pet owners were supposed to do should the ban go into effect and feared many creatures would be hidden, released into the wild or even killed.
DEP spokesman Denis Schain said the agency was aware the exotic animal ban "could be dead" but that was not related to Friday's sudden announcement of the amnesty day at Beardsley Zoo.
"We've been discussing it with Beardsley and got it organized and wanted to announce it," Schain said. "Given the attention the issue has had we thought it was a positive step and good program to put in place."
According to the DEP, the amnesty day will "provide a convenient, safe and 'no questions asked' way for people to bring in exotic animals they may own legally or in possible violation of state law."
Zoo director Gregg Dancho said: "We get a lot of people calling us all the time about (exotic) pets that have worn out their welcome. . . . We're trying to utilize this day as an education process to get people to think about what they're doing before they buy something they may not be able to handle."
Dancho said he supported the concept of a wild animal ban and hoped lawmakers could work on refining the bill for next session.
"Talk to us, talk to other professionals," Dancho said. "Can you legislative out all types of pets? Some people know how to take care of them. . . . But the problem becomes where do you draw the line?" Dancho said. "A tarantula -- we use them in our education programs. Most are not a deadly species."
Urban was pleased to learn of the amnesty day and preferred that approach to any hastily crafted ban.
"Government starts the ball rolling, it gets picked up and we don't have to legislate that quickly," Urban said.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_12481377?source=email
Paws for Celebration; Shelby Co. Kentuckys' First No-Kill Shelter a Success!
Click on title above to see vid and learn more about the wonderful news!
Visit The No-Kill Advocacy Center to learn more about the No-Kill Shelter Revolution in America today;
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/contact.html
Together, we can make a difference! A No-Kill Nation IS Within Our Reach!
Visit The No-Kill Advocacy Center to learn more about the No-Kill Shelter Revolution in America today;
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/contact.html
Together, we can make a difference! A No-Kill Nation IS Within Our Reach!
Nathan "Gives It" to Wayne : The Truth about HSUS
Sun May 31, 2009 9:39 pm (PDT)
Wayne Pacelle Under Siege
February 25, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd
In response to public outcry over their support and participation in the
Wilkes County Massacre,in which the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) first championed and then defended the mass slaughter of over 150 dogs and puppies, Wayne Pacelle of HSUS issued an interim new policy of favoring temperament testing of individual dogs seized in dog-fighting cases, and called for “a meeting of
leading animal welfare organizations concerning dogs victimized by dog
fighting.” That meeting has been called for April in Las Vegas. If history is any
guide, there is little reason to celebrate as of yet.
To begin with, HSUS did not adopt a policy that all dogs will be
temperament tested to determine if they are aggressive, only that they will
recommend that they be, a policy which can be ignored. Second, there has been no
discussion over what type of test will be used and how outcomes will be
determined, a major flaw in the temperament testing process used by many
shelters.Third, there is reason to believe that the outcome in Wilkes County would not have been any different even if this policy were already in place. Last
year, Wayne Pacelle claimed that HSUS had tested all the Michael Vick dogs
and determined—in his own words—that “they are some of the most aggressively
trained pit bulls in the country,” a blatant falsehood. In overruling
HSUS, the court agreed with non-HSUS reformers that most of the dogs were
rehabilitatable, and two are now therapy dogs, bringing comfort to cancer
patients. Does it matter if the dogs are killed with or without a temperament
test if the test itself is as draconian as HSUS is?
There is also reason to doubt HSUS’ sincerity. Regardless of what HSUS says
at the meeting or even publicly, they ultimately cannot be trusted to act
in a manner consistent with their promises. After all, the support and
participation in the _Wilkes County massacre comes after HSUS publicly stated that shelter killing is needless and shelters are not doing enough to save lives. Their defense of it reverted to old patterns of blaming pet overpopulation and even suggesting that we cannot ask shelters to be more humane, because they’ll just do a worse job.
According to HSUS, if you “impose” the “burdens” of being humane on
these shelters, “they may decline to intervene in criminal fighting cases,
allowing the dogfighters to continue to operate.” In other words, HSUS believes
we can’t ask more of shelters because if we do, they’ll just decide to be
even less humane.
In addition, their defense of the needless slaughter of almost every animal
at the _Tangipahoa Parish shelter last August which claimed the lives of over 170 dogs and cats came after they promised a “new dawn” of animal sheltering in that region. And despite a “pro-TNR position paper” they published in 2006, HSUS
officials said they “didn’t have a problem with humanely killing a stray cat” in
April of 2008 after Randolph, Iowa officials announced a bounty on them, offering residents $5.00 for every cat they rounded up and brought to the shelter to be killed.
HSUS supported the plan to round up and kill the cats, but not the
process suggesting that people might get bit by cats if the cats were not
professionally trapped. They then backpedaled there, too, after a massive public
outcry, suggesting it wasn’t a good idea either way. Sound familiar?
In addition, even Pacelle’s announcement of the meeting suggests a
diversionary tactic. The issue which needs to be addressed is not, as he
misleadingly claims, a discussion concerning dogs “victimized by dog fighting.”
We are all in agreement here. The scourge of dog fighting must be ended. We
need to pursue and punish dog fighters with all the resources we can muster.
The issue is what to do concerning dogs victimized by HSUS and shelters
after they have been saved from dog fighters.
As I wrote in a prior blog,
The choice was not, as HSUS contends, a choice between continued suffering
at the hands of dog fighters or death at the pound. This was not the
option the dogs faced. Once they were taken into custody by HSUS and Wilkes
County officials, more dog fighting was no longer an option. The option was
whether HSUS and Wilkes County officials would kill them or whether HSUS and
Wilkes County officials would not kill them. Their choice is now well known:
they chose to systematically put all the dogs and puppies to death, a
choice they defend still.
And finally, is such a meeting really necessary? If Pacelle was willing to
stand up for what’s right, rather than to defend his clearly wrong
colleagues, he would not need the symposium. He would know what HSUS policy needs
to be and he would ensure that it is followed. Instead, in response to criticism, HSUS, through _dog killer apologist John Goodwin, —chastised groups for
making an unnecessary “fuss.” And when that callous retort sparked additional
furor, they further inflamed public criticism by issuing a defense of the
massacre . Everyone’s heard some variation of the joke that goes, “how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb?” In this case, the more apt question is: “How many humane groups does it take to figure out that an animal welfare organization should champion the saving, not the taking, of animal life?” The answer, of course,
should be “one.” It is self-evident. You don’t need a meeting to figure it
out. But the reality is that the answer is “two” if one of those groups is
HSUS: HSUS to get the answer wrong. The other group to tell them what the
right one is.
Ever since San Francisco’s 1994 seminal achievement when it became the
first community in the nation to end the killing of healthy homeless animals in
its shelters, HSUS has ignored that success and fought it—and other
successes—every step of the way. They continue to regurgitate old clichés about
pet overpopulation, continue to support regressive shelters, continue to
fight progressive reformers in communities across the country, continue to
falsely deny that No Kill has been achieved, and continue to support mass
killings—as they have in Randolph, IA, in Tangipahoa Parish, LA, and in Wilkes
County, NC. And ultimately, they don’t seem to want to learn from their
mistakes.
The public condemnation over their call for killing of all the Michael Vick
dogs should have pre-empted the current call for killing, but it didn’t.
The support for cat killing in Randolph, IA should have been pre-empted by
the outcry over their prior feral cat policy, which resulted in a policy
switch two years before. It didn’t. And they should not have supported the
Tangipahoa slaughter because every time they have supported other mass
killings at shelters, they’ve been forced to back down by public outcry. These are
not the actions of an agency whose leadership is truly interested in doing
the right thing or learning from the past. But that doesn’t mean the show mustn’t go on. The meeting has been called, and it should be attended. But we cannot confuse a move for political survival, which this meeting represents, with a sincere desire for change on the part of either Wayne Pacelle or his draconian organization. To do so, is to do so at our movement’s own peril.
This is classic social movement theory. Those vested in the status quo, as
HSUS is, first ignore reform, as they did in the mid-1990s and lost. Then
they fight reform, as they did in earnest in the first half of this decade,
and continue to do so in various parts of the country, only to again find
themselves on the losing side. The next stage is co-option. That is the
stage we are currently in.
The fact is Pacelle and HSUS cannot ignore the will of No Kill advocates
anymore and he is only asking for input because he has no choice in the
matter. As Christie Keith noted in her Pet Connection blog,if what HSUS needs is pressure from their donor base, the general public, pit bull advocates, bloggers, animal lovers or other animal welfare organizations to start doing the right thing for these much-maligned dogs … There seems to be an awful lot of it out there.
This is true. But caution should rule the day. In the past, No Kill
advocates stopped the pressure on HSUS in similar campaigns and celebrated
victory, only to have discovered they had been hoodwinked by carefully crafted
statements and Pacelle’s penchance for meaningless pretty words. In 2004, some
No Kill groups signed on to a statement of principles called the Asilomar
Accords,(http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Asilomar%20position%20paper.pdf) , which were championed by HSUS as a roadmap to “significantly
reducing the euthanasia of healthy and treatable companion animals in the
United States.” Unfortunately, the document allowed for the continuation of
policies that resulted in killing, including breed discriminatory actions that
culminate in mass slaughters like the one which has sparked the current
outcry. In fact, the actions taken in Wilkes County were entirely consistent
with the Asilomar Accords—an agreement many No Kill advocates initially
supported.
Likewise, some feral cat advocates praised the 2006 HSUS statement on feral
cats as a “vision for the future,” until it was shown that the statement
was riddled with loopholes which allowed killing of feral cats to continue
indefinitely—actions consistent with their support of the cat bounty
debacle in Randolph, IA.
Time and time again, Pacelle and HSUS have proved they cannot be trusted.
Nonetheless, some groups are optimistic. Best Friends welcomed the recent
announcement and stated, There had been more than enough airing of feelings and outrage that the [Wilkes County] dogs were not evaluated prior to being summarily [killed]. It was time to hit the reset button on this in order to move things forward in a constructive way. Mr. Pacelle was open and receptive to what we had to
say and we are looking forward to our meetings in April.
As I’ve stated, I believe the meeting should take place, and I hope their
faith is not misplaced. I welcome the involvement of Best Friends in helping
set HSUS policy and have very high regard for Best Friends employees
working in this field. So much so, in fact, that Best Friends speakers
will be giving presentations on this topic at the No Kill Conference
this year. There is no falling out with Best Friends. But I do take issue
with the notion that it is time to move on from airing outrage or that it is
time “to hit the reset button.” One does not necessarily follow the other.
It was mass public pressure from a large number of groups and a wide array
of voices which forced HSUS to the table, not a response to a single group’
s call for change, however large and influential. Admittedly, Best Friends
was a major player and took an important and vocal leadership position on
this issue; but any appearance of cooperation they get from HSUS is the
result of widespread and loud dissent rising up from grassroots activists and
rescuers nationwide. It is that clamor which is the only thing that has ever
forced HSUS to the bargaining table—and it should not be discouraged.
Moreover, leadership in this movement must reflect the tremendous
discontent of those in the grassroots, not seek to prematurely quell it and the vast
potential for reform its expression offers. There is no “reset” button
for the more than 150 dogs and puppies killed in North Carolina, —they are gone
forever and we cannot bring them back. It is, therefore, premature to
suggest that we move on—not only because HSUS has neither apologized for their
actions nor owned up to the obscenity of them, but because the North
Carolina incident is a typical example of how HSUS routinely operates, and
therefore offers us a cautionary tale as to what we can expect from an HSUS that
is anything short of what it is our duty to force it to be: unequivocal in
its embrace of No Kill.
And force it we will because the power is now ours. We are in a position to
dictate the direction of this movement and we must not settle for any
compromises. At the meeting in Las Vegas, demands must be made that include,
for example, a condemnation of the Wilkes County massacre. To prevent other
shelters from citing HSUS’ actions and its very public defense of it for
their own policies which favor killing, HSUS must publicly reject them in
total. The demands must also include:
* The right of individual evaluation and consideration for each dog,
not merely a recommendation.
* It must include a guarantee of clemency for any puppies.
* It must give rescue groups and No Kill shelters the right of access
to save the animals, and the right to conduct independent evaluations
rather than rely on the flawed results of HSUS or the shelter’s own potentially
predetermined ones which favor killing.
* It must include an unqualified statement in favor of saving animals
that rejects the excuses of the past.
* It must include support of legislation that will give all of these
principles the force of law. It should be illegal for a shelter to kill a
dog if a rescue group is willing to save him (as it is in California).
* And dogs should not be deemed dangerous without an evaluation and
hearing, subject to appeal by any shelter or rescue group.
That is just a start. There are thousands of us and only a few of them. We
have found our voice, and recognize the potential its fullest expression
can create. No more compromises. No more killing.
----------
All of the issues discussed above can be reviewed on the No-Kill website at;
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/contact.html
And the good news for the day is:
Shelby Co. Kentucky Establishes First No-Kill Shelter.
Operating for over a year, from all reports, it is a great success!
See the video by clicking on to the title above;
http://www.fox41.com/global/Category.asp?c=163829&clipId=3815825&topVideoCatNo=undefined&autoStart=true&act
..take heart while you are watching, and celebrate the moment! We are making progress!
Thanks for caring!
Christine A Jubic, Founder,
Quarter-Acre Rescue Ranch & Equine Advocacy Center
http://www.freewebs.com/mulekist
"Because We Care"
a proud member of
Nathan Wineograds
NO-KILL ADVOCACY GROUP
Extending the No-Kill Sheltering Movement to
No-Kill Stables!
Together, we can make a difference!
Wayne Pacelle Under Siege
February 25, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd
In response to public outcry over their support and participation in the
Wilkes County Massacre,in which the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) first championed and then defended the mass slaughter of over 150 dogs and puppies, Wayne Pacelle of HSUS issued an interim new policy of favoring temperament testing of individual dogs seized in dog-fighting cases, and called for “a meeting of
leading animal welfare organizations concerning dogs victimized by dog
fighting.” That meeting has been called for April in Las Vegas. If history is any
guide, there is little reason to celebrate as of yet.
To begin with, HSUS did not adopt a policy that all dogs will be
temperament tested to determine if they are aggressive, only that they will
recommend that they be, a policy which can be ignored. Second, there has been no
discussion over what type of test will be used and how outcomes will be
determined, a major flaw in the temperament testing process used by many
shelters.Third, there is reason to believe that the outcome in Wilkes County would not have been any different even if this policy were already in place. Last
year, Wayne Pacelle claimed that HSUS had tested all the Michael Vick dogs
and determined—in his own words—that “they are some of the most aggressively
trained pit bulls in the country,” a blatant falsehood. In overruling
HSUS, the court agreed with non-HSUS reformers that most of the dogs were
rehabilitatable, and two are now therapy dogs, bringing comfort to cancer
patients. Does it matter if the dogs are killed with or without a temperament
test if the test itself is as draconian as HSUS is?
There is also reason to doubt HSUS’ sincerity. Regardless of what HSUS says
at the meeting or even publicly, they ultimately cannot be trusted to act
in a manner consistent with their promises. After all, the support and
participation in the _Wilkes County massacre comes after HSUS publicly stated that shelter killing is needless and shelters are not doing enough to save lives. Their defense of it reverted to old patterns of blaming pet overpopulation and even suggesting that we cannot ask shelters to be more humane, because they’ll just do a worse job.
According to HSUS, if you “impose” the “burdens” of being humane on
these shelters, “they may decline to intervene in criminal fighting cases,
allowing the dogfighters to continue to operate.” In other words, HSUS believes
we can’t ask more of shelters because if we do, they’ll just decide to be
even less humane.
In addition, their defense of the needless slaughter of almost every animal
at the _Tangipahoa Parish shelter last August which claimed the lives of over 170 dogs and cats came after they promised a “new dawn” of animal sheltering in that region. And despite a “pro-TNR position paper” they published in 2006, HSUS
officials said they “didn’t have a problem with humanely killing a stray cat” in
April of 2008 after Randolph, Iowa officials announced a bounty on them, offering residents $5.00 for every cat they rounded up and brought to the shelter to be killed.
HSUS supported the plan to round up and kill the cats, but not the
process suggesting that people might get bit by cats if the cats were not
professionally trapped. They then backpedaled there, too, after a massive public
outcry, suggesting it wasn’t a good idea either way. Sound familiar?
In addition, even Pacelle’s announcement of the meeting suggests a
diversionary tactic. The issue which needs to be addressed is not, as he
misleadingly claims, a discussion concerning dogs “victimized by dog fighting.”
We are all in agreement here. The scourge of dog fighting must be ended. We
need to pursue and punish dog fighters with all the resources we can muster.
The issue is what to do concerning dogs victimized by HSUS and shelters
after they have been saved from dog fighters.
As I wrote in a prior blog,
The choice was not, as HSUS contends, a choice between continued suffering
at the hands of dog fighters or death at the pound. This was not the
option the dogs faced. Once they were taken into custody by HSUS and Wilkes
County officials, more dog fighting was no longer an option. The option was
whether HSUS and Wilkes County officials would kill them or whether HSUS and
Wilkes County officials would not kill them. Their choice is now well known:
they chose to systematically put all the dogs and puppies to death, a
choice they defend still.
And finally, is such a meeting really necessary? If Pacelle was willing to
stand up for what’s right, rather than to defend his clearly wrong
colleagues, he would not need the symposium. He would know what HSUS policy needs
to be and he would ensure that it is followed. Instead, in response to criticism, HSUS, through _dog killer apologist John Goodwin, —chastised groups for
making an unnecessary “fuss.” And when that callous retort sparked additional
furor, they further inflamed public criticism by issuing a defense of the
massacre . Everyone’s heard some variation of the joke that goes, “how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb?” In this case, the more apt question is: “How many humane groups does it take to figure out that an animal welfare organization should champion the saving, not the taking, of animal life?” The answer, of course,
should be “one.” It is self-evident. You don’t need a meeting to figure it
out. But the reality is that the answer is “two” if one of those groups is
HSUS: HSUS to get the answer wrong. The other group to tell them what the
right one is.
Ever since San Francisco’s 1994 seminal achievement when it became the
first community in the nation to end the killing of healthy homeless animals in
its shelters, HSUS has ignored that success and fought it—and other
successes—every step of the way. They continue to regurgitate old clichés about
pet overpopulation, continue to support regressive shelters, continue to
fight progressive reformers in communities across the country, continue to
falsely deny that No Kill has been achieved, and continue to support mass
killings—as they have in Randolph, IA, in Tangipahoa Parish, LA, and in Wilkes
County, NC. And ultimately, they don’t seem to want to learn from their
mistakes.
The public condemnation over their call for killing of all the Michael Vick
dogs should have pre-empted the current call for killing, but it didn’t.
The support for cat killing in Randolph, IA should have been pre-empted by
the outcry over their prior feral cat policy, which resulted in a policy
switch two years before. It didn’t. And they should not have supported the
Tangipahoa slaughter because every time they have supported other mass
killings at shelters, they’ve been forced to back down by public outcry. These are
not the actions of an agency whose leadership is truly interested in doing
the right thing or learning from the past. But that doesn’t mean the show mustn’t go on. The meeting has been called, and it should be attended. But we cannot confuse a move for political survival, which this meeting represents, with a sincere desire for change on the part of either Wayne Pacelle or his draconian organization. To do so, is to do so at our movement’s own peril.
This is classic social movement theory. Those vested in the status quo, as
HSUS is, first ignore reform, as they did in the mid-1990s and lost. Then
they fight reform, as they did in earnest in the first half of this decade,
and continue to do so in various parts of the country, only to again find
themselves on the losing side. The next stage is co-option. That is the
stage we are currently in.
The fact is Pacelle and HSUS cannot ignore the will of No Kill advocates
anymore and he is only asking for input because he has no choice in the
matter. As Christie Keith noted in her Pet Connection blog,if what HSUS needs is pressure from their donor base, the general public, pit bull advocates, bloggers, animal lovers or other animal welfare organizations to start doing the right thing for these much-maligned dogs … There seems to be an awful lot of it out there.
This is true. But caution should rule the day. In the past, No Kill
advocates stopped the pressure on HSUS in similar campaigns and celebrated
victory, only to have discovered they had been hoodwinked by carefully crafted
statements and Pacelle’s penchance for meaningless pretty words. In 2004, some
No Kill groups signed on to a statement of principles called the Asilomar
Accords,(http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Asilomar%20position%20paper.pdf) , which were championed by HSUS as a roadmap to “significantly
reducing the euthanasia of healthy and treatable companion animals in the
United States.” Unfortunately, the document allowed for the continuation of
policies that resulted in killing, including breed discriminatory actions that
culminate in mass slaughters like the one which has sparked the current
outcry. In fact, the actions taken in Wilkes County were entirely consistent
with the Asilomar Accords—an agreement many No Kill advocates initially
supported.
Likewise, some feral cat advocates praised the 2006 HSUS statement on feral
cats as a “vision for the future,” until it was shown that the statement
was riddled with loopholes which allowed killing of feral cats to continue
indefinitely—actions consistent with their support of the cat bounty
debacle in Randolph, IA.
Time and time again, Pacelle and HSUS have proved they cannot be trusted.
Nonetheless, some groups are optimistic. Best Friends welcomed the recent
announcement and stated, There had been more than enough airing of feelings and outrage that the [Wilkes County] dogs were not evaluated prior to being summarily [killed]. It was time to hit the reset button on this in order to move things forward in a constructive way. Mr. Pacelle was open and receptive to what we had to
say and we are looking forward to our meetings in April.
As I’ve stated, I believe the meeting should take place, and I hope their
faith is not misplaced. I welcome the involvement of Best Friends in helping
set HSUS policy and have very high regard for Best Friends employees
working in this field. So much so, in fact, that Best Friends speakers
will be giving presentations on this topic at the No Kill Conference
this year. There is no falling out with Best Friends. But I do take issue
with the notion that it is time to move on from airing outrage or that it is
time “to hit the reset button.” One does not necessarily follow the other.
It was mass public pressure from a large number of groups and a wide array
of voices which forced HSUS to the table, not a response to a single group’
s call for change, however large and influential. Admittedly, Best Friends
was a major player and took an important and vocal leadership position on
this issue; but any appearance of cooperation they get from HSUS is the
result of widespread and loud dissent rising up from grassroots activists and
rescuers nationwide. It is that clamor which is the only thing that has ever
forced HSUS to the bargaining table—and it should not be discouraged.
Moreover, leadership in this movement must reflect the tremendous
discontent of those in the grassroots, not seek to prematurely quell it and the vast
potential for reform its expression offers. There is no “reset” button
for the more than 150 dogs and puppies killed in North Carolina, —they are gone
forever and we cannot bring them back. It is, therefore, premature to
suggest that we move on—not only because HSUS has neither apologized for their
actions nor owned up to the obscenity of them, but because the North
Carolina incident is a typical example of how HSUS routinely operates, and
therefore offers us a cautionary tale as to what we can expect from an HSUS that
is anything short of what it is our duty to force it to be: unequivocal in
its embrace of No Kill.
And force it we will because the power is now ours. We are in a position to
dictate the direction of this movement and we must not settle for any
compromises. At the meeting in Las Vegas, demands must be made that include,
for example, a condemnation of the Wilkes County massacre. To prevent other
shelters from citing HSUS’ actions and its very public defense of it for
their own policies which favor killing, HSUS must publicly reject them in
total. The demands must also include:
* The right of individual evaluation and consideration for each dog,
not merely a recommendation.
* It must include a guarantee of clemency for any puppies.
* It must give rescue groups and No Kill shelters the right of access
to save the animals, and the right to conduct independent evaluations
rather than rely on the flawed results of HSUS or the shelter’s own potentially
predetermined ones which favor killing.
* It must include an unqualified statement in favor of saving animals
that rejects the excuses of the past.
* It must include support of legislation that will give all of these
principles the force of law. It should be illegal for a shelter to kill a
dog if a rescue group is willing to save him (as it is in California).
* And dogs should not be deemed dangerous without an evaluation and
hearing, subject to appeal by any shelter or rescue group.
That is just a start. There are thousands of us and only a few of them. We
have found our voice, and recognize the potential its fullest expression
can create. No more compromises. No more killing.
----------
All of the issues discussed above can be reviewed on the No-Kill website at;
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/contact.html
And the good news for the day is:
Shelby Co. Kentucky Establishes First No-Kill Shelter.
Operating for over a year, from all reports, it is a great success!
See the video by clicking on to the title above;
http://www.fox41.com/global/Category.asp?c=163829&clipId=3815825&topVideoCatNo=undefined&autoStart=true&act
..take heart while you are watching, and celebrate the moment! We are making progress!
Thanks for caring!
Christine A Jubic, Founder,
Quarter-Acre Rescue Ranch & Equine Advocacy Center
http://www.freewebs.com/mulekist
"Because We Care"
a proud member of
Nathan Wineograds
NO-KILL ADVOCACY GROUP
Extending the No-Kill Sheltering Movement to
No-Kill Stables!
Together, we can make a difference!
Monday, June 1, 2009
My Plea to the Service Dog Community & a Reply
From: Christine [mailto:Cjubic@nycap.rr.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:14 AM
To: XXXXXXX
Subject: Web Inquiry / Adopt-Your-Service-Dogs
Hello,
I saw an ad in the local paper about your wonderful guide dog program.
I am an animal rescuerer and have successfully placed several of our qualified dogs into the Rensselaer & Saratoga Co. Sheriffs Depts. K-9 units.
I was wondering if you might be interested in perhaps helping us to place some of our young dogs that might be suitable for training as seeing-eye guide dogs.
I am not sure where you get your dogs from, private breeders or you may be breeding your own. I dont know, but I do know that there is a pet-overpopulation problem in our country today and even retired service dogs and "service dog rejects" are showing up at our pounds and shelters. The wise thing to do for anyone concerned about this is to STOP breeding and adopt whenever possible.
Of course, any dogs that we have that might be suitable for your program will be signed over to you at no cost. We have only (2) provisions in our contract (besides adequate care) and that is no breeding and if the placement does not work out, the dog should be returned to us.
Right now I have a wonderful young (just turning a year old) half-rottie half-chow female dog that is very smart whom I think would make an excellent seeing-eye dog. "Baby" was a "chain-dog" whom we recently rescued. She is a friendly dog who gets along with everyone and eveything (even chickens and cats!) so she is not easily distracted. I have noticed she is of exceptional intelligence also, and eager to please. I have attached a few pics of her with this email.
I hope that you will give the idea of becoming "rescue friendly" some serious consideration. As you may know, most rescues and shelters are straining under the burden of "so many unwanted" pets due to the financial situation. "Forclosure pets" is a new word in the rescue biz.
Hoping you and your org might be interested in taking in some rescued dogs for possible inclusion into your program.
It most certainly would help us to place more dogs, but more importantly, it would help the dogs find good loving "forever" homes.
Thanks for hearing me out. Call me if you want (518) 753 - 7791
Christine A Jubic, Founder,
Quarter Acre Rescue Ranch
http://www.freewebs.com/mulekist
"Because We Care"
-------------------------
A Reply:
Hello.
My position at Guiding Eyes for the Blind is administrative and I personally have no responsibility in placing our dogs. I have forwarded your email to the appropriate person. While I doubt that we can help you in your endeavors as our mission is in the producing and training of guide dogs, I will pass on your request. Hope you are successful in your noble cause.
XXXXX XXXXX
Canine Development Center
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
----------------------------------------------------------
Breeders. Ugh.
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:14 AM
To: XXXXXXX
Subject: Web Inquiry / Adopt-Your-Service-Dogs
Hello,
I saw an ad in the local paper about your wonderful guide dog program.
I am an animal rescuerer and have successfully placed several of our qualified dogs into the Rensselaer & Saratoga Co. Sheriffs Depts. K-9 units.
I was wondering if you might be interested in perhaps helping us to place some of our young dogs that might be suitable for training as seeing-eye guide dogs.
I am not sure where you get your dogs from, private breeders or you may be breeding your own. I dont know, but I do know that there is a pet-overpopulation problem in our country today and even retired service dogs and "service dog rejects" are showing up at our pounds and shelters. The wise thing to do for anyone concerned about this is to STOP breeding and adopt whenever possible.
Of course, any dogs that we have that might be suitable for your program will be signed over to you at no cost. We have only (2) provisions in our contract (besides adequate care) and that is no breeding and if the placement does not work out, the dog should be returned to us.
Right now I have a wonderful young (just turning a year old) half-rottie half-chow female dog that is very smart whom I think would make an excellent seeing-eye dog. "Baby" was a "chain-dog" whom we recently rescued. She is a friendly dog who gets along with everyone and eveything (even chickens and cats!) so she is not easily distracted. I have noticed she is of exceptional intelligence also, and eager to please. I have attached a few pics of her with this email.
I hope that you will give the idea of becoming "rescue friendly" some serious consideration. As you may know, most rescues and shelters are straining under the burden of "so many unwanted" pets due to the financial situation. "Forclosure pets" is a new word in the rescue biz.
Hoping you and your org might be interested in taking in some rescued dogs for possible inclusion into your program.
It most certainly would help us to place more dogs, but more importantly, it would help the dogs find good loving "forever" homes.
Thanks for hearing me out. Call me if you want (518) 753 - 7791
Christine A Jubic, Founder,
Quarter Acre Rescue Ranch
http://www.freewebs.com/mulekist
"Because We Care"
-------------------------
A Reply:
Hello.
My position at Guiding Eyes for the Blind is administrative and I personally have no responsibility in placing our dogs. I have forwarded your email to the appropriate person. While I doubt that we can help you in your endeavors as our mission is in the producing and training of guide dogs, I will pass on your request. Hope you are successful in your noble cause.
XXXXX XXXXX
Canine Development Center
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
----------------------------------------------------------
Breeders. Ugh.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
