This was posted - anonymously, of course - in response to a recent posting here.
I thought I'd copy and paste it here, along with responses. Anonymous is in italics.
I have been reading your blog everyday. I thought you had insight. But now I am convinced you are a nut. Has anyone ever asked the rescues:
1. How long do dogs stay in crates and warehouse with no exercise? Sometimes stacked to the ceiling with crates falling over. Really is that a way to live.
The rescues I'm familiar with do not keep dogs in crates. Might you tell us where you saw this? Not sure what you're talking about.
2. How many pets does a neighbor have to put up with living next door to a rescuer or hoarder? Not everyone wants to smell or hear their pets.
It only takes one barking dog to annoy neighbors - not a rescuer's or hoarder's dog, or anyone's dog. One dog is well within the permissible bounds, but it doesn't follow that the owner is responsible.
Also, living in an urban neighborhood presents all sorts of problems to people who are not willing to put up with an urban lifestyle. Those who want peace and quiet should move outside the city.
3. How many cats in one house exceptable? 100-200-300? All breathing each other's disease and snotting nose's and eye's.
This depends on the square footage, ventilation, time spent cleaning, and several other factors. A purpose-built shelter can house many times the number of animals that a private home can healthily manage in the same square footage.
For example, the most recent Pawprints shelter was a converted daycare center - but it still housed far fewer cats (over 50% less) than Dog and Kitty City's current cat shelter building. I'm not saying that anything is wrong over at Dog and Kitty City, as I often see them at Petsmart and their animals are healthy. These are simply examples.
DAS made a major mistake when they decided to limit the number of animals in a home WITHOUT specifics. For example, I've been in detached homes that are too small to house the legal limit of six animals - but it's still legal.
4. What is Dallas Animal Services suppose to do with 10x's the dogs and cats going in than going out? Go ahead and blame the city. Best deal in town, spay/neutured, heart worm tested, for 60 bucks.
First of all, you're only talking about dogs. Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that DAS seems keen to close down local shelters by harassment, not for a good reason. These shelters were created to help decrease the city's euthanasia rates, so why is DAS so keen to close them? For example, Texas Pawprints *never* received a single citation from DAS, even though DAS dropped by at least seven times. Neither has Gail Whelan with Companion Animal Network - she's made the decision to close simply because she can't keep taking off work to allow one inspection after another.
Its easy to spout out the problems and play the blame game. Just wish once I could read a real solution to some of these problems.
DAS isn't interested in solutions. They're interested in getting their way. I suggest you visit the next Animal Shelter Coalition meeting.
The rules are simple. Established by the city. Not Animal Services. Yes, tax-payers make the rules and pay animal services to enforce them.
Rubbish. Taxpayers had nothing to do with the most recent (2008) legislation. Quite a few opposed it. I suggest you look up the City Council's agendas and read up on this a bit more.
Because we are animal lovers, doesn't mean everyone else is. Maybe some people would like to go out and play or eat in their own yard without the smell of a feral colony using their yard for a kitty litter box. Rescuer's, hoarders , collectors which ever you want to call yourself move to a place that you dont infridge on the rights of others.
Cats don't use yards for litter boxes; they'd rather bury their feces. The feral colonies in my neighborhood generally "hang out" in semi-deserted areas, away from people. If you're having a problem, make note of the animals using your yard for a public convenience; it's probably a neighbor's pet.
Off my soap box now. But remember there is allways two sides to every story. Working together will allways have a better out-come than pointing fingers.
True. But DAS allows itself to be controlled by vendettas and people with personal agendas, not by those who genuinely want to help. I suggest you read more about Kent Robertson's two years in Houston - he methodically turned down help from people who had worked hard to bring euthanasia rates down in their own cities and towns. Instead, HSUS fanatics within DAS and the Animal Shelter Commission ignore the fact that the HSUS does not run a single animal shelter - and are prepared to pay them $25,000 for their advice.
7 comments:
Why is it that the anonymous nutjobs can find the time to write these diatribes but NEVER seem to find the time to run even a simple spell check?? :-)
Anonymous...
Going to split this into multiple posts...
Some of us feel you might be the nut. Don't shelters also "confine" animals, and don't many of those animals "soil" their areas throughout the day? Most shelters hose down the kennels once a day at a set time. Those animals that are stressed may soil several times, or as is common, have diarrhea. They may soil several times during the day...but kennels are cleaned at set times...so whatever is in the run...is there till it's hosed down. I have pulled dogs from shelters who have walked through their own feces and urine at the shelter and were an incredible mess. Those are always fun to load in your vehicle to transport. So a "shelter" environment, is not perfect either. So "accidents" ARE allowed and tolerated, and the animal becoming itself soiled, in a shelter environment, but not in a rescue or private ownership environment? Anyone who has lived with an animal knows there are "accidents"...dogs get sick, they eat something that doesn't agree with them, they stress. Why it is NOT allowable for rescues or private owners to experience some "natural" behavior, i.e. potty accidents, spilled water bowls, utilization of crates, but shelters can, escapes me. In addition, DAS had serious problems with standing water and drainage in the runs at the shelter, but I guess that's okay too, because they are a "shelter". Just because they are a "shelter" shouldn't exempt them from the same requirements that are being applied to rescues and owners. That concept really needs examination. Shelters should be held to the same standards of care, that they require of a rescue organization or private owner.
Why is it more and more seizures reflect animals in good weight, with admittedly good socialization skills, when they come from "deplorable" conditions, and the odor is described as overpowering "stench", and the animals have a range of health-related issues, YET can still be available for adoption, just days later? Animals with serious health issues, and in deplorable "condition" as is always used as the reason for the seizure, do NOT improve in a couple of days. If the dogs are underweight (or emaciated with ribs and bones showing, as is the term commonly used...) it takes more than a couple of days for that weight to rise to a "healthy" level. Usually weeks, and sometimes months. I have treated and fostered EXTREMELY emaciated dogs. It's didn't correct itself in a few days. SO, excuse me if I'm suspicious. And I agree again with FP. DAS has NO interest in solutions. Rescue in Houston was absolutely fed up with all the scandals in which Mr. Robertson was involved, due his policies, and it might actually be worse in Dallas under his leadership. The local rescue community, including myself, have met with him, at his invitation, to discuss issue and brainstorm to provide possible solutions. HE shot down EVERY recommendation, due to it either wasn't in his purview, or it would need the city's approval, or it just couldn't be done for some reason or another. EVERY SINGLE RECOMMENDATION! And many of these recommendations were based on policies that are highly successful in other local shelters and Animal Service departments. But NOT for DAS. Many of the requirements mandated by the new ordinances, have driven rescue out of Dallas. They are invasive, they amount to warrantless searches, and they actually abuse the organizations that have remained, with countless inspections. And some very egregious occurrences with private owners. One family had over 200 complaints filed in two years, by a neighbor...and all 200 went uncited. The animals were ALL in compliance with EVERY SINGLE requirement, and the animals were in good weight and condition, by the admission of DAS. Until this past fall, when some feces was written up as a code violation, and it's "odor" was written up as a second, and Mr. Robertson "opted" (because it was at HIS DISCRETION) to have the animals either re-homed or threated to seize them. The city is now embroiled in a very contentious fight with the owners (and more important, their attorneys), who are going after the city to keep their animals. And I would hope monetary compensation... I can only hope and pray they are successful, especially since the majority of the animals are geriatric, and many are on medicines for various issues...and I believe they are all rescued animals, and were home-checked by the applicable rescues and were approved with flying colors. Yet, they still are in danger of having all their pets seized.
Why is it more and more seizures reflect animals in good weight, with admittedly good socialization skills, when they come from "deplorable" conditions, and the odor is described as overpowering "stench", and the animals have a range of health-related issues, YET can still be available for adoption, just days later? Animals with serious health issues, and in deplorable "condition" as is always used as the reason for the seizure, do NOT improve in a couple of days. If the dogs are underweight (or emaciated with ribs and bones showing, as is the term commonly used...) it takes more than a couple of days for that weight to rise to a "healthy" level. Usually weeks, and sometimes months. I have treated and fostered EXTREMELY emaciated dogs. It's didn't correct itself in a few days. SO, excuse me if I'm suspicious. And I agree again with FP. DAS has NO interest in solutions. Rescue in Houston was absolutely fed up with all the scandals in which Mr. Robertson was involved, due his policies, and it might actually be worse in Dallas under his leadership. The local rescue community, including myself, have met with him, at his invitation, to discuss issue and brainstorm to provide possible solutions. HE shot down EVERY recommendation, due to it either wasn't in his purview, or it would need the city's approval, or it just couldn't be done for some reason or another. EVERY SINGLE RECOMMENDATION! And many of these recommendations were based on policies that are highly successful in other local shelters and Animal Service departments. But NOT for DAS. Many of the requirements mandated by the new ordinances, have driven rescue out of Dallas. They are invasive, they amount to warrantless searches, and they actually abuse the organizations that have remained, with countless inspections. And some very egregious occurrences with private owners. One family had over 200 complaints filed in two years, by a neighbor...and all 200 went uncited. The animals were ALL in compliance with EVERY SINGLE requirement, and the animals were in good weight and condition, by the admission of DAS. Until this past fall, when some feces was written up as a code violation, and it's "odor" was written up as a second, and Mr. Robertson "opted" (because it was at HIS DISCRETION) to have the animals either re-homed or threated to seize them. The city is now embroiled in a very contentious fight with the owners (and more important, their attorneys), who are going after the city to keep their animals. And I would hope monetary compensation... I can only hope and pray they are successful, especially since the majority of the animals are geriatric, and many are on medicines for various issues...and I believe they are all rescued animals, and were home-checked by the applicable rescues and were approved with flying colors. Yet, they still are in danger of having all their pets seized.
As for hoarders, there are many cases that neighbors had NO idea there was hoarding occurring. "TRUE" hoarders intentionally attempt to hide. That means they lock down windows and doors to contain the odor, and draw curtains so no one can see in, and have little interaction with neighbors, so that they AREN'T found out. I can't tell you how many times I've heard of "hoarding" seizures, and the neighbors had no idea that the quiet person next door, who has always kept to themselves, and was never any trouble, EVEN HAD animals. There are real cases of people getting in over their heads, but limiting by number, is no guarantee of quality care. Some people can't take care of one animal properly...and many are capable of taking responsibility for the proper care of several. Mandating limits does not address someone's ability to care for animals at all. And limits the number of homes available for "needy" dogs in shelters. And there is no legal definition for "hoarding" either. It's basically whatever you want it to be.
As for feral cats...there aren't entire colonies using your yard as a litter box. Most ferals don't spend time that close to humans. The worst complaint I have about ferals, is the few that haven't been TNR'd yet, and howl and cry during mating. I have been awakened to the sounds of cats "in love"...and it can be obnoxious. But when it comes to what offends us... perhaps I don't like the smell of what you are cooking for supper or grilling in your back yard. Maybe I don't like the chemicals and smell from what you've treated your yard with. Maybe I don't like the smell of the magnolia tree in your yard. The on-going argument regarding ferals, is probably never going to be one that we agree on. But some of the "pluses" of ferals are, to me, most importantly, they are very effective rodent killers. And roof rat populations are at an all-time high. Yes, they might kill a few birds, a few juvenile rabbits or squirrels, but my yard is over-run with rabbits and squirrels, to the point of significant damage. And roof rats are capable of great destruction as well, since they usually chew holes in your home to obtain entry to begin with...and then set up housekeeping in your attic, and then begin moving through the rest of the house as they settle in. And reproduce. Garages are seeing more damage to cars from rats as well. Mechanics I've spoken to have said, one or two cases a month was typical, until the last couple of years...and now they are seeing rodent damage three, four, five times a week to cars. They are becoming more and more populous and destructive, and are a health concern, since they are a highly effective disease vectors, and quite honestly, ANYTHING that helps keep them in check, is highly valued by me. I'm grateful for ferals that have highly developed hunting instincts. And they are basically nocturnal, so I don't even really notice them. I see them as a benefit, you see them as a scourge...so whose rights are being infringed on?
The AR's have convinced the public that crates are a bad, evil thing. Cruel even, and we are seeing legislation starting to be introduced defining them as cruel. What a crock!@ As as true with anything, it can be utilized poorly, or well. I'm tired of people dismissing crates as evil, since dogs are naturally "denning" animals, and as such, if properly acclimated, feel safe and protected in their crates. A crate can be the best, and safest, training tool available to pet owners. Sure, it's possible to misuse them, but they also serve as a valuable tool. So, it's not the tool, it's how it's utilized. And just because some people USE that tool improperly, the people that do use it as it was meant to be used, should be punished? Shall we outlaw baseball bats because a few criminals used them in a crime? Should we outlaw stoves because a few people suffer serious burns from them? I think you follow my logic. Agree with it, or not. And many crates were designed to be stacked. Again, there is a right way, and a wrong way. In outlawing crates or labeling them as cruel and evil, does an extreme disservice to the animal. So just because a rescue organization crates their animals, does not make them cruel. Perhaps JUST the opposite, since many rescue animals are NOT properly socialized, and therefore cannot be turned out together without being a danger to the other animals. And many newly adopted animals, or puppies, cannot be left unattended without being crated, for their own safety. So should we now only place animals or "bless" rescues with people that DON'T WORK so they can supervise the animal 24/7? Or restrict a rescue to taking one dog at a time, so that if it is not socialized that it won't attack other dogs? If not working, then how will they pay for basic pet health care/vetting? Or training since they don't work? Or, geez, I don't know, afford...FOOD? Or should we only place animals with owners that are independently wealthy? Use some common sense. Crates are not evil. People can use crates for the best of purposes, or for the worst. It has NOTHING to do with the crate.
And, damn straight I blame DAS. Kent Robertson has the worst track record of ANY large metropolitan shelter manager, bar none, in my opinion, and has an agenda. Every where he goes, cruelty, abuse, a refusal to work with rescue or the community, and implementing shelter policies that are anything but animal friendly, follow him. There is always scandal nd chaos surrounding him.
My last post, and sorry for the duplicate...
As for taxpayers...FP is correct. And what isn't known about those ordinances, is that a HUGE contingent of the "tax base" solidly opposed the ordinances. And almost with hugely successful results. At the time of the vote, the votes existed to turn back the ordinances, until a political maneuver to "extort" support votes from a number of council members was successful by virtue of an important zoning issue. And the Dallas City Council is as corrupt (and uninformed...) as any in existence, so they are hardly a paragon of virtue. We proudly support those council members that stood with us, even in the face of certain defeat of the ordinance on the day of the vote, and at potentially significant political expense to themselves. So at least there are a few "sane" and truly compassionate people on the council.
And yes, there ARE always two sides to a story. Ours was and continues to be ignored. So thank god for blogs that try to inform the public of the real agendas. More and more are educating and informing the public of the truth. And as far as I'm concerned, DAS should take note of shelters in the area that have placement rates in the 80th percentile, and perhaps admit that many of the DAS policies are not only ineffective, but actually injurious. They might take note of those groups or shelters or animal controls, doing a much better job and find out what they're doing that is successful. Or most likely, I believe they don't give give a rat's ass. It's not about saving animals. It's trying to prove that the situation is out of hand, they don't have any option but to euthanize animals, and therefore give credence to the concept that restrictive laws need to be passed to "protect" the animals. BS. There are plenty of successful shelters out there. All one has to do, is learn from them.
DAS will be under-going (for the second time in seven years...) an evaluation from HSUS at a cost of $25,000. This evaluation will be paid by the local animal groups who raised the money from donations, unlike the first $25,000 that the city footed the bill for. The first evaluation resulted in a beautiful new, green shelter, that did NOTHING to improve the adoption rate, and/or decrease euthanasia. Either HSUS gave some weak advice, or DAS simply refused to listen, or find solutions. Either way, HSUS made out...to the tune of $50,000. $25,000 of that was taxpayer money as well. The second time, it had to be privately supported. Great...HSUS. That's the fox guarding the hen house. Another fine topic for another day.
DAS must WANT solutions. I haven't seen any attempt for REAL problem-solving...just a lot of whining, and a lot of resistance to those trying to help or solve the problems. And putting ridiculous restrictions and requirements on those that do want to help, to the point of driving them away. But that's what happens when you are "superior" to the community you should be serving. DAS is about nothing but control.
Post a Comment