This is taken verbatim from THLN's Facebook page. I think it's on their Web site as well. I've added my own cynical comments which are in italics.
Clarification to Position Statement on HB 3450
We would like to thank our supporters for all of the feedback and attention to our position on this bill. We would also like to clarify what seems to be gross misunderstandings and misrepresentations of THLN's position on HB 3450.
Dang. First we're pains in the neck, now we're gross.
First and foremost, as stated in our original position statement, THLN is 100% SUPPORTIVE of the intended good of the bill.
The Bill is well-meaning and has many admirable goals, goals that we support fully as an organization. However, as is currently written, there is significant potential for serious animal welfare problems that people may not fully understand.
Yes, we're all dumber than you, esp. those without law degrees.
By mandating many of the Bill's standards for all shelters of all sizes statewide there is profound likelihood for unintended negative consequences for the animals that all of us are trying to help.
THLN has received numerous statements of concern from private and public shelters, and animal care and control organizations regarding the unintended consequences which would result from HB 3450 as currently written.
Would you care sharing even 1% of these "statements of concern"? No need to identify the shelter or organization. Otherwise, some of us will think you might be making this stuff up.
Given the compact timeframe for this year’s session (less than two months left) and the numerous stakeholders involved, we standby our original statement that we believe it is impractical to expect to resolve the complex issues created in time to craft a comprehensive bill that all affected parties can sign on to, and that will truly benefit the animals.
Well, continuing to kill and gas animals won't benefit them at all. And you're asking us to shut up and behave for TWO more years.
The impact to the well being (sp?) of animals is at the core of our values. All bills must have the input of affected stakeholders to measure the true outcome and effectiveness of each bill. Currently, HB 3450 does not have the full input of all parties that work in animal welfare. Intent alone does not create good policy.
Inaction does not create ANY policy, nor does it affect positive change. You know, like fewer dead animals.
We are hopeful that all concerned parties can work together to craft a bill that has the capability for true change and reform for the animals of Texas. If the animal welfare community can come together with a consensus to move forward in the time frame left, THLN will fully support that effort.
Being hopeful works about as well as intent when it comes to creating good policy - or change, for that matter.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
From THLN to the rest of us: you're a pain
Others have noticed THLN's boneheaded opposition to HB 3450 - and THLN's Cile Holloway's opinion of those who disagree with them.
From the blog O is for Onward:
But not everyone who claims to love animals was happy about the bill. A group that calls itself THLN, or “Keep on Gassing” the “Texas Humane Legislation Network,” immediately expressed its opposition to the bill on the grounds that (1) the bill was too long (an evidently impenetrable 30 double-spaced pages), (2) THLN itself did not write it, and (3) the Texas animal shelters (you know, the ones gassing our pets as you read this), which THLN calls the “true stakeholders,” evidently did not support being forcibly reformed. Thus, THLN has urged its members to fight the bill for at least two years so that shelter directors can keep on gassing chew on it for a while. The group has deemed the public’s reaction to its indefensible position inconvenient, or, to use its exact words, a “pain in the neck.”
The "pain in the neck" line is direct from a gmail that THLN's Cile Holloway sent to another THLN member - and ALSO sent to the very person she was describing. Thankfully the "pain in the neck" did not take Cile's comment lying down. I enjoyed her response.
Read it all here, backwards of course. Start from the bottom up.
From the blog O is for Onward:
But not everyone who claims to love animals was happy about the bill. A group that calls itself THLN, or “Keep on Gassing” the “Texas Humane Legislation Network,” immediately expressed its opposition to the bill on the grounds that (1) the bill was too long (an evidently impenetrable 30 double-spaced pages), (2) THLN itself did not write it, and (3) the Texas animal shelters (you know, the ones gassing our pets as you read this), which THLN calls the “true stakeholders,” evidently did not support being forcibly reformed. Thus, THLN has urged its members to fight the bill for at least two years so that shelter directors can keep on gassing chew on it for a while. The group has deemed the public’s reaction to its indefensible position inconvenient, or, to use its exact words, a “pain in the neck.”
The "pain in the neck" line is direct from a gmail that THLN's Cile Holloway sent to another THLN member - and ALSO sent to the very person she was describing. Thankfully the "pain in the neck" did not take Cile's comment lying down. I enjoyed her response.
Read it all here, backwards of course. Start from the bottom up.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Nathan Winograd's take on the THLN and HB 3450
With thanks to the anonymous commenter, I visited Nathan Winograd's blog to read his take on the THLN's decision to oppose HB 3450 (aka CAPA).
Winograd is not a mealy-mouthed individual. Here is an excerpt on his take on the THLN's stance:
"Calling for shelters to continue gassing animals, to continue killing in the face of a rescue alternative, and more, THLN’s position reveals sour grapes, stunning hubris, and a serious case of misplaced priorities."
Winograd's entire March 29 blog entry regarding the THLN is well worth a read.
And, if you haven't already figured it out, the folks at THLN are seriously in bed with the HSUS. A cursory glance at the THLN Web site confirms this. One of their top members, Skip Trimble, is holder of a PETA Activist Award - an award he downplays when anyone asks him about it. I guess he has it tucked under his bed along with Kent Robertson.
Winograd is not a mealy-mouthed individual. Here is an excerpt on his take on the THLN's stance:
"Calling for shelters to continue gassing animals, to continue killing in the face of a rescue alternative, and more, THLN’s position reveals sour grapes, stunning hubris, and a serious case of misplaced priorities."
Winograd's entire March 29 blog entry regarding the THLN is well worth a read.
And, if you haven't already figured it out, the folks at THLN are seriously in bed with the HSUS. A cursory glance at the THLN Web site confirms this. One of their top members, Skip Trimble, is holder of a PETA Activist Award - an award he downplays when anyone asks him about it. I guess he has it tucked under his bed along with Kent Robertson.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
THLN opposes HB 3450...and here's why
While surfing another site, I decided to visit the Texas Humane Legislative Network (THLN) site to see if they had an opinion of HB 3450, aka Companion Animal Protection Act, or CAPA (see previous posts).
Seems that the THLN folks oppose this bill, as they didn't get the chance to talk it to death first. Awwwww...
Here's an excerpt from their Web site.
It is THLN’s belief that it would be more productive to defer this legislation to the 2013 legislative session so it can be fully reviewed and discussed by the entire Texas animal welfare community. This will give all stakeholders the opportunity to debate the issues, offer their ideas as to solutions to the problems addressed and to determine how to best achieve the solutions sought by the bill – whether through statewide legislation or local ordinances or incentives.
THLN recommends that consideration of this bill be postponed and the entire Texas animal welfare community, the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, the Texas Animal Control Association, the Texas Municipal League and other interested parties work together during the interim period with the goal of bringing a comprehensive and well thought through bill next session that can be supported and endorsed by all stakeholders.
This all sounds nice, but who's going to actually arrange that "interested parties work together"? They left out that part. And why should we wait until 2013 to introduce a major strategy that could reduce the killing in shelters?
Also, unless they're keeping it a secret, THLN has spent zero time researching how well this sort of legislation has fared in other states. Houston's No Kill folks have done so:
CAPA is modeled after a similar law which has been in effect in California since 1998. An analysis of that law found that sending animals to non-profit animal rescue organizations saved the City and County of San Francisco $486,480 in publicly funded animal control costs. CAPA saves taxpayer money by mandating public-private partnerships that not only reduce expenses associated with having to care for, then kill and dispose of an animal, but which transfers expenses from taxpayers to private philanthropy.
Last but certainly not least, THLN has completely overlooked the fact that morale might improve in city shelters if the employees didn't spend so much time killing animals. This, in itself, is sufficient reason to pass this legislation.
But then research and empathy might cut into the THLN members' committee-sitting time. Can't have that happen, can we?
Seems that the THLN folks oppose this bill, as they didn't get the chance to talk it to death first. Awwwww...
Here's an excerpt from their Web site.
It is THLN’s belief that it would be more productive to defer this legislation to the 2013 legislative session so it can be fully reviewed and discussed by the entire Texas animal welfare community. This will give all stakeholders the opportunity to debate the issues, offer their ideas as to solutions to the problems addressed and to determine how to best achieve the solutions sought by the bill – whether through statewide legislation or local ordinances or incentives.
THLN recommends that consideration of this bill be postponed and the entire Texas animal welfare community, the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, the Texas Animal Control Association, the Texas Municipal League and other interested parties work together during the interim period with the goal of bringing a comprehensive and well thought through bill next session that can be supported and endorsed by all stakeholders.
This all sounds nice, but who's going to actually arrange that "interested parties work together"? They left out that part. And why should we wait until 2013 to introduce a major strategy that could reduce the killing in shelters?
Also, unless they're keeping it a secret, THLN has spent zero time researching how well this sort of legislation has fared in other states. Houston's No Kill folks have done so:
CAPA is modeled after a similar law which has been in effect in California since 1998. An analysis of that law found that sending animals to non-profit animal rescue organizations saved the City and County of San Francisco $486,480 in publicly funded animal control costs. CAPA saves taxpayer money by mandating public-private partnerships that not only reduce expenses associated with having to care for, then kill and dispose of an animal, but which transfers expenses from taxpayers to private philanthropy.
Last but certainly not least, THLN has completely overlooked the fact that morale might improve in city shelters if the employees didn't spend so much time killing animals. This, in itself, is sufficient reason to pass this legislation.
But then research and empathy might cut into the THLN members' committee-sitting time. Can't have that happen, can we?
Saturday, March 26, 2011
If you REALLY want the killing to stop in Texas...
From the brilliant Yes Biscuit blog, here is information about the Companion Animal Protection Act.
HB 3450 was introduced by State Rep. Jessica Farrar.
To support the act, visit the Houston No-Kill Web site.
I have copied the following directly from the Yes! Biscuit blog, as the author has done a bang-up job of outline the act's provisions. They include:
* Shelters can no longer kill pets when an adopter or rescue group is willing to take them.
* Shelters can no longer kill savable pets at the owner’s request.
* Shelters can no longer kill owner surrendered pets immediately upon intake.
* Shelters can no longer kill pets when the facility has empty cages/kennels or when the pet can share a cage/kennel with another pet.
* Shelters can no longer kill pets when a foster home is available.
* Shelters can no longer kill nursing litters of puppies and kittens impounded without their mama unless they have exhausted all avenues of rescue and foster care, documented these efforts, certified in writing why the shelter itself can not provide care for the litter at present and what’s being done to change that situation. Said certification must be available for public inspection upon request for at least 3 years.
* Shelters can no longer refuse to adopt out pets based on arbitrary criteria such as breed, age or color.
* Before a shelter can kill a dog with confirmed parvo or a cat with confirmed panleukopenia, a licensed vet must certify in writing that the pet’s prognosis is poor, even with treatment. Said certification must be available for public inspection upon request for at least 3 years.
* Any agency – public or private – which kills pets must seek out and maintain a list of rescue groups willing to take pets and adopt them out. The agency must contact each group on the list who is willing to take the type of pet the agency wishes to kill before killing the pet.
* When shelters do kill pets, it must be done by IV injection after sedation (with limited exceptions made for IP injections and heartstick on unconscious pets under the direction of a licensed vet). Shelters can no longer kill pets in view of other pets.
* All municipal shelters must provide low cost spay-neuter programs to the public, volunteer opportunities, and pet retention programs.
* Shelters – both public and private – must report their stats monthly and those reports shall be available for public inspection upon request for at least 3 years.
Now - let's see if our local committee-sitters will support this act.
HB 3450 was introduced by State Rep. Jessica Farrar.
To support the act, visit the Houston No-Kill Web site.
I have copied the following directly from the Yes! Biscuit blog, as the author has done a bang-up job of outline the act's provisions. They include:
* Shelters can no longer kill pets when an adopter or rescue group is willing to take them.
* Shelters can no longer kill savable pets at the owner’s request.
* Shelters can no longer kill owner surrendered pets immediately upon intake.
* Shelters can no longer kill pets when the facility has empty cages/kennels or when the pet can share a cage/kennel with another pet.
* Shelters can no longer kill pets when a foster home is available.
* Shelters can no longer kill nursing litters of puppies and kittens impounded without their mama unless they have exhausted all avenues of rescue and foster care, documented these efforts, certified in writing why the shelter itself can not provide care for the litter at present and what’s being done to change that situation. Said certification must be available for public inspection upon request for at least 3 years.
* Shelters can no longer refuse to adopt out pets based on arbitrary criteria such as breed, age or color.
* Before a shelter can kill a dog with confirmed parvo or a cat with confirmed panleukopenia, a licensed vet must certify in writing that the pet’s prognosis is poor, even with treatment. Said certification must be available for public inspection upon request for at least 3 years.
* Any agency – public or private – which kills pets must seek out and maintain a list of rescue groups willing to take pets and adopt them out. The agency must contact each group on the list who is willing to take the type of pet the agency wishes to kill before killing the pet.
* When shelters do kill pets, it must be done by IV injection after sedation (with limited exceptions made for IP injections and heartstick on unconscious pets under the direction of a licensed vet). Shelters can no longer kill pets in view of other pets.
* All municipal shelters must provide low cost spay-neuter programs to the public, volunteer opportunities, and pet retention programs.
* Shelters – both public and private – must report their stats monthly and those reports shall be available for public inspection upon request for at least 3 years.
Now - let's see if our local committee-sitters will support this act.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
generosity at work
When I posted the Chipin link last weekend, the donation total was only around $11,000. I'm glad to see how many people have donated to the rescuers.
For anyone who's wondering, I have made donations to the animal rescue, and two "people" nonprofits, including Americares.
Charity Navigator is a good place to check out the nonprofits currently working in Japan.
(Uh-oh...the HSUS' international arm has a 1-star rating at Charity Navigator. The report describes the division as being in "deep financial trouble". The HSUS is wallowing in money, so what's going on here?)
For anyone who's wondering, I have made donations to the animal rescue, and two "people" nonprofits, including Americares.
Charity Navigator is a good place to check out the nonprofits currently working in Japan.
(Uh-oh...the HSUS' international arm has a 1-star rating at Charity Navigator. The report describes the division as being in "deep financial trouble". The HSUS is wallowing in money, so what's going on here?)
Monday, March 14, 2011
Help for animals in Japan
After some research, I located two groups who are on-site in Japan, helping animals made homeless by the earthquake/tsunami. If you have additional links/information, please leave them in the Comments section. If you have problems leaving a comment, click Preview before Post.
Here are some links:
http://www.arkbark.net/?q=en/node/2901
Arkbark has a Paypal donation site. You can view the Paypal pages in English - click on the pull-down at the top right to toggle between Japanese and English. But you'll have to convert Japanese yen to your currency on another page. Here's a currency converter link:
http://www.x-rates.com/calculator.html
If you donate 2,000 yen, it comes out to US$24 and change.
Another group is actually three groups: HEART-Tokushima, Animal Friends Niigata and Japan Cat Network. Here is their blog and donation link:
http://japanearthquakeanimalrelief.chipin.com/japan-earthquake-animal-rescue-and-support
The Chipin donation widget wasn't working for me yesterday, but the donations have increased since then, so I am assuming heavy traffic is causing the problems with Chipin. (It may go to Paypal, anyway; Chipin can be redirected.)
Here are some links:
http://www.arkbark.net/?q=en/node/2901
Arkbark has a Paypal donation site. You can view the Paypal pages in English - click on the pull-down at the top right to toggle between Japanese and English. But you'll have to convert Japanese yen to your currency on another page. Here's a currency converter link:
http://www.x-rates.com/calculator.html
If you donate 2,000 yen, it comes out to US$24 and change.
Another group is actually three groups: HEART-Tokushima, Animal Friends Niigata and Japan Cat Network. Here is their blog and donation link:
http://japanearthquakeanimalrelief.chipin.com/japan-earthquake-animal-rescue-and-support
The Chipin donation widget wasn't working for me yesterday, but the donations have increased since then, so I am assuming heavy traffic is causing the problems with Chipin. (It may go to Paypal, anyway; Chipin can be redirected.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)