What Were They Thinking - Cat Rehoming Edition

Last week, a cat carrier appeared outside the door of Sundance Natural Foods in Eugene, Oregon. Inside was a scared cat, and on top was a fun little note:

The note reads: "Hello! My name is Gizmo but my last owners called me Gizzy. You can even give me a new name if you want. I'm looking for a new home and I'm pretty nervous and a little scared right now but I'll settle down as I get use to my new home. Let's see... a little about me. I usually hang out inside or outside. I don't need a litter box - I'll let you know when I need out to 'do my thing' by hanging out at the door. I like to eat inside and I like to come inside to sleep at night. I'm a lap cat and like the 'scratch behind the ears' thing. When you're ready to get up, just stand up, I kinda get a little irritated when people pick me up off their lap. It's my one and only fault if you want to call it that (smiley face). I get along with every body except little people and dogs that chase me and make lots of noise. What's their deal anyway?! Thanks for thinking about making me part of your family! Meow! (Smiley face)" Written in the margin: "Oh, by the way, I haven't had water for a while and I'm pretty thirsty")

So, yeah, that happened. And while, of course, your first reaction should be a mighty *facepalm*, (perhaps followed by a couple *headdesk*s), I personally can't help but really consider the decision process for these people.


I think I know these people. Oh, not specifically, but you've met them, too. They're the ones who show up at parties without a hostess gift, eat all the tasty finger food, then leave without helping to clean up. They never use their turn signal when driving. They ride their bike on the sidewalk, oblivious to pedestrians jumping out of the way. When they HAD a cat, he crapped and pissed in the neighbor's garden so often the rose bushes died, and they laughed about what a silly kitty he was. Immature? Yes. Clueless? Yes. Inconsiderate? Yes. Over all terrible people? I dunno. I doubt it.

That cheery little note, (moreso than if there HADN'T been a note), makes me want to hunt these people down, yank the organic sugar free chai latte from their hand, and dump it over their heads.

And yet...

They also tried their best, in their own immature little way. The usual method for dumping a cat is to toss it out in a residential neighborhood or country road at night and drive off. They made sure he was safe in a carrier with a (weirdly) thoughtful note. Did they already try alternative ways of rehoming this cat?

Googling the phrase "how to rehome a cat you can't keep eugene or" number 4 hit result is from a no-kill private cat rescue.... so great, this is the first place I'd look if I needed to rehome a cat.... but look what they say:

"There are very many excuses given for relinquishing your cat; however, there are few valid reasons... if, after examining your conscience and your heart, you still wish to relinquish your cat, please be willing to take the time and make the effort necessary to find him/her a good loving forever home. . .this is the least you can do. . .and you owe it to your cat. . . and, please, please, never adopt (or buy) another animal. .. Some humans should never have pets."

Wow. Judgey much? I understand. Beleive me, I do. but what is the goal with a heavy-handed rant like this,? If it's to vent and feel morally superior for a few minutes, well, mission accomplished I'm sure. But if you're goal is really to help pets, then venting your spleen on a page that's supposed to be a resource for pet owners in need is doing nothing to convince anyone of anything, and actually hurting your goals long term.

 This is not an uncommon attitude in animal rescue organizations.

If I'm an average pet owner who needs to rehome my pet, and I know I'm going to be judged harshly no matter what I do, by the very organizations who claim to be there to help, maybe I would prefer to  take the easier, anonymous route.

Gizmo's owners wanted to do the right thing. They were actually pretty close, and I can't help but wonder if, with a little more compassion for HUMANS from the animal rescue system (which includes myself, by the way), they might have actually made a better decision.

Responsible Dog Breeding

What is 'responsible breeding'? If you want to buy a puppy, how do you choose a breeder who is 'ethical'? It may not be what you've been lead to think.

 Most people think that a responsible, ethical breeder only breeds purebred dogs that can be registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC) (in the US), or one of the other large breed clubs. Having "papers" is supposed to increase a dog's value, and ensure they're a healthy, typical specimen of the breed. It doesn't. This popular style of breeding is hurting dogs, and it's up to puppy buyers to stop it.

Although distinct dog breeds have been around for thousands, the current extremes in dog breeding became popular only about 150 years ago. That's when three things started to go wrong:

1) Closed studbooks leading to loss of genetic diversity
2) Increased genetic disease due to inbreeding
3) Breeding for extreme physical traits that affect dogs' quality of life

Unfortunately, many dog breeders don't think this is a problem. Many people are caught up in this fad of breeding and can't see that they're hurting the dogs they love. Other breeders simply don't care as long as it gets them a ribbon in the show ring and/or money from puppy sales.

Whether they're good people or not, whether they love dogs or not, whether they commit these crimes out of ignorance or not, these types of breeding practices should not be supported.

Here are some rough guidelines to choosing an ethical dog breeder. They are different from what you've probably read from the ASPCA or other animal welfare groups, and very different from what the AKC would have you believe. But, choosing a puppy based on these guidelines is one small step to ensuring that we have a healthy population of dogs for years to come.


How to Spot an Ethical Dog Breeder:


1) Their animals are housed, fed, and exercised appropriately based on individual needs
2) They use inbreeding sparingly, if at all
3) They support outcrossing/backcrossing
4) They avoid increasing obvious heritable disease in the population
5) They don't breed for extreme physical traits
6) They genuinely like dogs, and do things with them besides breed them
7) They take genuine interest in their puppies, and will always take them back if needed


Explanation:

1) Their animals are housed, fed, and exercised appropriately based on individual needs
There's no checklist for this. For example, dogs and puppies with "ribs showing" is normal on say, a Boxer, Saluki or German shorthair pointer. Likewise, many people think dogs should never live outdoors, but there are lots of dogs who are happy, or are actually meant to live outside 24/7. Having a large number of dogs on the property also isn't necessarily a bad thing: many breeding programs focused on genetic diversity, for example, require having lots of dogs around. It's also good for young puppies to socialize with adult dogs who aren't their parents. And some breeders just really like having a lot of dogs, which isn't bad if they're all cared for appropriately. Cleanliness is often misleading: some of the worst puppymills in the world are as sterile as a hospital room, while some of the best breeders, if caught on a bad day, will have puppies temporarily covered in their own poop.

Red flags: the dogs show signs of kennel insanity, (repetitive behaviors like spinning, ceaseless barking or lunging, etc); the breeders won't let you see the dogs "behind the barn"; they have small breed dogs that are never allowed inside; extreme matting on long-haired dogs; any dog that is housed with little to no human contact (with the rare possible exception of working livestock guardian dogs); puppies are listless, dull eyes, dull coats, bellies look bloated with worms, etc. or adult dogs are unhealthily fat; etc.

Good signs: they are happy to show you any and all animals on their property (not just dogs) and don't get offended by questions; even dogs that are kenneled/crated seem content (though they may be excited to see you);

2) They use inbreeding sparingly, if at all
Breeding close relatives on purpose is a tool that has been used for thousands of years in dog breeding. However, it is being over-used to the extreme today. Even healthy-looking dogs without obvious genetic disease are affected by a thing called "inbreeding depression". It causes immune system problems, difficulty conceiving, and small litter sizes, and shorter life spans. Inbreeding also reduces genetic diversity. Inbreeding is easy to avoid in this day and age, with most pedigrees available online, and so many ways to network and find mates for dogs. And we have so much knowledge about genetics now it's really a crime to ignore or deny it.

Red flags: they make excuses for why they "have to" breed close relatives; they claim that certain bad things are "normal for the breed" like small litter size, short life span, certain deformities or disease, etc;

Good signs: they are happy to explain their dogs' pedigree and breeding choices; they are outspoken about going out of there way to to avoid inbreeding even when it's difficult; they support outcrossing (see below);


3) They support outcrossing/backcrossing
Outcrossing is another tool that has been used in dog breeding for thousands of years (see below for more info). Unfortunately, (and inexplicably) many breeders and breed clubs like the AKC, are rabidly against backcrossing. They have been duped into believing a closed studbook is not only a good thing, it's the only way to breed dogs. Even though studbooks have only been closed for about 150 years or less (depending on the breed). They think that bringing in new blood somehow diminishes the breed, when in fact, when done thoughtfully, it only makes dogs healthier, happier, and longer-lived (see below for examples of outcrossing).

Red flags: they become angry at the mere mention of outcrossing; they claim outcrossing actually increases disease; they deny it's needed; they think it's possible to "breed out" disease within a closed studbook (this is a very common myth which simply isn't true: see below for more information).

Good signs: they actively support outcrossing for any breed, especially within their own; if they're breeding crossbreeds like labrodoodles, for example, they do so just as thoughtfully as if they were "purebred" breeders (with a critical eye on each parent, basic health screening, etc).

4) They avoid increasing obvious heritable disease
Most genetic disease is "invisible" meaning you can't tell a dog is affected or an unaffected carrier just by looking at it. Some diseases are visible or can be tested for. Still others occur on a gradient, meaning some dogs are affected worse than others. Sadly, many breeders will still breed dogs even when they know have diseases they will pass on to their puppies. This is another negative effect of closed studbooks being considered "normal", and considering many inbred-caused diseases to be "normal for the breed" and "not a big deal".

Before looking for a puppy, find out what diseases the breed is prone, and what kind of tests are available/common for the breed. Ask questions of the breeder, like: are the parents affected? The grandparents or aunts and uncles? Try to choose breeders that are actively outcrossing to eliminate or or "dilute" the disease (for example, if you want a dalmatian, only choose a one that is a LUA dalmatian).

Red flags: They don't do any testing at all (though many things don't have a "test"); they make excuses for diseases "it's normal", "it's not that bad", or that it's impossible to avoid breeding a carrier .

Good signs: the breeder is open and honest about diseases in their breed and/or in their dogs; the breeder has changed their mind about breeding a litter based on known or possible heritable disease (and is happy to explain why); they are actively outcrossing/crossbreeding to improve genetic health.

5) They don't breed for extreme physical traits
This is sometimes the hardest to convince people about, but extreme traits make life miserable for many dogs, all in the name of "fashion".

We all think pugs are cute, for example. But unfortunately, the average pug suffers every day of its life because of its physical deformities (see below for more info).  Dogs are great at putting on a brave face even while suffering, so even though they seem happy, they would be so much happier if we stopped supporting breeders who make them so extreme, and instead choose puppies that are more moderate in appearance (they're still cute!).

Pictured: illustration c. 1900 of non-extreme pugs that still look like pugs

It's not just pugs of course. English bulldogs and pekes have noses too short to breath properly; a lot of German shepherds have crooked backs and legs; most basset hounds have too much skin and parts of them drag on the ground; most Neapolitan mastiffs have way too much skin and are prone to skin ear and eye infections/injury... the list goes on.

There's even a word for it: "Qualzucht" which means "torture breeding", and it's so widespread that there is legislation against it in some European countries.

None of them have to look this way, despite what many people think. And what's more, and up until about 150 years ago, they didn't. Over just a few generations breeders have gotten off track to the point that even the general public thinks certain breeds "always look like that". Dogs are suffering for it.

All the excuses for keeping extreme traits are wrong. They're wrong morally, ethically, historically, and biologically.

Finding ethical breeders is harder for some breeds than others. For example, currently people who breed English bulldogs are almost all unethically breeding dogs with extreme short muzzles, skin problems, inability to conceive or give birth naturally, and can't cool themselves properly. They may be nice people and even think they love their dogs, but it doesn't change that what they do is horrible. Ethical breeders are out there, you just have to look harder to find them.

Red flags: simply having lots of ribbons in the show ring is a red flag since right now judges for most breed clubs reward extreme traits; the look of their dogs should speak for themselves: if it can't run, can't breath, or some part of it drags on the ground, too many wrinkles, too short of a nose... odds are it's suffering needlessly; they make excuses for extreme traits: "it's not that bad", "if it doesn't look like that, it's not really a (insert breed name here)", "it's cuter that way", "it's meant to be that way"; another red flag is breeders who focus strongly on one or two physical things about their "special line" of dogs, color or ear shape, for example, it probably means they're losing sight of health and temperament.

Good signs: again, the shape of the dog (usually) speaks for itself. Currently a breeder who focuses on a healthy shape is sometimes considered an "outcast" in the mainstream breeding culture (depending on the breed: it's especially true of the breeds listed above). They often advertise the fact that they're breeding this way, often using words like "working strain", or "old fashioned" or "moderate" versions of the breed. Keep in mind there are many ethical breeders that don't go dog shows, and often their dogs aren't able to be registered with a breed club. Sometimes breeders who want to reform or stop the downslide of a breed end up changing the name, or give a new name to their particular strain. For example, compare the "Olde English Bulldogge" or a "Leavitt Bulldog" to the modern "English Bulldog".


6) They genuinely like dogs, and do things with them besides breed them
Working, hunting, herding, playing, hiking, sports, etc. This criteria eliminates puppymill breeders from the equation, and also some show ring breeders  Remember: just because it has a shiny coat and "papers", doesn't mean it's not being abused or neglected.

There's nothing wrong with a dog who's only job is to hang out with people, but we should expect a bit more from dog breeders than we do the average dog owner.

Red Flags: they only touch their dogs to breed them, or show them; especially if they breed dogs with a lot of drive and energy whose original purpose involved work in some way.

Good signs: they are happy to talk about all the activities their dogs do, even the ones they sold years ago; at least some of their dogs do breed-specific activities (border collies and agility or herding; retrievers and dock diving or hunting; pit bulls and weight pulling; lap dogs and service dog work; etc, the list goes on, but you should know it when you see it).

 7) They take genuine interest in their puppies, and will take them back if needed
No ethical breeder wants any of their dogs to end up in an animal shelter, and they will take steps to make sure that doesn't happen. They may not have a written contract, but it should be clear that if a puppy buyer has to rehome a dog at any time, even if the dog is 15 years old, the breeder wants it back.

Red flags: they sell puppies to whoever comes with cash in hand, without giving out any information, business cards, signing a contract, getting contact information, etc. They don't show interest in puppies they've made in the past, or in who wants to buy their puppies or where they're going.

Good signs: a written contract that states clearly that they will take the dog back, no matter how much time as passed; the breeder microchips the puppies and lists themselves as a permanent secondary contact on the chip registry; the breeder wants to stay in contact, and wants occasional updates on how their dogs are doing, if they're good workers, if they've developed disease, etc.


NOTE:
There are many good, dog-loving people (who would be considered "responsible" by many) who are actually unethical dog breeders under these guidelines. The main culture of dog breeders have deeply held beliefs that they cling to with almost religious-like fervor, even as they're hurting dogs in both the short and long term.  As the saying goes, good intentions pave the way to hell. In the end, it doesn't matter if a breeder is a good person, or if they THINK they're doing the right thing. If Mother Teresa was breeding inbred pugs with no noses, I would criticize her, too.



Further Reading


Pedigreed Dogs Exposed - the documentary


The Canine Diversity Project

The Institute of Canine Biology

Canine Inherited Disorders Database

Inbreeding

Why is science so important to dog breeding? 
Why closed stud books are bad and outcrossing is good
Why is inbreeding bad?
The Science of Inbreeding 
What is Popular Sire Syndrome?
What is Inbreeding Depression

How to breed dogs with stronger immune systems
Why is inbreeding wrong? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Why health testing in purebred dogs is limited and won't save us from too much inbreeding
Poodles are in trouble from inbreeding

What has closed stud book done to the Afghan Hound
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and Episodic Falling Syndrome 


Outcrossing

How Backcrossing Works
Are Mixed Breeds Healthier?

Crossbreeds generally live longer
Outcross example in German Pinschers
Outcross example in Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers
Outcross example in Dalmatians

Extreme Physical Traits

What is 'Torture Breeding'
Another example of torture breeding
True history of the pug

Pug snores aren't "cute", they're slow, life-long torture
How the West ruined the Shar-pei
Show vs. working strain Labradors
Deformed basset hounds winning awards in the show ring
Deformed mastiff won "Best of Breed" at a Club UK's Breed Open Show
Structural problems in Frenchies (and what breeders AREN'T doing about it)
English bulldogs are all handicapped
100 years of breed "improvement"

Cultural Problems

Ignoring history and biology, breeders freak out over minor things like coat color
Kennel clubs don't guarantee healthy animals nor stop puppy mills


Acknowledgements
I'd like to especially thank a few people who are far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, have been writing about it longer than me, and are all-around inspiring and you should read their stuff:

Scott Westfall
Jess Ruffner
Christopher Landauer
Jemima Harrison
Heather Houlahan

Redefining "Responsible Breeder"

Due to my line of work, I often hear a lot of hate leveled at dog breeders.

If pressed, most rescuers will grudgedly admit that breeding dogs is OK, but only if it's done by "responsible breeders". Trouble is, our current, loose definition of "responsible breeder" is all wrong, and will hurt the long-term health of the dogs we love so much.


For example, consider this sale ad that came through my Facebook feed last year for Chesapeake Bay Retriever / German Shorthair Pointer cross puppies:

Or, for another example: that same year, a friend of mine had a litter of fourteen Labrador / German shorthair pointer cross puppies. They sold like hotcakes. Some people drove hundreds of miles to pick one up. Some went to pet homes, but most went to people who wanted an all-around hunting dog.


Both examples we'd probably call "backyard breeders". Bad, irresponsible people making mutts and taking away homes from shelter dogs, right? And yet we, as a dog-loving rescue community, should not only be OK with these breeders, we should be glad they bred their dogs. And we should hope that a few of the puppies from this litter grow up to have a few puppies of their own. 

Why? Because our current definition of "responsible breeding" is leading to a devastating loss of genetic diversity, increased accumulation of genetic disease, and dogs that suffer from extreme physical deformities that affect their quality of life.

This is a real problem that hardly anyone is talking about. Inbreeding causes problems all by itself, and so many people either aren't thinking about this, or are in denial about it. There is also the related but separate problem of genetic disorders that build up in purebred dogs over time. So many "responsible" dog breeders think that if they just breed "the best to the best", it will solve all genetic problems. This just isn't true.


There is no earthly reason that "responsible" should mean "pure bred". Crossbreeds are, on average, healthier and live longer than their "pure bred" counterparts. Closed stud books are a new and not terribly great idea. Most people also forget that closed stud books ignore breed histories where one or more closely related breeds traditionally mixed, but are now isolated. For no good reason.

The examples I gave above are not mutts. They are a  crossbreed of two complimentary dogs. This particular example happen to be hunting dogs, but crossbreeding is a fine idea if you want to make a dog who's job is to be a cute companion, too.

We rescue folks act like the shelters are over-flowing with puppies "from irresponsible breeders", but look around - you never see a lot of puppies in a shelter, or if you do, you won't see the same puppies if you visit a week later. Puppies are always in high demand. At the Oregon Humane Society, the largest animal shelter in Oregon, puppies are usually adopted the same day they hit the adoption room floor. They sometimes have to call other shelters looking for more puppies because they have more demand than supply.


There are a lot of reasons that dogs end up in shelters, but it's not because of "too many puppies". Take the two examples at the top of the page - those two litters of puppies went to homes that wouldn't have gone to a shelter anyway.


 

Now, let's look at a "responsible breeder".

Photo by Anne Goetz*

Anne Latimer Goetz breeds purebred, AKC-registered Neapolitan Mastiffs. She takes her dogs to shows, and wins prizes. They sleep in the house with her, get lots of cuddles and treats, and have a nice big yard to play in. She doesn't breed very often, and sells the puppies for a lot of money to select homes with a contract. She always allows buyers to meet the parents. I'm checking off all the little boxes on this form and, hey, it looks like we have bonafide "responsible breeder", right?

Photo by Anne Goetz*

Except that this woman is scum who should be criminally charged with animal abuse. The dogs she creates on purpose are deformed freaks who have never lived a fully comfortable day in their short, pain-filled lives. And that's just from their physical deformities. They're also an inbred, genetic mess, riddled with heritable disease that Anne (and so many like her) ignore or deny to avoid changing the way they do business.

Does Anne love her dogs? Probably. Is she an ethical dog breeder? Absolutely not.

Throw out the damn checklist, and stop using "backyard breeder" like it's a four-letter word. It's people like Anne who should be shunned from polite society. And she certainly doesn't deserve to be called "responsible".


EDITED 4/24/14: here are my revised suggested guidelines for what an ethical breeder actually looks like.





*Photos used under Fair Use doctrine for purposes of scholarly criticism. In case that wasn't clear.

Thoughts on Oregon Taking in California Shelter Dogs

I don't like it.

(TL:DR: don't support transport: think globally, but rescue locally.)


Yes, the volunteers advertising these "death row dogs" are doing a good thing.

Yes, the concerned citizens pledging money to save their lives ...are doing a good thing.

Yes, the rescues who pull these dogs, quarantine them, then transport them to another rescue  ...are doing a good thing.


Yes, the rescues, shelters, volunteers, and foster homes in Oregon who accept these dogs ....are doing a good thing.

And yet... the whole thing is stinks.

How can so many kind, giving people, doing good things equal a whole of badness?

...Because California has twelve times the GDP that Oregon does, and has has ten times the number of people. The CITY of LA has roughly the same population as the entire STATE of Oregon. More people and more money means more adopters (customers), foster homes, donators, advertisers, volunteers, shoppers, photographers, etc. Why on earth are needy animals going North?! If anything, logic says they should be heading the opposite way!

...Because Oregon has plenty of our own dogs to worry about. I don't mean to say, 'no more California transfers until every shelter in Oregon is no-kill.' But it also doesn't makes sense that the shelters who take in California dogs are turning away local residents and rescuers who need help.

...Because these LA shelters are rotten, set in their ways, and every dog we help keeps them in business doing things the same way they always have. Until they change their operations and policies, we will see many more dogs needlessly killed than we can save.

This Face Book posting of a "death row" dog is just one example (among hundreds) of what's wrong. She came into the shelter with puppies. They became adoptable on Feb. 3, and were all adopted by Feb 9th. Now that the cute, highly adoptable puppies are gone, the shelter is threatening the mother with death, and won't lift a damn finger to help, not even to place a temporary death hold, even when another 501(c)(3) rescue offers to take her, and citizens have pledged at least $125 for her care. I grabbed screencaps:

Here's another terrible example from January, where the shelter threatened a mama and five puppies with death. People raised over $600 to save the entire family. Then the shelter suddenly realized how cute and adoptable the pups were, and then said they decided to keep the pups, and were only threatening to kill the mom. In the end, the mom was pulled, and the shelter is selling adopting out the moneymakers puppies.

Here's the way it should work:

Step 1) Shelter advertises a harder-to-adopt dog (no death threats, but simply asking for help).

Step 2) Another non-profit sees the ad and says "we'll take her".

Step 3) Shelter replies, "great, we will take care of the logistics and let you know when your dog will be arriving. We will do this legwork happily because: a) you're doing us a favor; b) we already have all the contact information for local rescues (my god, look how big this list is!) that will handle pulling/quarantine/transport; c) there are lots of people volunteering to help and giving us money; d) helping stray and homeless animals is why our organization exists and what we are PAID to do by tax dollars and/or donations."

It's called a rescue transfer. It's a very common practice. Not rocket science.

You know what else isn't rocket science? Employing other methods to save shelter animal lives, besides simply resorting to threatening the public with killing an animal.

a) They don't have their own website. North Central is one of several facilities that are part of LA's municipal shelter system. Just this one facility houses over 200 animals, and don't even have their own website.

b) If you visit their Petfinder page, it's undeveloped and ugly-looking, with a negative tone (highlighting zoonotic diseases, dogs biting children, and how difficult it is to adopt a dog from them), and almost half the animals listed for adoption don't even have photographs or descriptions, which is strange because they seem to have photos of all their animals elsewhere (though many are terrible). Having good photographs of shelter animals is very important, and easy to do.

c) The calender of events for the entire LA shelter system is empty. There is literally nothing planned for all of 2014. No adoption events, no fundraisers, nothing. They appear to do some fundraising around the holiday time, but they aren't making much of an effort to take advantage of the large population of LA pet lovers.

d) I randomly picked a meeting minutes to read, and lo and behold, it contains complaints from several volunteers that both the public and rescuers aren't treated well by employees at the shelter, and the shelter administration puts roadblocks in the way of rescue transfers.

e) They 'allow' (barely) outside volunteers to do all the marketing work for them (even the facebook page is maintained by volunteers outside the system) (also fundraising for them). Animal-lovers take and post and network photos and descriptions and as a thank you, the management threatens dogs with death, daily, unless these volunteers do all the work to save them.

In other words, they market terribly, put roadblocks to adoption/transfer, then complain that they're "forced" to kill adoptable animals. 

This is not something I want to support.



If one of my volunteers comes to me with a California dog they've especially fallen in love with, I will do what I can to help them.

But until these under-performing animal "shelters" in southern California start cleaning up their act, I want no part in supporting them. I will not advertise their dogs, I won't share their stories, I won't 'like' them on facebook, and I will actively discourage other rescues from doing the same.

No, I don't know if there's a fast way to force them to do their jobs correctly. They appear to be making a few steps in the right direction, but not enough, and not fast enough.

I do know it's possible. Simply removing roadblocks to transfer and adoption would probably get them most of the way towards not killing an average of 400 animals per month they are currently. (That's stats for the entire LA shelter system, not just North Central). There are obviously hundreds of people in the LA area willing to volunteer a lot of time and money to help these animals already: if half of the time and money were put towards demanding change at the shelters, it would lead to positive benefits that would help more animals in the long run then these last minute, desperate death row pulls do.


If the we, as a community of private rescues, save 300 dogs from this shelter this month, but they kill another 400 because of their own laziness, have we really helped all that much? If we instead focus on changing the shelter policies for the better, then we would instead have saved all 700... You see what I'm saying?
 
I can't do much about reforming a shelter hundreds of miles away. I already have my hands full rescuing local animals, and doing my best to reform the under-performing shelter in my own area. Reforming SoCal's shelters is going to have to be up to the caring citizens of SoCal.

Kill the excuses, not the dogs.

Senate Bill 6 in Oregon

As many of you know, I started a non-profit animal rescue organization two years ago in Hermiston, Oregon. I did this because I was working at a vet hospital and I saw a clear and urgent need for helping stray animals in the region.

When I started, there were exactly zero other 501c(3) private rescues in Hermiston and surrounding areas. Zero. There is no animal control accept the small, over-worked and under-funded city police forces, who will sometimes go out and catch stray dogs. They sometimes respond to reports of abuse/neglect, but most of the time ignore or don't follow up on these reports because they "don't have time" or "it's only a dog" (actual quotes from local police officers).

There is one shelter for the entire area. It is in Hermiston, it has a contract with the city and county to house stray cats and dogs. It is in a small and aging building, has essentially one staff member, and operates under very sloppy, outdated sheltering policies and is in no mood to work toward positive change. They end up euthanizing at least 50% of their animals and give all indications that they just don't care. This is the only group contracted (and paid) by the city and county to deal with community animals.

All the slack from this under-performing shelter and lack of animal control is being taken up by regular citizens and the (now two) non-profits in town. The same people being insulted by supporters of SB 6.


This is a statement in support of SB 6 from Sharon Harmon, the Executive Director of the Oregon Humane Society in Portland, the largest and most well-funded animal shelter in the state:

"In the last decade there has been a tremendous increase in the underground pet railroad. There are thousands of animals moving through these nontraditional groups in Oregon. ... these rescues fly under the radar in every sense... The phenomenon of animal rescue turned rescue hoarder is not too far down the continuum for many of these groups.... leads some people to believe any life is better than death, even if that means a slow and painful ... death ... That is what we saw in Brooks. We have a chance to regulate them now and we should take that opportunity before it happens again..."

There is a petition at Change.org that has a good, detailed response to Harmon and I encourage you to go to that link and read it (and sign the petition). Here's one important quote (links and bolding provided by me):

"Existing laws deal effectively with animal abuse and neglect. Failure to vigorously enforce existing animal abuse and neglect laws comes from the fact that most enforcement agencies grant low priority to animal protection. ... [This] cannot be corrected by passage of another law granting current enforcement agencies greater unfettered police powers and “deputizing” large corporate humane societies and government animal control agencies... the sponsors of Senate Bill 6 [state] that Sections 10 and 11 are “necessary” components of the bill because independent animal rescues are at “high risk” for animal abuse/neglect offense and must be regulated is shocking and completely unsupported by the facts. Exploiting one sensational criminal case, the Alicia Inglish case in Salem, Oregon, a case successfully prosecuted under existing laws, is a calculated misleading effort ... The incidence of neglect or abuse among Oregon’s hundreds of small independent rescues is extraordinarily rare. Why are independent rescues being targeted as a class instead of simply prosecuting abuse or neglect where it is found, individually or as an entity?

Under the guise of providing modest accountability, Sections 10 and 11 of Senate Bill 6 grant unfettered police powers to enforcement agencies to search and inspect the private property of rescues, often their homes and homes of foster families, without the need to show probable cause. That is very likely unconstitutional."

I'd also like to add that this "underground highway" that Harmon holds in such contempt... that's me. It's all of us who are working our asses off with no large organization's help. (Except when they occasionally accept healthy, vaccinated, highly adoptable puppies and kittens from us. Very magnanimous of them, btw).

I'd love to tell her one thing she's missing in her fervor: we don't want this. I feel I can speak for at least 90% of my fellow East Side rescuers when I say we'd much rather have a large, centralized organization to call for help. We all would prefer to be just a regular volunteers at such an organization; to clean cages, walk dogs, transport, foster, help out at spay/neuter clinics... all the stuff we're already doing, but without the help of large well-funded organizations, nice buildings, paid staff, high visibility, and large population centers.

And now they want to make our lives more difficult, and insult us in the process.
I urge you to call the Governor's Citizens' Representative Office at (503) 378-4582 and tell the Governor that Sections 10 and 11 of Senate Bill 6 are unacceptable, unconstitutional, useless in stopping animal abuse any better than already existing laws.

 Links and quotes on SB 6:

Full text of bill here.


A summary:

S.B. 6 defines “animal rescue entity” as “an individual or organization, including but not limited to an animal control agency, humane society, animal shelter, animal sanctuary or boarding kennel…, but excluding a veterinary facility, that keeps, houses, and maintains in its custody 10 or more animals and that solicits or accepts donations in any form.”

Under the bill all animal rescues must be licensed each year by local authorities. The “enforcing agency” will be the dog licensing and control program in the city or county or if there is none, then an agency designated by the local government.

Rescues are required to maintain records for each animal that state: date animal rescue entity acquired the animal; source of the animal; The number of offspring the animal produced while in the possession; age, sex, breed type and weight of the animal at intake; and lastly a photo of each animal taken within 24 hours of intake.

Under the bill each person or entity is subject to inspections including of records and must “furnish reports and information required by the enforcing agency”.

The bill would require that complaints about the animal rescue entity that are made to state agencies must be sent on to the enforcing agency. The enforcing agency would be required to conduct inspections if there has been a “credible and serous” complaint. Otherwise, the enforcing agency could conduct inspections at reasonable times. No license could be renewed unless the person or organization is in compliance. The enforcing agency would be required to seize evidence of animal cruelty violations and report it to law enforcement

According to animal law site: "It is not clear this new proposed law will have much impact in improving local animal control or public shelters. After all, the city or county would be responsible for enforcing these requirements against its own animal control or shelter. The greatest impact is likely to be on private animal rescues. The legislation was prompted by a raid in January, 2013 on Willamette Valley Animal Rescue in Brooks, Oregon where 149 dogs were seized and the operator, Alicia Inglish, was charged with 120 counts of animal neglect and one count of evidence tampering. It is hoped this bill, if signed into law, will serve to prevent such hoarding and cruel neglect."


 A letter:

Dear Senators:

I write in opposition to Sections 10 and 11 (as currently written, if not again amended) of Senate Bill 6 and, because I understand that the legislative process does not permit amendment to the Bill deleting those sections, I urge you to vote “no” when the Bill is presented on Monday, July 1, 2013.

I have practiced law in Oregon for over 40 years and, as my pro bono commitment to the profession, have devoted thousands of hours to the goal of protecting the rights of animals, animal owners, and people dedicated to the welfare of animals entrusted to their care. In my judgment, Sections 10 and 11 suffer from two major flaws. They (a) threaten the rights of the hundreds of people committed to saving animal lives by operating the small “animal rescue” entities that offer the last chance of survival for animals that public agencies cannot afford to save and (b) will make prosecution of those who abuse and neglect animals more difficult and costly. If Senate Bill 6 and Sections 10 and 11 become law in Oregon many – certainly hundreds and probably thousands – of animals who would otherwise be saved and permitted to live out their lives in humane and caring homes will be doomed.

The fundamental problem with Sections 10 and 11 of the Senate Bill is that those provisions purport to give broadly defined “enforcing agencies” the authority to conduct warrantless inspections of the homes of licensed small animal rescues upon receipt of “a complaint.” There is no provision for an independent assessment of the complainant’s credibility, not even a requirement that the complainant be identified. Many who conduct their rescue efforts with the highest regard for their animals will be reluctant to accept the intrusions that licensure requires. Worse still, it is highly likely – probably certain – that those who fully deserve prosecution under current laws will refuse to obtain licenses and by “going underground” achieve a practical immunity directly contrary to the purposes of the Bill.

In an email requesting that opposition to Senate Bill 6 be called off, the chief sponsor’s policy analyst acknowledged that “small rescues were not consulted in the writing of [SB 6]” and that, because “legislation is often not perfect the first go around,” the Bill could be “tighten[ed] up to target bad actors more specifically.” The time to properly target the “bad actors” and consult with those most knowledgeable about “small rescues” should precede – not follow – enactment. Please vote “no” on Senate Bill 6. In its current form, it will do more harm than good.

Robert E. Babcock

Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C.

310 North State Street, Suite 200

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

A letter from the Oregon Cat Project:

have you ever fostered a kitten or want to foster one in the future? You wont after you read State Senate Bill 6, a bill to be voted on on Saturday. It will allow agencies such as OHS, police powers to come in and search your home without probable cause. Well, there went all of TOCP's and most other small rescues foster homes. Good fosters are hard enough to find and there are never enough to help all the babies in need.

Cats and Kittens will literally have to be left in the street to survive on their own, as no small rescue will have the foster resources needed to take them in, if Senate Bill 6 passes this Saturday.

Please read on. This is written by the petition's author, Gail O'Connell.

July 03, 2013 Update: Small animal rescues in Oregon, the primary stakeholders affected by Sections 10 and 11 of Senate Bill 6, were not allowed a voice in this legislation by the bill’s main sponsors OHS and HSUS. When we asked for input we were told we had to first give up the right to object.

A False Claim: The proposition made by the sponsors of Senate Bill 6 that Sections 10 and 11 are “necessary” components of the bill because independent animal rescues are at “high risk” for animal abuse/neglect offense and must be regulated (by them) is shocking and completely unsupported by the facts. Exploiting one recent isolated sensational criminal case, the Alicia Inglish case in Salem, Oregon, a case successfully prosecuted under existing laws, is a calculated misleading effort driven by an unspecified political agenda. The incidence of neglect or abuse among Oregon’s hundreds of small independent rescues is extraordinarily rare. Why are independent rescues being targeted as a class instead of simply prosecuting abuse or neglect where it is found, individually or as an entity?

Under the guise of providing modest accountability, Sections 10 and 11 of Senate Bill 6 grant unfettered police powers to enforcement agencies to search and inspect the private property of rescues, often their homes and homes of foster families, without the need to show probable cause. That is very likely unconstitutional.

The Reality: No one works harder out of pocket, driven by compassion, than Oregon’s independent small animal rescues. That can be proven every day.

As small rescues we have no political agenda and no lobbyists at the legislature. Our mission is humanitarian not politically motivated or driven: rescuing and saving the lives of Oregon’s homeless companion animals. When small independent rescues fund raise we do so for the sake of homeless animals, not to fund campaign efforts. We have no other group purpose.

Large corporate animal protection societies, some who are sponsors of SB 6 have never represented us nor do they represent our interests now. We are the rescues that take the animals that large humane societies and county and city animal control agencies deem “unadoptable” and discard. If we didn’t take them they would have no future. The majority would be killed. We are given no funding by the corporate animal protection groups (including the bill’s sponsors) to meet the necessary and often prohibitively costly rehabilitation of the homeless animals they reject. For example, one small independent rescue was called by a large well endowed humane society and asked to take a Rottweiler puppy with hip dysplasia. The humane society kept the puppy’s littermate, the one without a handicap. Overwhelmingly small animal rescues (unlike corporate entities) provide all necessary care, do home checks as part of due diligence, take back adoption returns without question and correct the problem. Most corporate animal entities do not have the same exacting high standards. We do not abandon the animals we have been charged with caring for to the system.

We ask Oregon’s legislature to please allow our concerns and views to be heard. Take the time to pass a good bill, not a profoundly flawed bill with empty promises of later “corrections”. Vote to amend the bill and delete Sections 10 and 11. It is misguided and there are too many apparent civil rights violations for the bill to be enforceable.

Senate Bill 6 is now referred to the House Rules Committee. Representative John Davis has requested deletion of Sections 10 and 11.