Preaching to the Choir

People who work animal rescue have a lot in common with artists. None of them would devote so much energy and love unless they were passionate about the animals. Nor could they manage to save so many without finding some very creative ways to fund raise and promote their adoptables.
So its the height of romanticism to expect everyone in the rescue community to be on the same page all of the time. Even so, they generally stand together on certain issues:

• The need for a low cost/ high volume SNAP ( they might not all agree about TNR, but they do agree about that)
• Humane education is one of the most effective ways to encourage responsible pet ownership and of course
• Puppy mills need to be shut down and banned. They might not always agree on the how, but they all recognize that puppy mills create a heartache for unsuspecting pet owners and an unnecessary burden on animal rescue.

Many of the folks who read this blog are already part of the animal loving community. That doesn't mean that I'm just 'preaching to the choir". It is a natural thing to talk to our friends and family about the things that interest us. The whole point of this blog is to encourage folks to do just that.

So I would encourage you to let your friends and family know that tomorrow, CBC Marketplace http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/ is doing a feature called "HOW NOT TO BUY A PUPPY" If you live here in NS, that should be on at 8:30 pm on CBC. If you miss the show, you can always catch it on their web page.

Some people just don't get the picture until they see it in the media. Pretty much everyone reading this blog is at least acquainted with the issues and has been to http://www.nopuppymillscanada.ca/.

The only folks who have been arguing in favour of the puppy mills are the big commercial breeders who do not want to see restrictions placed on their businesses. It is not in their interests to see the laws changed.

Yet, it will take more than changing the laws to permanently put puppy mills out of business. Retailers have learned from experience to never underestimate the power of the educated consumer.

Please encourage your friends and family to watch this show. Every person who is awakened to the issue is one more person who will be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

When NIMBY gets in the way of justice

From this morning's Herald
Woman fined $5 for drowning kittens SPCA upset
By IAN FAIRCLOUGH Valley BureauTue. Mar 3 - 8:24 AM
The provincial SPCA says a $5 fine handed to a Windsor woman for drowning two newborn kittens in a bucket of water is "a travesty of justice."
The woman, in her 50s, pleaded guilty to cruelty to animals after drowning the pair of two-day-old stray kittens in Windsor last year.
Sean Kelly, chairman of the investigation committee for the SPCA, said a staff member told him that the prosecutor seemed nonchalant about the case in Windsor provincial court because the woman had been unable to get help from the SPCA in taking the kittens’ stray mother, and the prosecutor had also been trying to get the organization to deal with a stray on his property.
"The SPCA is not an animal control group, unless we have a contract with a municipality," Mr. Kelly said. "We do not take in stray cats."
He said it cost the SPCA more than $5 in gas just to drive to the Windsor courthouse for Monday’s proceedings.
He said prosecutor Bill Fergusson agreed with a defence request for the fine.
Mr. Kelly said the normal range for cruelty charges is $500 to $1,000 and long-term prohibition from owning animals.
"If they’re unable to pay, we look for lengthy prohibition (from owning animals) and probation," he said.
He said he’s worried the case could set a precedent for future sentences, and the SPCA is lodging a formal complaint with the Public Prosecution Service.
But Mr. Fergusson said he had two options: take the fine and get a conviction, or go to trial and likely lose.
He said in talking with the defence lawyer, it seemed likely that the arguments she would make at trial would lead to an acquittal, so he accepted the woman’s guilty plea in exchange for a minimal fine.
She was charged under Section 11 (2) of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act, which states that "no owner of an animal or person in charge of an animal shall cause or permit the animal to be or to continue to be in distress."
"I was more concerned with the conviction than a large fine," Mr. Fergusson said, adding that the woman is on welfare and wouldn’t have been able to pay anyway.
He asked for a small fine and the defence lawyer came up with the $5 figure.
Mr. Fergusson said a prohibition order would be unnecessary because the woman doesn’t want to own animals and was only feeding the kitten’s mother as a stray. He said the woman was unable to look after the kittens and had said that they were not doing well before she drowned them in a bucket of water.
He said probation is not a penalty available under the animal cruelty act.
The judge told the woman that pleading guilty would show others that it is not acceptable to drown kittens, Mr. Fergusson said.
He said while he does have an issue with the stray cat problem in Windsor and the fact the SPCA doesn’t have mechanisms in place to deal with that, securing the conviction, not a vendetta against the organization, was the primary reason he did not argue the amount of the fine.
The conviction means the woman will have a prior case on her record should she ever be facing a similar charge again, which can lead to an increased penalty.
( ifairclough@herald.ca)
The purpose of any legal penalty is to provide a suitable deterrent to discourage repetition of an offense. If I was horrified yesterday when I read the press release, today's article opens up a whole new world of questions.
Very likely all the participants did not consider this to be worth pursuing. In light of the prosecutor's bias based on his own experience, the SPCA is quite right to be concerned about the precedent set by this ruling and to file a formal complaint.
There is a better solution, but its unrealistic to expect the SPCA to accept feral cats into its care. Anyone familiar with TNR already knows that feral cats do not want to become housecats.
Nathan Winograd once said "Strategies for saving feral cats (and their offspring, who can make up the bulk of the kitten population in our shelters) cannot rely solely on aggressive adoption programs or strategies appropriate for healthy andtreatable pets. The answer for feral cats lies in community based programs that allow them to live out their lives side by-side with the rest us, while we devise other programs to humanely control their numbers "
The key there is community based programs. The TNR groups are only one part of this equation. Successful feral cat management also needs tended cat colonies, with :

• one or more committed caregivers,
• shelter from the elements,
• funding assistance for the TNR costs,
• protection and/or exemption from 'cat at large' bylaw, and of course, most importantly of all
• cooperation of the neighbours.

The public prosecutor doesn't want stray cats around. The person who drowned the kittens doesn't want them around. Any of my neighbours with gardens or birdfeeders don't want them around.

No one expects the society to take in feral cats. The cats themselves don't want that. But they could sure use a public information campaign with articles in the media explaining the benefits of TNR and tended cat colonies:

• Many people do not understand about the 'vacuum effect' .... when ferals are rounded up and killed, more will simply establish themselves in the area to 'fill the vacuum".
• The 'Neuter' in TNR is the reason that it provides effective population control for ferals. Over time, colonies naturally grow smaller as they cannot reproduce. In that same space of time, unaltered cat populations multiply rapidly. Without the 'Neuter" caregivers are part of the problem, not the solution.
• Tended colonies are healthier because they are tested and vaccinated
• Altered cats who are being regularly fed are much less of a nuisance to neighbourhood gardens
• There is no scientific proof that feral cats decimate wildlife populations. The culprit is urban spread, pollution, destruction of natural habitats and dwindling natural food sources.

TNR groups should not have to shoulder the expenses by themselves. Assistance from the municipalities in the province would enable them to devote more time to TNR work, instead of spending so much time fundraising to pay their vet costs

Nor should TNR groups be expected to provide low cost spay neuter services for house cats. That is a separate ball of wax that should be part of a low cost, high volume spay / neuter program.

Population control for cats needs both TNR and SNAP. Its a little bit country out where I live ... enough so that people still regularly dump pregnant cats out on our road. SNAP would help minimize the dumping. TNR and tended colonies would reduce the populations that are already there. Why is that such a hard sell?

In the meantime, someone needs to let our provincial prosecutors know that cruelty to feral cats is still animal cruelty

Update on A Step on the Right Path

I have it on good authority that the Board Members who went on the site visit to the Cape Breton SPCA brought back eleven dogs with them to Metro ..... giving the CB branch room to save eleven more.
In so much dark, no light is little - Mark Van Doren

Update on the Pet Projects Adoption Fair

Do off site adoption fairs work? You bet. I was very happy to receive an email to let me know that eight good cats and kittens will now have great homes for life.
Sometimes people don't realize they are still saving lives when they adopt from No Kill groups. Every adoption liberates shelter or foster space so that one more good pet in need can be rescued.

SPCA Cruelty Case results in a $5.00 fine for Killing Cat

From the SPCANS home page, SPCA Cruelty Case Results in $5 Fine for Killing Cat
March 2, 2009Halifax, NS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SPCA Cruelty Case Results in $5 Fine for Killing Cat
The Nova Scotia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty wishes to report a huge setback in their work to toughen penalties for those who choose to torture and kill animals.
After a resident of Hants County pleaded guilty in provincial court today to killing a stray cat by drowning, the crown prosecutor in the case asked the judge for a menial $5 fine for the perpetrator because, the prosecutor argued, "The SPCA will not touch them (stray cats)" and he blamed the charity for neglecting to take in the stray cat.
Nova Scotia SPCA Chair of Investigations, Sean Kelly, expressed his frustration, "The SPCA does not normally take in stray animals due to the limited resources of our branches and shelters; in addition, stray animals are first and foremost an animal control function, which is a municipal responsibility, and in Hants County, the municipality does not have a contract with the SPCA to take in stray animals on their behalf." Mr. Kelly said this is a common misconception but it is very frustrating to hear the courts blaming the SPCA for a municipal responsibility. "Animal control's mandate is stray animals; our mandate is the prevention of cruelty. What has happened here is yet another case of animal cruelty in Nova Scotia being treated with a slap on the wrist. It is so very frustrating for those of us working hard to live up to the public expectation of prosecuting cruel acts to animals only to have the courts work against us."
Mr. Kelly said the $5 fine is a slap in the face to the SPCA, which receives no public funding other than a $3,000 annual grant from the Department of Agriculture, and flies in the face of the Society's efforts to promote the humane treatment of all animals, stray and owned. "It costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to carry out our mandate of prevention of cruelty and while we are providing an important public service that people have come to expect from us, we are doing it on fundraised dollars and donations. It's a huge responsibility to live up to without funding."
The Society is disappointed that a crown prosecutor would publicly blame the charity for a municipal responsibility. "What this case has done is it has made it okay to kill any stray animal by drowning it," said Mr. Kelly, "clearly there is a need here to educate our prosecutors on what our mandate is versus the mandate of the municipality, and to educate them on what responsibilities lie with the municipality's Animal Control division."
Despite their limited resources and mandated focus on the prevention and investigation of animal cruelty, SPCAs in Nova Scotia provide shelter and care to approximately 5,000 abandoned, unwanted, neglected and abused cats every year.
Media requests and interviews may be directed to media@spcans.ca or by calling 835-4798.
For those of you who are outraged by this, the most effective way to address this is by contacting your MLA to encourage them to bring this issue before the House. How do you do that? For those of you who haven't bookmarked the link by now, here is where to go to find the contact information for your MLA
http://www.gov.ns.ca/LEGISLATURE/MEMBERS/directory/constituencies.html
If you are wondering which is the most effective point of contact, the home riding office of your MLA is always the best bet. Never content yourself with an email ... always follow through with a personal phone call. You are not being a nuisance ... these are your elected representatives and it is their job to bring your concerns to their caucus and to the House of Assembly.
Remember that the Crown Prosecutors work for your government. Your government can only work for you if you speak up.
Tell your MP's this insulting and inadequate decision isn't the kind of thing that will help the government PR campaign touting NS as a Good Place to Live.

A step on the right path

From the publicly available online minutes of the February 23, 2009 Meeting of the SPCANS BOD :
8. Cape Breton Site Visit Briefing
Sean Kelly briefed the Board on the visit by himself, Dr. Andrew Morrison and Kat Horne to the Cape Breton branch on the weekend of February 14th, 2009. In addition to the provincial Board members, the meeting was attended by Mel Neville, President of the Cape Breton Branch; Whitfield Best, member of the Cape Breton branch Board of Directors; Patsy Rose, Manager of the Cape Breton SPCA shelter; and Dr. Dave Rozee, advising veterinarian to the Cape Breton SPCA.
Sean reported that the meeting was very positive and that several areas of improvement were identified and discussed. The gas chamber and humane methods for euthanizing were the initial topics for discussion. It was identified that the gas chamber equipment and processes currently in place at the branch were deficient and needed to be addressed promptly. The consensus of those present was that use of the gas chamber should be stopped and the branch would provide the provincial Board with a timeline and plan for eliminating its use. Sean offered to provide a draft intake policy to the branch to address the large number of animals accepted into the shelter.
Other topics discussed included the branch’s open intake policy, practice of euthanizing feral cats and owner-surrendered animals, public and media relations, and how the branch could improve their image in the community and the province. Minutes of the meeting were recorded it was agreed that they would be publicly released. Public Minutes of Meeting of February 23, 2009
The key outcomes of the meeting where: 1) gas chamber use will be eliminated based on a timeline to be provided to the provincial Board before the AGM in April; 2) once a new intake policy is in place, intake of feral cats and owner-surrendered pets for the sole purpose of euthanasia will be stopped.
Actions: Brittany Hilton to provide Sean with information on distinguishing strays from feral cats. Sean to contact Mel Neville to review draft meeting minutes prior to posting on the provincial website.
This is a far cry from a solution, but it IS a start. A good start that outstrips anything previous BOD's have accomplished. Instead of accepting the status quo, this board has actually taken a step down what I suspect will still be a rocky road for some time to come.
There are very few issues that have aroused the ire of the animal loving community quite so much as the continued use by the Cape Breton Branch of the gas chamber. There have been repeated cries to rescind the branch status over this issue.
The gas chamber isn't just an atrocity in its own right. Its existence has enabled the Cape Breton Branch to accept a steady stream of animals surrendered by the owners to be killed. It is an obscenity that has stood in the way of more humane solutions for the feral cat problem in Cape Breton.
Last, but not least, its continued use has tarred every branch in the society with the same dirty brush.
When this issue was first broached in a previous meeting, the branch president couldn't see any solutions past getting sufficient funding to kill the animals by the approved means. Better solutions were discussed that will have a real impact on the lives of the animals in Cape Breton.
I know I've said it before, but its just as true now.... we need to decide whether we need to get even or we want to make a difference. Here in the real world, we rarely, if ever, get to do both.
Does that mean I am content to see the gas chamber still there? Not a chance. But I am fifty four years old, not fourteen .... and am cautiously optimistic that the tide is finally turning.

If we try hard enough

It was pretty slippery underfoot this morning when the dogs and I went out for our first early morning stroll. I'm glad I don't have to drive anywhere today, because my driveway is a sheet of ice that is well camouflaged by a thin skiff of snow.
On a day like this, I'm really grateful to have lots of trails around the yard. The dogs were able to enjoy their usual leisurely first inspection tour of the yard, checking for overnight 'tourists' on their turf. After I had my coffee, we didn't need to take our chances on the driveway to head out for our morning hike. We just worked our way around our little trails until we got out to the road.
Right now Mother Nature is doing her best to wash away the snow and ice and with any luck, by Wednesday we might even see some bare ground. But for today, it is a great thing to still be able to head out for our hike even if we had to detour to get out.
If I've learned one thing in fifty four years, its that its always good to have a plan b. That's why the other day I did the post about the need to have a plan to protect our pets when we aren't able to ( Assumption is the mother of some very unhappy tails ) These days it seems that every week there are more good pets coming into rescue because their guardians have either gone into nursing homes or passed away.
With everything that's happening in the world, I'm grateful beyond measure to be retired, and not to be dependant on a privately managed pension plan. When jobs are flowing out the window faster than EI can process the applications, these are rough days for almost everyone out there.
In light of that, this is a very good time for responsible pet owners to be looking at what their personal plan b would be if they were to lose their jobs. Rising prices have chipped away at a lot of rainy day funds and it is becoming more and more rare for anyone to have the traditional safety net of three months salary in savings.
We should love our pets enough to have a plan B. I'm fifty four years old and so I have learned that having a contingency plan is a great stress reliever. Instead of pacing the floor in the middle of the night, now would be a great time for people to:

• Arrange for a caregiver. Anyone who has set up a pet trust can tell you that this is not something that is settled quickly. It takes time to find a responsible person, and an alternate, who is not only willing but is able to properly care for our pets. For some people, this could be as simple as asking Mom to look after the cat. For others, it may involve a lengthy road that is paved a multitude of 'no I'm sorry - I can'ts' before the right caregiver is found.
• At the risk of stating the obvious, make sure that your caregiver is not a coworker.
• If you can afford it now ( and how can you not? ) get pet insurance
• Get your pets microchipped. If you have to move to find work, they will be even more unsettled than you and it could make all the difference if they panic and run away. Microchipping is a lot cheaper than it used to be.
• Keep your pets vaccinations and health checks current. If your caregiver already has pets, this will protect everyone. If the worst happens, and you absolutely will be unable to keep your pets, they will be easier to adopt if they have a health record to prove they have been well cared for.
• Make sure your dogs are well socialized. If all else fails and they have to go to a shelter, it could make a life and death difference for them.
• Stick away a small amount every pay. Should you need to rent, being able to offer a potential landlord a special damage deposit for your pets could make a world of difference in keeping your 'furkids'
• If your dogs aren't used to travelling in the car, start taking them for car rides. That way, if you have to move away to get work your dogs will be able to travel, and of course
• Check your mortgage and credit card to make sure they are ensured for job loss

I'm normally a glass half full person, but one would have to be an ostrich not to notice what's happening in the world. Still, I have lived long enough to see that government plans to boost the economy often fall short of the mark. At the end of the day, to paraphrase Mick, we don't always get what we want .... but if we try hard enough we just might find we can get what we /our pets need.