Council member Berg’s Pet Advocacy Legislation is Well Intentioned, but Needs Work

132
4804
Hawaiian Humane Society touts record of 22 adoptions per day but advocates say more needs to be done to stop euthanizing animals
article top
Hawaiian Humane Society touts record of 22 adoptions per day but advocates say more needs to be done to stop euthanizing animals

BY TERESA LYNN CHAGRIN – Honolulu council member Tom Berg should be applauded for his concern for the plight of homeless dogs and cats (“Oahu’s Cats and Dogs on Death Row Deserve Better,” Sept. 24). The legislation he proposes, however, fails to address the source of the problem and would cause more animals to suffer.

Though it’s clear that Mr. Berg has the best of intentions, he fails to consider that the humane society is run by trained professionals familiar with all aspects of the animal overpopulation crisis. Their primary mission is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of animals while protecting the public, not to buoy the spirits of the people who bring animals to shelters.

inline

California’s disastrous Hayden Law, cited by Mr. Berg as the inspiration for his bill, was put together by lawyers and aides with no experience running animal shelters, and it shows: Doing nothing to curb breeding—the real cause of the animal overpopulation crisis—it instead takes away shelters’ ability to keep animals healthy by controlling the spread of diseases and to give the most adoptable animals the best chance of finding a home through necessary means, including euthanasia of animals with little to no chance of adoption.

Under the Hayden Law, shelters couldn’t euthanize the animals they took in unless the animals were already to the point of death—even if that meant enduring prolonged suffering from diseases or injuries that made them unlikely prospects for adoption. One California newspaper, in an article titled, “Too Close for Comfort: New State Law Is Killing Animals,” explained how the law reduced adoptions while raising euthanasia rates.

We all want to see the number of euthanized animals decrease, but the Hayden Law debacle shows that this goal can’t be accomplished just by making it nearly impossible for shelters to use euthanasia to address the current crisis. As one former shelter volunteer explained after visiting an overburdened facility, “As I passed the kennels, each crammed with too many dogs and puppies, many of them sick or diseased, I was reminded again that euthanasia is not the worst thing that can happen.”

To become a truly no-kill community means becoming a no-birth community by mandating spaying and neutering of dogs and cats to stop the flow of unwanted litters into shelters. Readers (or council members) who wish to learn more about helping homeless animals can visit www.PETA.org.


Teresa Lynn Chagrin is an Animal Care & Control Specialist for PETA in Norfolk, VA

Comments

comments

bottom

132 COMMENTS

  1. This is completely made up by a group dedicated to the extermination of companion animals: https://bit.ly/LnRGAx. Under California's Hayden law, the number of animals saved by rescue groups, rather than killed increased 370% from roughly 12,000 to over 58,000 a year, all at no cost to taxpayers. Hawaii's animals deserve the same. Instead, a group which kills over 95% of all animals, despite readily available lifesaving alternatives, because they consider pets a "slave" relationship is committed to business as usual in our "catch and kill" shelters.

    • If only you would put a fraction of the energy and resources you have, and use your scorched earth campaign to go after the breeders, the AKC, the Hunte Corporation instead of attacking the HSUS, PETA and the ASPCA, you could make a difference in the lives of so many sheltered animals. But, you've chosen to align yourself with breeders and lobbyists like Christie Keith and Yes Biscuit's Shirley Thistlewaite. A shelter movement which has breeders, lawyers and lobbyists on its' cheering squad and leadership team is a sham and a sorry con.

    • That's not true, Winograd, and you know it. First of all there are no studies showing that the rescues saved anything under the Hayden. That is all conjure on your part. Second, the Hayden states that anyone who presents themselves as a "rescue" can take animals from shelters, you don't have to be a 501c3. Can anyone say hoarders abound in California because of the Hayden? Plus Mr. Winograd who supports the Hayden, also supports the euthanization of puppies and kittens under 8 weeks because the Hayden tells shelters to euthanize those because they are considered unadoptable. Our shelters are being held hostage by No Kill rescues and it has been a mess. This article and video plainly shows what happened to our California shelters under this morbid act. While you're at it, ask Mr. Winograd about Philly. That miserable failure of his program even had his hand picked management staff who couldn't make it work. Winograd's program doesn't work and the examples of that abound.

    • Just please don't vomit on the bride and groom, you are not such a " chattygoon" on this forum; and for good reason.I do wish for the welfare of the companion animals you could grow some compassion.

      • Simple reason for my silence – I know you are afraid but I will share it again and dare you to read this.
        https://www.doggedblog.com/doggedblog/2012/10/why-

        And until you do read it, and can give a logical answer to it my new motto remains: "Never try to argue with a kill shelter apologist. They are much more fluent in "stupid" than you are."

        And if by "compassion" you mean become a companion animal killer apologist I am sure the companion animals prefer me just the way I am – working towards No Kill in my community. By the way, what IS your real name?

      • When you can't use logic or debate the message I notice how y'all consistently resort to personal attacks towards the messenger. Like I said, I know the truth scares the crap out of you because then you would have to accept the guilt of participating in and/or advocating for the unnecessary slaughter of companion animals.

      • Yet you don't call out the breeders, the brokers, the puppy mills as killers, who due to apparently insatiable greed fill our shelters with the proof of their callous disregard for the lives of these animals.
        That's what one comes to expect from Winograd and his followers, though. It's as if the lack of strict regulations on breeders, has nothing to do with this crisis. The breeders, the dealers, the brokers and the puppy mills get a free pass from you, while the shelters and the animals who arrive at their door bear the brunt of your anger.

  2. A well written and comprehesive summary of the current state of affairs in the "animal welfare community". The determination of "no kill" advocates who rely on "rescue groups" and adoptions to empty shelters, bursting at the seams with animals surrendered and impounded by the same public that now is expected to do better, is insane. "Resue groups" barely move the animals that they foster and shelters are giving them away. Many of the animals will end up in a shelter again or add to the "feral" cat population. Eventually bailing water is not enough, the hole needs to be plugged. I am certain that may of the animals "saved" from euthanasia would have preferred to be euthanized instead of sitting in cages for months or years waiting for their "loving forever home".

  3. You are "certain that may? of the animals "saved" from euthanisia would have preferred to be euthanized instead of sitting in cages for months or years"? No, you are delusional. Where there is life, there is hope, and animals will always choose life for themselves. It is delusional humans who choose death so they don't have to feel guilty about all they are not doing to help the animals because killing them is easier. Why do you have them sitting in cages for months or years? That is inexcusable and there is no reason for it in any shelter. Every community has lots of people who are happy to volunteer to see the animals get play time and exercise and socialization. Non kill shelters know this. The ones who lose sight of it are the ones who feel it is easier to turn to killing, because it's hard to get volunteers to support that.

      • Maria is really " Lucy Van Pelt of Huff Post fame" Read her real life and you will find little nimal experience, so she is just making do with what she has.

  4. Teresa Lynn Chagrin is a self proclaimed Animal Care & Control expert for PeTA, nothing more and nothing less. We all know what the end goal of PeTA is, we only have to look at the kill statistic in their own slaughterhouse in Norfolk, VA where between 96% and 98% of all animals are being killed for absolutely no reason. On the other hand, the reason for the high kill rate is that PeTA's goal is to extinguish ownership of companion animals as Ingrid Newkirk has stated herself in one of her Books. As I wrote some time ago on my Blog (https://nokillallegany.com):
    "
    Teresa, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

  5. I think that Ms. Chagrin needs to provide some proof to back up this claim: "Under the Hayden Law, shelters couldn't euthanize the animals they took in unless the animals were already to the point of death…"

    I'll wait.

  6. Rose, how do you propose "the hole be plugged?" Just kill them all? Why bother having shelters at all, is that your proposed solution? Yes, all shelters should emulate PETA, and become euthanization organizations. What, exactly, is the problem with requiring the HHS to simply notify people of death row animals – so that foster homes and networks, potential adopters, and other rescue orgs with space have the opportunity to prevent their death? We're talking about a process of notification. Oh that's right… pets shouldn't exist at all.

  7. City Council Member Tom Berg will be holding a public hearing on October 9, at 10:30 a.m. at Honolulu Hale on this matter. He "encourage testimony on Bill 57 CD1 that if passed, will mandate that the HHS, if it wants to continue to receive city funds, must post on its website the number of animals about to be killed 24-hours in advance. This is the least we can do as a civilized society. "

  8. I do not understand no kill fanatics' fixation on "shelter killing" and NEVER consider why these animals are IN shelters in such huge numbers in the first place! You know, they didn't get there BY THEMSELVES! What is wrong with you people, do you not have the ability to think critically and logically? Maybe you need to educate yourself, read the study "Birth and Death Rate Estimates of Cats and Dogs inUS Households and Related Factors", Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 7(4)229-241. 2004. They are dying like flies in the COMMUNITIES, in homes! What about "reforming" the community and making it "no die", why concentrate so much on shelters, for God's sake, and promoting returning them to the same communities where they are dying in larger numbers than in shelters!

    • This makes no sense. Yes, dogs and cats are dying in homes. They have relatively short lifespans. I have a dog who will die soon lying at my feet now. He can't walk, I have to help him get around using a sling, but he's still eating and still interested in what goes on around him. I don't think that my dying dog has anything to do with healthy animals being killed in shelters.

      • Read and comprehend? It's been pointed out that what Ms. Chagrin has written is mostly (if not completely) untrue. I read it, I know it's a bunch of lies that are often repeated by those who, for whatever sick reason, oppose stopping killing of healthy animals in shelters.

      • Whatever you say! You go on believing that "whatevever has been pointed out" is untrue! Whatever makes you happy! I really would like to live on your planet. Thanks for your profound input! Your leader will be very proud of you, and at this site he CAN'T delete my comments! Right, Mr. Winograd?

      • Thanks Rose. Winograd can't ban and block the truth tellers here. Since that's the case, and since Winograd's movement uses the same tactics and language of the neo-cons, the teabaggers and the anti-choice movements, expect their same old style of argument. Winograd's crew will spread lies and misrepresent the facts and the personal attacks and the nastiness will commence.

      • You say that no kill advocates NEVER consider why these animals are in shelters in the first place.

        That shows that you clearly have zero idea of what you are talking about, as a huge part of the No Kill equation is working to create alternatives to surrendering animals to shelters in the first place.

        So take your own advice and try to educate yourself, please.

      • I am absolutely convinced that your leader Nathan Winograd LOVES YOU TO DEATH! You are a good little, brainwashed follower who has never left his/her house!

      • Better to be a brainwashed follower as one voice for the voiceless than a killing machine and killers advocate. Read, learn, live. Seriously, read the blog post I shared and then come talk to us. https://www.doggedblog.com/doggedblog/2012/10/why-… As for leaving my house, well, that would be to take my kill shelter foster dog to adoption events and to share the wealth of the No Kill Philosophy to make real change in my community.

      • How often are you going to repeat this? What if — just as a hypothesis — breeders and lobbyists *aren't* behind Nathan? What then? Do you have another argument?

        Because if you don't, you're in trouble. Breeders and lobbyists have nothing whatsoever to do with the No Kill Advocacy Center. Nada.

      • Cooper that's kind of hard for even you to deny. Winograd pronounced Yes Biscuit's Shirley Thistlewaite as one of his top advocacy bloggers. Shirley Thistlewaite breeds dogs which she sells over the internet. If Shirley isn't promoting No Kill, she's bashing puppy mill raids and busts. Read Yes Biscuit. It's all there. Christie Keith was invited back to liveblog Winograd's No Kill Convention, once again. Keith is an AKC breeder/lobbyist , Cooper. And when you think AKC Cooper, think High Volume Breeder Committee. After all, puppy mill registration is the AKC's largest source of revenue, by far.

      • I am not anti breeder, I am anti abuse; I find the storing of animals for any purpose to be cruel, the No Kill shelters that keep an animal for 2 years are no better than a puppy miller. That animal is stored without a normal life to meet the needs of the human.. how can they justify that? I am for very intense regulation of breeders, and good breeders will not have a problem with that. I don't think we can find a " bomb sniffing Human" Animals have always been our working companions, and those animals have been treated well, so I focus on the abuse.

      • If breeders and lobbyists have nothing to do with it then why did Winograd name Yes Biscuit his top advocacy blogger. Yes Biscuit is a blog written by Shirley Thistlewaite. Shirley blogs about Winograd's No Kill in glowing terms, yet Shirley has never liked nor supported a puppy mill bust. Shirley sells her dogs over the internet.
        Christie Keith was asked back this year to live blog Winograd's 2012 No KIll Conference. Keith is an AKC breeder/lobbyist. When one thinks of the AKC one should think High Volume Breeder Committeee. IOW puppy mills, Cooper. Puppy mill registration is by far the AKC's largest source of revenue.
        Winograd went book touring with PetPAC, who advertised "Tour Dates" for him on the PetPAC website. PetPAC's Mr. Hemby first coined the phrase "Pet Extinction Act" to describe spay and neuter laws One of Winograd's biggest cheerleaders is Diane Amble a breeder who states that spay and neuter is akin to genocide.
        Nada Cooper? To believe you Cooper, one would have to be loco.

      • I am neither a breeder, nor a lobbyist. I am an animal rescuer and a vegan.

        There are a LOT of people who have come to understand Winograd's approach to this.

        I used to be against No Kill. And then I got more involved in animal rescue with boots on the ground groups, and I saw that it could really work. And if NOT killing can work, there is the moral imperative to do just that.

Comments are closed.