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.
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
Sometimes I just don't understand the moral and ethics of the "kill 'em all" crowd. Really? Why would you want to continue doing something that obviously hasn't worked for the last 50 years and won't work for the next 50 years? If you do the same thing over and over you will get the same results over and over. How many million companion animals have been killed in the US in the last 20 years? 50 million? 60 million? How many more have to die until the "kill 'em all" crowd figures out it isn't working? The largest open admission animal shelter in the US is a No Kill shelter and there are over 50 other open admission no kill shelter. Instead of constantly yelling 'kill 'em all" why don't you all help this animals for a change? Or have you all become THAT numb? What happened to your moral and ethics? Did it blow out the window together with the gas used in gas chambers to kill animals in the most cruel way possible? Miss Chagrin is nothing more than a puppet. She never has backed up any of her claims with any kind of facts or scientific statistics. The only true statistic she can show is the one from a animal shelter in Norfolk, VA where 97% of all animals are being killed for absolutely no reason by a organization with a budget of over $32 Million.
Peter is the perfect example of how Winograd's Limited Admission Movement uses neo-con and anti-choicers tactics and language. Calling the other side killers and puppets is so Richard Mellon Scaife. David Brock and Coulter-ish.
Hang on. *You're* comparing people to Ann Coulter?
(And Brock is one of the good guys now. His work with Media Matters has more than made up for his pernicious past.)
Brock is a great example, Cooper. Consider following the lessons learned by Brock. There is redemption even for the most calloused. I'm comparing the language and tactics used by Winograd and his followers to those used by the neo-cons, the teabaggers and the anti-choicers. Yes, Ann Coulter. All of us who don't agree with Winograd are killers, murderers, butchers, sock puppets, or at best stupid or crazy. The name of the so-called pro-life movement branded the opposition as anti-life. The name of Winograd's movement No Kill by implication being all others are Kill, brands all other shelters, staffed by people who work heroically day after day and who unfailingly perform feats of epic compassion to save lives, as kill shelters, killers and murderers.
This supposed to be an open discussion, yet here's the Huff Post snark team are plotting again, So, to set the record straight, and provide safety for commenters, a lttle " truth in advertising. Terri is the one who set up a phishing blog impersonationg another blogger. She intentionalymade herself look like another blog to direct traffic away from a legitimate blog she disliked, and perhaps gather information about the legitimate blogs readers. Terry runs a wedding service in Titusville Florida, the double life is amazing to me, same with Maria.. They are discussing this particular story and the comments.
"Terri Fulks I'm afraid to read it"
18 hours ago · Like
"Douglas Anthony Cooper It will make your blood boil. But in a way you probably experience daily.
18 hours ago · Like · 1"
"Terri Fulks Anyone know that Rose Bauman?"
18 hours ago · Like
These are not people you want playing in your backyard
Interesting. Terri's remark is the one that I quote above. (Didn't see this.) Yes, this is the remark that you characterise as "plotting" — asking whether anyone knows this Bauman person.
I'm beginning to think you're not actually untruthful. Not deliberately, anyway. You're just clinically paranoid.
But I'm interested in your name. "Pet person." Genuinely interested. You use the word "pet", which indicates you're not part of the hardline animal rights crowd (who prefer "companion animal.") So my question: do you believe, as PETA does, that pets should be phased out entirely? That the owning of pets should be abolished?
If not, why are you hanging out with the likes of Mary Tully?
I love hanging with Mary. Intelligence, coupled with honesty and compassion describe my friend Mary. I'm proud to count Mary as a friend.
Cooper if one is known by the friends one hangs with, you're looking decidedly lacking in common decency. Richard Berman has attacked so many groups working for the public good. He attacks health care, the minimum wage, scientists who warn us about tobacco, mercury in our food, he attacks the groups working to end factory farming, fur farming, puppy mills and seal hunts. There's your alliance with Winograd and his supporters, the breeders and lobbyists who have done so much to try to damage the reputation of those groups fighting for stricter breeder regulations, an end to the retail and internet trade in companion animals, and an end to puppy mills and animals used in research. One has to question either your intelligence or your ethics for hanging with the denizens of Humanewatch, the backyard breeders, the cockfighters, the horse slaughter supporters, the exotic animal traders, the factory farm apologists and the many convicted animal abusers who inhabit that wasteland.
Willard, the only difference between you and Tully is that you're much less polished. She's good at what she does: a slick concern troll. Whereas you just come across as a pro-kill thug.
You're also a bit of a liar, of course. For instance: you know for a fact I have nothing whatsoever to do with Berman. My alliance is, yes, with Nathan Winograd, who also has nothing to do with Berman. Which you know. And you know perfectly well that Nathan has nothing whatsoever to do with breeders and lobbyists. (I'm much more tolerant of responsible breeders than Nathan is, but… well, we've been through this a dozen times.)
I don't "hang out" with the denizens of HumaneWatch. I will, however, forge alliances with anyone — ANYONE — who will help prevent you and your friends — your actual friends — from unnecessarily slaughtering millions of shelter animals.
I of course despise backyard breeders, cockfighters, exotic animal traders. As for horse slaughterers: I live with a woman who spent years saving horses from slaughterhouses. For a long time that was her number one activity. You support an organization — PETA — which has just spoken up for reinstating horse slaughter stateside. An organization loathed by horse rescues across the nation.
The Berman slur is getting tired. I support No Kill because I love dogs and cats. Period. And if you did as well — truly did — you'd ditch some of your unsavory friends. You find Mary compassionate and honest? Lovely. Tell her to stop supporting pet killers, and to stop lying. Good luck with that.
Eh. I replied to this at length, but my comment seems to have disappeared. I don't have time for this. All of those ugly people you mention are, of course, not my friends — nor are they Nathan's. On the other hand, you support an outfit — PETA — that wants to bring horse slaughter stateside. And you support a woman — Mary Tully — who is neither honest nor compassionate; or she wouldn't lie, and she wouldn't shill for pet killers.
Now spare me the Berman smear. It's getting tired. And nobody believes it — not even you.
Here's PETA's stance on horse slaughter. "The Moran amendment echoes the feelings of the 80 percent of Americans who do not believe that horses should be slaughtered for their flesh, but in order to close the loophole, Congress must also pass the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011, which states that horses may not be shipped to slaughter outside the country. Please contact your members of Congress today to urge them to support this crucial legislation." Doesn't much sound like they want to bring it stateside does it, Cooper?
Cooper, Mary is an intelligent, honest and compassionate person. While I cannot say the same for someone who can overlook the source of his attacks on animal welfare groups,(will you be attacking the minimum wage and labor unions next, Cooper?) nor the people he aligns himself with who have fought every piece of legislation that would make a meaningful difference in the lives of our companion animals. Fur industry, Livestock industry, Puppy Mills Unite! Winograd and Cooper have your back.
Man, you're certainly good at getting my responses to this nauseating post squashed.
Ah, but I saved the second response that was erased. Let's see how long it lasts:
Eh. I replied to this at length, but my comment seems to have disappeared. I don't have time for this. All of those ugly people you mention are, of course, not my friends — nor are they Nathan's. On the other hand, you support an outfit — PETA — that wants to bring horse slaughter stateside. And you support a woman — Mary Tully — who is neither honest nor compassionate; or she wouldn't lie, and she wouldn't shill for pet killers.
Now spare me the Berman smear. It's getting tired. And nobody believes it — not even you.
No one wants animals to be killed, Peter, whether they're talking about animals in shelters or animals trying to make a living on America's streets . We just want folks to accurately report why it happens. There are is easily ten times as many homeless street animals as there are animals in shelters. There are a limited number of shelters, each with limited resources, and animals are either turned away, or dying in revolving doors.
Acknowledging the tens of millions of animals that aren't accounted for in shelters doesn't make us "pro-kill," it makes us pro-reality. A homeless street animal deserves to be in this discussion just as much as an animal who's taken to a shelter because his family is moving. They all matter, Peter.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/city-of-…
Councilman Berg's proposed bill would simply require the Honolulu Humane Society to post notification on its website regarding which animals are scheduled to be killed 24 hours in advance, to give rescuers and the public a chance to save them, as a condition of HHS continuing to receive taxpayer funds. The bill would require a very basic level of decency and fiscal responsibility. That is what PETA is opposing here, and using blatant lies about another law in another state. Remember that.
""I introduced Bill 57 to call on the Hawaiian Humane Society (HHS) to do a better job of notifying the public when it euthanizes over 10,000 cats and some 3,000 dogs each year. Bill 57 was deferred in the Parks and Cultural Affairs Committee a couple of weeks ago.
I have vowed to amend the bill and keep discussions going by simply instructing the HHS to list the number of cats and dogs that are to be euthanized 24-hours in advance on its website. This will permit members of the public and other entities in the No Kill realm to take action if they want and rescue those animals that are without a voice. Bill 57 CD1 would open up rescue efforts for those animals being put down for just being on this earth and have committed no crime other than to exist.
…
I will be holding a public hearing on October 9, at 10:30 a.m. at Honolulu Hale on this matter and 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. We should follow in the footsteps of California law and offer hope, offer redemption, offer those unloved, to be loved…especially for those who have no say and are to be turned into ashes for no reason other than for monetary circumstances."
https://www.hawaiireporter.com/oahus-cats-and-dogs…
Councilman Berg's proposed bill would simply require the Honolulu Humane Society to post notification on its website regarding which animals are scheduled to be killed 24 hours in advance, to give rescuers and the public a chance to save them, as a condition of HHS continuing to receive taxpayer funds. The bill would require a very basic level of decency and fiscal responsibility. That is what PETA is opposing here, and using blatant lies about another law in another state. Remember that.
@ Valarie, that would only encourage people to wait til the animal was on death row. It would also encourage the fire sale mentality already in place. The people who want that " last chance animal" can put a hold on it . That's what real people do. They go to a shelter DAILY if they are desperate for something to " save". They see a dog or cat, they don't shoot a game of craps to see if the animal has another option, they take it as soon as the hold is up. If the NKNJ's ever ran a shelter they would know that. We have a "sort of author" , and a " sort of lawyer" neither of whom could find their own fanny with both hands and a search warrant, and they are going to " reform" what?? Of course ANIMAL SHELTERS that makes perfect sense to me
Please read what Councilman Berg has to say about this proposed legislation. You will find that it is quite different from PETA's lies: https://www.hawaiireporter.com/oahus-cats-and-dogs…
Valerie, it's actually not that simple. First of all, the Hawaii Humane Society features adoptable animals on their website already, so the public is not being restricted in any way from adopting. The HHS has valid concerns. Mandates that require shelters to hold animals until rescues make arrangements to get them, typically result in overcrowding, and increased incidence of communicable disease and injury.
The Hawaii Humane Society states that 40% of the state's residents purchase animals from breeders, and even more get animals from people they know. PeTA's right. The bill is well-intentioned, but it doesn't address the root of the problem. Transferring animals to rescues does nothing to stop the flow of animals into shelters.
The topic is, should a shelter be mandated to publicly announce the animals on it's euthasia list. Absolutely not.. That is a burden emotionally and finacially for the facility….It is a back door invasion by people / groups not familiar with shelter management, or animal welfare. It's costly, which is what the agenda driven consulting firm wants you to forget, and even more importantly, it harms animals. We are not seeing Lassie show up at the shelters, could happen, but not the norm, and those types get reclaimed or rehomed quickly. What are left are the frightened, sick or aggressive animals that have no chance for a permanent loving home. They live in fear, they' re miserable. If a rescue wants a dog or cat it's their RESPONSIBILITY to get down there and pick it up as soon as it's stray period is over. A shelter is not a way station while rescues search for some place to cram another unadoptable dog. I hope that HHS avoids this trap quickly and with resolution.
Please tell me how posting a list of names is a financial burden? How is a rescue supposed to know when an animals hold period is up if they don't do this? Oh and I can tell you why it's a burden emotionally… because they know that killing healthy animals is wrong! And if you think that an animal deserves to be killed because it is frightened or sick, then I hope that no one takes your advice about shelter reform.
Dear Kayla, please read the bill draft. If you are interested in animal get to the shelter. Why should it be the shelters job to notify the rescue? I did rescuse for 30 years, picking my pulls was my job. I try to avoid you, but this was to much.
Dear Lilly, I read the bill draft, thanks. How can you be interested in an animal you don't know about? If a shelter is interested in saving more animals, then it's not a hard task. And it's best for the animals if the rescue can prepare for them by knowing about them beforehand. If a shelter isn't a "way station" like you say, what should it be? A slaughterhouse like PETA? And you still didn't answer my original question. 🙂
Actually, Mary Tully, it is almost as simple as Valerie suggests. If you had actually read the proposed ordinance, you would know that. Why are you commenting on a proposal you haven't even read? Because PETA says it's bad? Can you tell me what your source is for your assertion: "mandates requiring shelters to hold animals…typically result in overcrowding, and increased incidence of communicable disease and injury"? I'm guessing your source is PETA, an organization that doesn't operate an actual animal shelter. What possible expertise on overcrowding or disease control could PETA have, given that the vast majority of animals in that organization's care lose their lives within a matter of hours or, at the most, days? Cont. below…
The ordinance would require rescue groups to pick up animals within two days, and it would also allow the shelter to euthanize animals who are irremediably suffering, animals with communicable diseases such as parvo or panleukopenia, unweaned animals for whom no foster care is available, and vicious dogs. Requiring a shelter to notify rescue groups by email and the public–by simply posting a notice on the animal's cage and on the shelter web site–is not unduly burdensome. This is something that good shelters all over the country are already doing voluntarily in an effort to find homes for the animals in their care. Many of these shelters do not even claim no kill status, yet they still try to save as many lives as they can. You see, not everyone believes rescue and adoption are to be discouraged. Why are you so intent on diminishing opportunities for shelter animals to find new homes?
@x petafile, the two days is taking up kennel space needed by another animal who has not had a chance at being found, or rehomed. The proocol is burdensome and opens a floodgate of false " holds" such as what Memphis has experienced with No Kill Memphis. That has caused other animals to be euthanized because a " held" animal is taking up space and they have no intention of picking up that animal, so 2 die.
Comments are closed.