Fault lines.

 I have been reading a lot lately about the supposed divisions between “traditional” shelters and advocates of a “no kill” approach.  The public disagreements and mutual criticisms sometimes obscure the many values that the two groups share, including most basically the belief that companion animals are valuable and people should try to make their lives better.  The conflict is not about whether or not we should help them but rather about the best ways to help them given the limitations imposed by available resources.  Traditional shelters believe that the central issue is that there are not enough homes for all the dogs and cats in the country, which means that the most important goal of animal welfare is to reduce population through spay/neuter programs.  Because, as they say, “There are not enough homes for them all,” the population of dogs and cats must be sharply reduced.  That has begun to happen, but continuing overpopulation still makes it necessary for many animals to die in shelters.  From this perspective, shelters that euthanize animals do society’s “dirty work.”

This “traditional” view sees “no kill” rescue groups and shelters as privileged precisely because of the population reduction done by other shelters.  Craig Brestrup, author of Disposable Pets (1997), quotes the director of a Midwestern shelter which kills almost 80% of its animals:  “These shelters aren’t really ‘no-kill’ shelters.  They are ‘you-kill’ shelters meaning that their clean hands and pure hearts exist at the expense of other shelters like [her shelter] which accept the animals they will not.” 

In response to this criticism, no kill advocates point out that some public shelters have managed to reduce their euthanasia rate dramatically while remaining open access.  The main difference, they say, is that shelters aspiring to kill fewer or no animals work hard to increase adoptions (and reunite strays with owners), usually because they have directors who implement several key programs.  (Low-cost spay/neuter programs remain central in the no kill paradigm as well.) 

In addition, it is important to point out that many private rescue groups take in primarily, and sometimes only, animals who have been slated for euthanasia at traditional shelters.  They do not cherry pick the most adoptable pets but rather wait for the ones who have no other options.  This is not true of every rescue group, but many – including a number of our local private rescues – consistently take in animals who have been slated for euthanasia at one of the local public shelters either because they have run out of time in the adoptable section or because they never made it to adoptables because of health or behavior issues.  In other words, they are taking the “least adoptable” animals – and they are turning around and adopting them out to good families, often very soon after rescue. 

Private rescue groups in our area have higher adoption rates than public shelters for several reasons.  First and foremost, many people prefer to adopt from no-kill groups because it is a more positive experience, both because they know that the animals left behind do not face an uncertain fate and because the adoption venue is usually more pleasant than the cement and steel of most public shelters.  In addition, private groups often advertise adoptable pets more energetically, get them out into the community, and have events on weekends when potential adopters can attend.  Further, the fact that most private rescue groups house adoptable pets in foster homes means that they have much more information about the animals’ behavior, temperament, and other factors that help adopters make good decisions.  Foster homes also socialize and train animals so that they can make the transition to permanent homes more easily. 

 

Using these methods, rescue groups take in countless animals that did not seem “adoptable” at the public shelter and find them loving permanent homes.  This fact counters the accusation that “no kill” is achievable only by preselecting highly desirable animals. 

This season of giving thanks is the right time to acknowledge the amazing work done by many of our local private rescue groups.  Here’s a special thank you to just a few – there are more of you out there, and we love you all. 

 

Second Chance Farms specializes in dogs who do not even make it to the adoptable section because of treatable medical conditions.  Typical of their dogs are these two bulldog mix pups (above), both placed on the euthanasia list because they had demodex mange.

 Many other local rescues also take in dogs who have no other chance.  Helping Hands Rescue gave a future to Lady Penny, who came to the shelter as a young puppy with a broken leg and other medical problems.  (After a long recovery, she was recently adopted!)

Rescued dogs often require enormous investments of time and money before they can move on to permanent homes.  Like other local groups, Phoenix Animal Rescue regularly takes in hard-luck cases, including Homer (above), who was so terrified in a rural shelter that he cowered and urinated every time he was approached.  Homer’s behavior was transformed as soon as he reached a loving foster home, where he enjoys a soft bed and plays with other dogs.

 

The Alachua County Humane Society is the largest rescue no kill group in our area and the only one with its own facility.  ACHS regularly takes in animals who have run out of time in adoptables as well as those with treatable medical conditions, like Chloe (above), a sweet adult pit bull mix who was slated for euthanasia because she is heartworm positive. 

The Humane Society and Gainesville Pet Rescue are the oldest no kill groups in our area.  Both began with the mission of taking animals from the local shelter’s euthanasia list.  In the past decade or two they have been joined by many other groups, including the ones mentioned above. The animals they save are diverse, countering both the claim that no kill groups cherry pick and also the notion that only certain kinds of dog run out of time at the shelter.  Their success at placing these animals in loving permanent homes does not prove that euthanasia is never necessary, but at the least it challenges the conventional wisdom that “there are not enough homes for them all” and that some animals are simply unadoptable.  These groups do not leave the "dirty work" to someone else -- they roll up their sleeves and make miracles happen on a daily basis.

And for this we are thankful.  

We are plenty of pit bulls.

This guy is not just what we are about; he is who we are.

First, his story:  He was taken to the Alachua County Animal Services (ACAS) shelter a few days ago as a stray.  He was obviously in very poor condition, with virtually no body fat and severely dehydrated and anemic.  Unlike most starving young dogs, however, he did not eat when offered.  ACAS staff took him to the emergency veterinary service.  His blood work was fine, but he was still not eating.  Shelter veterinarians took radiographs that showed an abdominal mass, but their machines could not give as much detail as was needed.  He obviously needed additional diagnostics beyond the resources of the shelter.  Britni, a veterinary technician at APES, offered to foster him, but a private group was needed to pull him and arrange for his care.  Dwinnie from ACAS sent a message to the dozens of rescue organizations on her list, explaining how sweet he was and asking for help to save him. 

We are on this list, and I sent Dwinnie my usual reply: as long as there is a committed foster, we can try to help ... if no one else does.  I was thinking that surely for a case this dramatic, lots of other groups would step up.  It turned out that no one did, however, at least not on the short timeline that was needed.  Fortunately, our offer was enough for the shelter staff to pursue further diagnostics at the Shelter Medicine program at the U.F. vet school.  Jess from ACAS took him to the vet school, where ultrasounds determined that the mass was a blockage that needed immediate surgical removal.  (We don’t know for sure yet, but it’s likely he ate bones, rocks, sticks, and/or other indigestible things in his desperate efforts to stay alive.)

I spent a lot of time on the phone with Jess, with the vets at UF, and with Britni.  We needed to figure out if we could handle the cost of surgery and, especially, the follow-up care, which could be very expensive if he had complications – not unlikely given his poor condition.  Dr Natalie Isaza and Dr Brian DiGangi from shelter medicine offered to help however they could, including arranging for the surgery to be done at shelter medicine rather than the much more expensive option of the small animal hospital.  That was enough – we decided to go ahead, damning the many metaphorical torpedoes ahead. 

I picked him up from Dr DiGangi at the vet school after his diagnostics.  I’ve seen a lot of skinny dogs, but this guy made me cry.  He wagged his tail when I greeted him, and followed me out to the car, where he climbed into the back seat and enjoyed the view.  I took him to the house of my neighbor May, who also cried when she saw him.  We piled him on a bunch of beds belonging to her dog, Hazel (who was still at doggy daycare, since May had just that evening returned from several days out of town for work).  May covered him with a blanket, lay down next to him, and fed him spoonfuls of organic beef gravy.

 

This is not the first hard-luck case we’ve helped.  By definition, every dog who lands in the shelter and makes it to the euthanasia list is out of every bit of luck except the possibility of a last-minute miracle.  Animal rescuers specialize in last-minute miracles.  We can’t always pull it off, but it happens often enough that we keep sticking our necks out.

As soon as it became obvious that the starving pit bull was not a simple starvation case, we knew this was too big for Plenty of Pit Bulls alone.  But it turns out it’s never POPB alone  – or rather, POPB is always a combination of a lot of different individuals, institutions, and organizations, who come together to do what’s needed for a given dog.

So who is POPB?  It’s a bunch of individuals.  It’s me, foolish enough to reply to Dwinnie’s plea for help with “We can do it.”  It’s Sharon, who doesn’t tell me I am insane but says “Let’s go for it.”  It’s Blanca, who cheerfully extends her work day to take him back and forth to surgery.  It’s May, who doesn’t blink when I ask to bring (yet another) needy pit bull to her house for an overnight stay.  It’s Hillary, a professional pet photographer who immediately offers to help document his progress.  It’s Carla, who sees his picture and doesn’t say “Poor boy, I hope someone helps him.”  She says, “Tell me what he needs.”

POPB also encompasses many private rescue organizations.  This time, it’s Phoenix Animal Rescue, whose director I called once I knew this dog needed to go straight to intensive care after his surgery.  She came through, as she has done for so many dogs, ours and others.  Without the network and resources of an established organization, we could not begin to help this dog.  He is alive because Phoenix doesn’t view the choice of dogs to help as a business decision (as one person involved with local animal organizations told me).  No smart business plan in the world would take in a dog like this.  He would die while the cost-benefit ratio was still being calculated.  He needs people who commit first and work out the details later.

In this case, Phoenix was the right partner, because of their experience with other medically needy dogs and their partnership with the amazing staff at West End Animal Hospital.  However, we have collaborated with almost every private rescue in town, in one way or another: finding foster parents, providing transport, food, and pull fees, conducting home visits, and putting people in touch with the resources they need.  We also work with groups from out of the county, including Pit Sisters and Rugaz Rescue. 

Collaboration is not just a practical necessity for us but a philosophical principle.  We see rescue as a social movement that requires many different actors pursuing many different paths, using the diverse resources that each has available to us.  Our goal is to talk to everyone who can help and to expand the conversation every chance we get. 

POPB is not just our committed volunteers and rescue partners but also people beyond that circle.  It’s Britni, who met this desperately ill dog and offered on the spot to take him into her home until he is well.  It’s the vets at the shelter and at UF, who kept investigating until they knew what he needed.  Maybe most of all, it’s Jessica Lauginiger, the Animal Services officer who went above and beyond the call of duty to give a chance to a dog that most people would have written off.

So our new boy is named Jesse, in honor of the person most responsible for keeping him alive.

If he makes it through surgery today, he is going to have a long recovery ahead of him and will need ongoing support from everyone who is Plenty of Pit Bulls.  Lucky for him, that’s an infinitely expandable circle.

I am Lennox

Lennox was far from the first dog killed because of breed prejudice, but he is the most famous.

Lennox was the pit bull type dog (a Labrador cross) seized in Belfast, Northern Ireland two years ago on the basis of a ban on pit bulls. Lennox, who had no record of bad behavior, was held in appalling conditions while his family exhausted all legal appeals to save his life.  Authorities in Belfast rejected the legal arguments, the offers to take him to the U.S., and the pleas from well-known activists.  Lennox was killed on July 11, in Belfast. 

As news of his death spread, dog lovers posted pictures of their own dogs with the caption “I am Lennox.”  The principle is familiar: there but for the grace of god, or sheer luck, go I.  A few months ago, there was a similar rise in self-portraits of people wearing hoodies with the caption “I am Trayvon Martin.”

Some people asked why so much energy was spent trying to save a single dog, when so many other dogs, not to mention people and other animals, suffer and die daily.  It’s not that Lennox mattered more than them.  But he mattered just as much.  It is impossible not to empathize with Lennox’s family: we cannot help but imagine our own dogs taken away from us, held in a bare cement run and (by all accounts) treated without kindness, and then killed.

Thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of dogs die every year as a result of breed discrimination in the U.S.  Every one of them mattered -- no more, no less than Lennox.  Many of the dogs who die in shelters were strays or abandoned, but a significant number are beloved family companions – ones who got lost and were killed in a shelter before their people could find them or who were surrendered because their families could not find housing that would accept a dog who looked like theirs.

Breed discrimination kills indirectly as well, when rescue groups choose not to pull pit bull type dogs from euthanasia lists at the shelter because those dogs are deemed “less adoptable,” or because their foster families live in apartment complexes with breed bans or have insurance that does not cover certain breeds.

Miami-Dade residents have the chance to end their city’s breed ban on August 14. Decades of a pit bull ban have killed countless good dogs without making Miami one bit safer for humans.  (In fact, dog bites have declined more slowly in Miami than in similarly sized cities without breed bans.)  Ending the breed ban in our state’s largest city would be a good way to honor Lennox.

Channeling my inner Rodney King

Rodney King died recently, but his poignant question – “Can we all get along?” – lives on.

King was the African-American man whose vicious beating by Los Angeles police officers was captured on video in 1991.  His attackers were tried in 1992, but the all-white jury acquitted three and could not agree on the fourth.  The verdict sparked terrible riots in Los Angeles, leading to the deaths of 53 people.  In the midst of the violence, a distraught King went on television to plead for unity, or at least civility.

So what does this have to do with dog rescue?

Like every movement, animal rescue is divided in multiple ways.  I have been participating in social movements for a long time – since I was 14 and joined protests against the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons manufacturing plant near Denver.  (Yes, that dates me.)  Since that time I have worked for a number of groups, on a number of issues, as both paid staff and volunteer. I have also studied social movements as an academic for more than 20 years, beginning with undergraduate and graduate research on revolutionary movements in Central America.  Divisions in those movements were sometimes literally deadly.  A number of prominent leaders were assassinated by their former allies, as was Malcolm X in this country.

Fortunately, at least so far, dog rescuers do not seem inclined to go after each other in such lethal ways.  Still, our divisions can be destructive.  We spend time criticizing others who are working for the same goals – helping the dogs who need us.  To the extent that it focuses on direct service, ours is a less ideologically-driven movement than some, but it still suffers from divisions about all kinds of things, ranging from the mundane (should your dogs eat only raw food?) to the abstract (what kinds of rights do nonhuman animals have, anyway?)

Some divisions matter more than others, and they matter differently.  Lots of people have “deal breakers,” issues about which they will not or cannot compromise.  This can lead to single-issue politics, on a large scale – the citizen for whom a politician’s position on gun control, the environment, or abortion becomes the only thing that matters.  For others, a big picture view trumps any specific issue – they wish that politician had a different position on immigration, for example, but like everything else about her enough to overlook it. Personally, I like to keep my make-or-break issues few and far between, in order to keep the tent big and the conversation expansive.

Perhaps because I’m an academic, I think of these issues in relation to the split in philosophical ethics between deontological ethics (in which rules must be followed and principles adhered to regardless of the cost) and consequentialist ethics (in which the end result is much more important than the means used to achieve it).  Both of these approaches can be destructive when taken to extremes, and at least in my activist life, I prefer a pragmatic approach with multiple values and multiple approaches to achieving common goals

Against this big tent approach is the claim, as someone put it to me a while ago, that “we are more effective when we are all on the same page.”  The problem is that the people who say this often mean (sometimes without realizing it) that everyone should be on their page.  This kind of unity is domination, the subordination of alternative perspectives for the sake of a “greater good” that those in power have defined.  Again, there are parallels in other social movements, notably the ways that women have been told to put aside their own interests for the sake of other goals.

In addition to ideological issues and strategic issues, of course, we are divided by personal concerns, which can be just as compelling (or more so).  Asking people to set these aside for the greater good can be as hard – and as much of a power play – as asking someone to compromise a deeply held principle.

The problem is how to get along, as Rodney King would put it, without forcing some people to toe a line set by someone else.  How can we establish a unity that is more than skin deep but that respects diverse principles – and makes it possible for people who are personally divided to collaborate when our common goals demand it? 

  

Amazingly, I find myself thinking of the dense and obscure German social theorist Jurgen Habermas here.  I took a seminar on him in graduate school and spent the entire semester complaining about him (to the extent that a friend of mine thought his name was “stupid Habermas,” or, as she put it, “stupid Haagen-Dazs”).  However, Habermas left me with a take-home message about the central role of open communication in any group that aims to be democratic.  Free and open communication is impossible without proper conditions, which Habermas calls the “ideal speech situation.”  In this situation, every interested party has the opportunity to speak, be heard, and influence collective decisions.  No one is excluded from the dialogue and no one has the power to silence or overrule another.  The goal of the conversation is to reach consensus – not a final vote, because people who know they are in the majority have little motive to listen to minority points of view. 

As a graduate student, I thought Habermas was overly abstract and idealist.  I have a feeling I am opening myself to the same criticisms now.  Perhaps the most charitable way to put it is that this thinking is a work in progress.  I am struggling to figure out how we can work together despite our differences – but that means figuring out what differences matter (and how much), when we can agree to disagree and work together for a common goal, and when the differences are so deep that there is not really a common goal.  We like to say that we are all in it for the animals and that our shared goal is to save lives.  There are many paths toward that goal and many tasks needed to reach it.  Even when we disagree about which is the most important task or the best way to pursue it, it may still be possible to acknowledge that the people on another path, or another page, have something valuable to offer.

Recently I was looking for pit bull advocacy groups in the San Diego area who might help someone moving there find an apartment where she can keep her dog.  I came across one called Just a Dog Rescue, which has this quotation (from the Dalai Lama) on its home page:  “Compassion is the radicalism of our time.”  I have seen this before and find it a fascinating political statement.  Today I thought about it in terms of our disagreements and judgments.  We are all motivated by compassion toward dogs.  I often find compassion toward people harder. It is so easy to suspect not just the conclusions but the motives of people with whom we disagree.  That suspicion weakens our work together, sometimes fatally.  The victims in this case are not movement leaders, but the dogs whose fate is determined by human decisions. 

In 1975, the Salvadoran poet Roque Dalton was assassinated by former comrades in that country's revolutionary movement.  Dalton’s most famous poem ends with a beautiful vision of solidarity, made more poignant by his tragic fate:

I believe the world is beautiful

and that poetry, like bread, is for everyone.

And that my veins don’t end in me

but in the unanimous blood

of those who struggle for life,

love,

little things,

landscape and bread,

the poetry of everyone.

To post or not to post

The stream of dogs in need of saving from euthanasia or abuse is overwhelming.  Daily, and even hourly, dog lovers are bombarded with heartrending stories, usually accompanied by even more heartrending pictures, and requests to help.  I have unsubscribed from a number of Facebook pages and email lists because I know I can never do anything concrete to help – the “To be destroyed” list from New York Animal Care & Control, for example.  Seeing those faces without being able to do anything constructive is a recipe for insomnia and guilt.

But what about the dogs we might be able to help – the local faces, the ones who might have more than an hour or two before being euthanized?  These come into my inbox and my Facebook stream on a daily basis, as well.  I am ambivalent about sharing even these, because often the chance of helping is still vanishingly small, and the risk of exhausting, depressing, and driving away supporters is large.

 Coco

On the other hand, there’s Coco.  Coco was saved by the Internet.  Really.  First, shelter staff sent out her picture in an email to local rescue organizations – the dreaded “euth list” that usually comes out sometime in the afternoon or early evening, with instructions to reply by 8:30 the following morning if you can help one of the animals listed.  During less crowded times of year, these messages come out mainly for animals who cannot make it to the adoptable section because of treatable health or behavior conditions, such as heartworm disease or demodex (or pregnancy).  As the shelter gets more crowded in the late spring and summer, they become more frequent and start including healthy animals who have been in adoptables for a while (like Coco).  The majority of animals on the list these days are underage kittens – sometimes over a dozen a day. 

So we got the message about Coco and three other healthy dogs from adoptables.  We did not have a place to put her, and almost decided against doing anything.  But Coco is such a nice dog, and such a favorite with shelter volunteers, that we gave it a try and posted on our POPB group page.  A volunteer saw the post and began contacting her own network of friends, in Gainesville and beyond.  It turned out that a friend in her hometown was looking for a dog just like Coco and offered to foster her with the goal of adopting.  Phew.  If we hadn’t posted that picture, the volunteer would not have known that Coco was at risk, and she would not have been able to put together what we think is a match made in heaven. 

Of course, it doesn’t always work out this well.  And that is terribly upsetting for the people who know and love the dog and find out through a Facebook post that there was not a happy ending.  But if we and other rescuers do not use all the tools available, there will be many fewer happy endings.

Mr Little, now known as Chase

This is why we created two Facebook pages for Plenty of Pit Bulls.  We started with a “group,” which you have to join, where we talk about the nitty gritty details of finding foster homes, transporting, donating for neuters, and other pieces of hands-on rescue.  We later added a “fan” or “community” page, which people can “like,” where we try to keep it positive and educational, because there were a lot of people who wanted to stay connected and participate but who do not want to be kept in the loop for the other stuff.  I understand that, and I especially appreciate the fact that some people work on a daily basis with shelter dogs and cannot bear to see their faces posted with “Urgent” on them. 

I think this separation is valuable, and I wish some of the other groups that I like on Facebook would do the same thing, so I could hear about events, education and advocacy ideas, projects for shelter enrichment, and other constructive pieces of information – without seeing the faces of doomed dogs from thousands of miles away.   (Many of the national pit bull advocacy groups do not deal with “Urgents” at all, but focus on advocacy and education; many local groups are like us, however, and do a little bit of everything they can.)

Plenty of Pit Bulls does not have any adoption facilities and we try to focus on supporting existing rescue/adoption groups, rather than taking in dogs ourselves.  Our niche is to connect people and resources – to find that little extra piece that a dog needs.  We try to bring to everyone into the conversation about helping dogs – shelter staff and volunteers, private rescue groups, individual volunteers, and other community partners. 

So pulling dogs from the euth list is really not our mission.  The summer onslaught is making us break our own rules more and more often, however.  In the first week of June, we pulled Bandit (who is heartworm positive) so that he could get out of the shelter and be transferred to an out-of-area rescue organization.

Bandit

Then there were a couple of cats that some pit-bull loving cat ladies wanted to help, and we pulled them.  They are available for adoption – one is being fostered by our resident cat lady and the other is at All Cats veterinary clinic.



So that seemed like enough... then Mr Big and Mr Little, two scared young pit bulls with demodex mange, made the list.  One of our favorite pit bull organizations, Pit Sisters in Jacksonville, offered to pay for the demodex treatment.   Through Facebook and through old-fashioned networking we were able to find amazing foster homes for them, so we pulled them as Plenty of Pit Bulls.  And very fortunately, Phoenix Animal Rescue offered to take the boys into their adoption program, even though they are bursting at the seams (as is just about every other rescue group, locally and beyond). 

Mr. Big

Three dogs and two cats in less than two weeks... I promised myself I would not look at the euth list again.  Just hit “delete.”  Then there was an email from the shelter with “sweet sweet sweet” in the subject line.  So I looked, and saw the most adorable underbite this side of the Mississippi.  The underbite and the gremlin face belonged to a little black dog who came into the shelter with puncture wounds, not bad, but bad enough to keep her out of adoptables.  Uh oh.  So Sharon, an equally crazy dog lady, and I came up with a plan that was not much of a plan at all – we pulled her and put her into boarding in the hope that her adorable face and wonderful personality would get her a foster home before we ran out of money. That’s Cinderella, and we pulled her on June 15, and she still really needs a foster (or foster-to-adopt) home.  She has her own Facebook page, and a lot of friends who are helping pay for her food, vet care, and spay.  (Facebook friends are also donating for the neuter surgery for Misters Big and Little.)

Cinderella

My husband says it is like living with John Edwards, supporting secret children living in different places.  I think he’s joking.  I haven't told him about today's addition of Coco. But I will tell her:  I'm so glad you're alive.

How to rescue a dog. Sometimes.

 










Jackson at the shelter (left) and at the Alachua County Humane Society (above). He was heartworm positive, but he had such a great disposition that shelter staff advocated for him. He has finished heartworm treatment and been adopted.


My college students like to start their essays with dictionary definitions of key words, like this:

            Rescue (vt): to free or save from danger, imprisonment, evil, etc. (n) The act or instance of rescuing; deliverance.

We hear the term “rescue” used a lot in regards to dogs and cats, sometimes in a very general way.  People who adopted an animal sometimes say that they rescued her or him, or (which is not quite the same thing) that their pet is a rescue.  I am interested here mainly in the more specific use of the word, as the direct act of “freeing or saving” a dog (or cat, but we'll stick to dogs here) who is in imminent danger.

This type of rescue starts with the identification of a dog in danger.  This can happen in many ways. Sometimes the dog is in direct danger due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment.  Rescue, in these cases, starts when a person who sees a dog in need does not simply hope that “someone” will help but decides to be the someone that dog needs. 

When the dog appears to have been abandoned, the first thing to do is try to find the owner, if there is one.  If there is no owner to be found, or they do not want the dog back, the dog needs a safe place to stay (and receive necessary veterinary care) while she is being rehomed.  We have lots of advice here.

It’s often more complicated when the dog is owned but abused or neglected.  If you see a dog whose life appears to be in immediate danger, e.g. due to starvation or physical abuse, don’t wait for someone else to help – call your Animal Services department right away.  In Alachua County, that number is 352-264-6870.  If the dog is not in immediate danger but clearly needs better care, e.g., because she is living on the end of a chain or in a pen, you may not need to involve Animal Services, at least right away.  Ideally you can help make things better for the dog at that home.  Because there are so many dogs already in shelters, it’s always better to keep a dog out of a shelter and with their owner, if possible.  Sometimes people don’t realize what dogs need in the way of company, socialization, and care.  If you’d like to help, contact a local animal rescue group or a national group, such as Dogs Deserve Better, which helps chained and penned dogs.  In such cases, rescuers will first try to improve the situation at the dog’s current home, often by offering training and help with fence-building.  If that doesn’t work, they request that the owner surrender the dog so they can rehome him.  And if that doesn’t work, they bring in Animal Services cruelty investigators when necessary.

 

Perhaps the most common way dogs end up in need of rescue is because they are at risk of being killed in a public shelter, either because of health or behavior issues that make them “unadoptable” or because the shelter is full.  Lots of very nice dogs end up on the euthanasia or PTS (“put to sleep”) list at public shelters.  There is an ongoing debate among animal advocates about whether or not public shelters must (or should) kill animals in order to relieve overcrowding.  Some people believe that there is no alternative, until the supply of dogs and cats is reduced, which will happen primarily because more animals are spayed or neutered.  On the other side, “no kill” advocates believe that shelters can decrease or end euthanasia by implementing a set of practices, which include low-cost spay/neuter to reduce the supply of homeless pets, as well as increasing “demand” for adoptable pets.

Merlin came to the shelter with demodex mange.  

Shelter staff loved his sweet personality and reached out to rescue groups.

Regardless of where you stand on these issues, the fact remains that millions of dogs are put on “the list” every year and can be rescued only when a lot of different pieces fit together.  This is often a very confusing process and it works out slightly differently every time, but here are the main things the dog needs.

First, people need to find out that the dog is at risk.  Good shelters – like the one we have in Alachua County – do their best to connect these animals with private rescue/adoption organizations. They send out information about the animals who are on “the list” and work with rescue groups who want to take in (“pull”) them.  Often shelter staff will give an animal a “hold” for 24 hours or even more, so that the rescue group can make arrangements.  Some of the dogs at risk have been available for adoption for a while and have simply “run out of time.”  Some adoptable dogs are put on the list because they develop a health or behavior problem that makes them no longer adoptable.  And some never make it to “adoptables,” because they have a health or behavior problem that is treatable or manageable but that requires care that cannot be given at the shelter.  In our area, this happens most often with underage animals (especially kittens, who come in by the dozens every week in spring and summer), animals with health problems such as heartworm disease or demodex mange, and animals who are too shy or anxious to do well in a kennel.  These animals often cannot be adopted out directly to “the public” and can be removed (“pulled”) only by a rescue organization.

In some areas, pit bulls are among the animals who can be pulled by rescue groups but not adopted.  This is true of Miami/Dade County, Denver, and, until recently, the entire state of Ohio.  Breed discriminatory laws in these areas create a huge burden for rescue groups in surrounding areas and lead to the deaths of thousands of even-tempered, affectionate dogs every year.

                    Francesca was pulled from Animal Services in Miami, where she would 
                          otherwise have been automatically killed as a "pit bull" type dog.

While many public shelters have staff who actively seek the help of rescue groups, some either do not have staff who can do this or actively discourage collaboration with rescue groups. This is true of several shelters in north central Florida.  (The Florida Animal Rescue Act would require greater cooperation.)   In such cases, the animals’ fate depends on volunteers.  This is a heavy burden and often the work is heartbreaking.  Often the best solution is to move the dogs out of the area, to foster homes and rescue groups in another county or even another state.  Oddly enough, there are areas, mostly in the Northeast, where the shelters are not overflowing and rescue groups can take in dogs from out of state. And even within a generally overpopulated region -- like the South -- communities like Gainesville have many more resources and opportunities than many other towns and counties. Sometimes we take in dogs from other areas, and perhaps even more often, we send our adoptable dogs to other communities.  It's not  a zero-sum game but rather a complex, zigzagging process in which the right dog finds the right spot at the right time -- sometimes.

Hazel came to a foster home in Gainesville from Clewiston Animal Control in south Florida 

After you (we are talking about you, right?) have identified a dog who is at risk and whom you want to help, the dog needs two more things: a safe place to stay and a process for finding a new home.  Sometimes, the same organization can provide both, when the rescue/adoption group has its own facility for housing animals.  In Gainesville, the only organization that has a facility like this is the Alachua County Humane Society, which takes the largest number of dogs and cats who are at risk at our local shelter.  Some counties have no private no kill adoption facility, while some large cities have a number of them.  Such facilities sometimes have extensive programs for education and advocacy, in addition to adoption services.  The San Francisco SPCA is a model in this respect.

Most rescue/adoption groups in Gainesville and many other places are run by volunteers and rely on foster homes to house the majority of their animals.  The number of animals they can take from euthanasia lists is limited, first, by the number of committed foster homes available.  By “committed,” we mean people who agree to keep the animal until adoption and to work through behavior issues and take care of health problems in the meantime.  When a rescue group pulls a dog to place in a particular foster home, there is no back-up.  Usually a short-term relief foster home can be found when a foster family travels, but a foster who backs out permanently before their dog (or cat) is adopted creates a crisis for the rescue group and the animal, who may face being returned to the shelter in such cases.

Bandit came to Alachua County Animal Services as a stray.

He was heartworm positive and could not go to adoptables.

Shelter staff and volunteers fell in love and advocated for him,

and a rescue group in Orlando took him in.  

Assuming the foster home is a good one, committed to keeping the animal until he or she is adopted, the dog needs a process for getting adopted.  Sometimes this process can start immediately, when the animal has no serious health or behavior issues.  Other times, the dog may need to undergo treatment for a medical condition (in our area, the most common ones are heartworm disease or skin problems).  In such cases, rescue groups need donations to pay for treatment.  They also rely on the generosity of many veterinarians, who often offer services at reduced costs for rescued animals.

Some homeless dogs have behavior issues that need addressing.  Sometimes, just getting into a safe and loving foster home is all it takes, e.g. for dogs who are anxious or timid at the shelter.  Foster homes make dogs more adoptable by teaching them how to live in a family, including everything from house-training to trusting new people to basic manners and obedience.  Foster homes also provide information about energy level, temperament, and likes/dislikes that can help match the dog with the right permanent home.

The rescue, we like to say, does not end with the pull.  Once a dog is safely in a no-kill adoption facility or foster home, she needs to be marketed.  Most rescue/adoption groups advertise the dog on Petfinder.com or similar sites and those that do not have their own facility hold regular adoption events at places like Petsmart, where potential adopters can find the right dog.  This process can take a couple of weeks or many months, depending on many factors.

Viggo was abandoned after being shot during a police raid.

This is already too long, but there is still much more to say.  Every rescue is a little different.  There are more failures than successes.  Maybe the most important thing to say is our same old refrain: rescue takes a village.  Many different people with many different skills and resources are necessary, including staff and volunteers who identify at-risk dogs at public shelters; private rescue groups (mostly run by volunteers) who rehabilitate and rehome dogs; foster families; and individual good Samaritans who do not wait for someone else to help an animal in need.

Viggo in his foster home.

It's political. (It is?)

"Rescue is a political act,” according to Donna Reynolds and Tim Racer, founders of BAD RAP (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls).

This may not be something a lot of rescuers think about very much (who has time?) but it's worth some reflection.  BAD RAP's claim goes against the conventional wisdom, which sees animal rescue as apolitical.  Rescue seems apart from politics both because animals do not seem to be political creatures and because rescue seems to be an individual act, an effort to save a particular animal from a bad fate, such as euthanasia, abuse, neglect, hoarding, or warehousing.  It can be done on a large scale, of course, but at root it is about particular, concrete animals.  Politics, on the other hand, is about power, in the broadest sense, and its location, distribution, and use in human social settings, including but not limited to government institutions.

If rescue is inherently individual, and politics is inherently collective (and human), how do they go together?  For many people who care about one or the other, they do not.  In this perspective, rescue is apolitical, an act of care inspired by sympathy for an individual animal and made necessary by individual acts of human cruelty or neglect.   It is not connected to institutions, structures, or power dynamics.

Marty on a chain, before rescue

Animal welfare in general and rescue in particular do not map easily onto the American political landscape.  Unlike environmentalism, feminism, or other social movements, animal welfare has an ambiguous, eclectic political identity and its supporters have diverse political affiliations, ranging across the entire ideological spectrum.  Thus most animal rescue organizations include a broader ideological cross-section than local chapters of the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, or the National Rifle Association.  It is not just that animal welfare does not fit easily with other political ideologies.  Animal issues – and animals – are de-politicized in general.  Many animal advocates would identify the motivation for their concern and activism as love of animals, either animals in general, or of specific breeds or types.  It is not about politics but about care and sympathy.

Marty after rescue (and heartworm treatment)

                           
In this context, to assert that rescue is a political act thus challenges the dominant view of animal rescue and proposes a new definition. Where does this get us?

If rescue is a political act, it is about changing larger structures and attitudes as well as about addressing individual cases.  Above all, it is about connecting the structures and the individuals.  Animal abuse and neglect do not happen in an ideological, political, or cultural vacuum, any more than does abuse of particular categories of people.  There was a time when sociologists believed that racism was largely an individual pathology, but now racism (and sexism, homophobia, and other prejudices) are understood as the result of collective and structural factors, not just individual choices.  Political conditions, broadly defined, make it more or less easy and appealing for people both to harbor prejudices and to act on them. Understanding a problem as political rather than simply individual or psychological changes the way we go about trying to resolve it

Hector, one of the dogs rescued from Michael Vick

For BAD RAP, the politics of rescue focus on changing attitudes and also policies and laws that demonize pit bulls.  The rescue of the Vick dogs is the best-known example: BAD RAP and the other organizations involved in the rescue not only saved individual dogs from terrible suffering but also used the case to call attention to the cruelty of dog fighting and the injustice and inaccuracy of stereotypes about pit bull type dogs.  The success of the dogs’ rescue and rehabilitation led to a wave of changes in laws not only about fight bust dogs but also about pit bulls in general.

Connecting individual acts of compassion to politics can make rescue even messier and more complicated than it already is.  However, it can also empower us and the animals we seek to help.

What do you think?  Should animal rescue be seen as a political movement or cause?  Can we avoid seeing it that way?