I am talking about transport programs such as the Petsmart Charities Rescue Waggin' which is used to import dogs from other states. If you would like to comment, please do. I will leave the comment thread open. You have to log in to Google Blogger to leave a comment on my blog. Comments do not publish automatically because they are filtered for spam. (Otherwise, my comment thread would be loaded with unrelated spammy comments.) So please be patient.
Here is what the supporters of transport programs say:
1. The diversity of breeds that arrive on the Rescue Waggin' increases traffic at the shelters and helps all of the shelter dogs.
2. Shelter dogs from the south have as much reason to live as Wisconsin dogs. This is helping those dogs and the shelters they come from.
Here is what the critics of transport programs say:
1. We should take care of our Wisconsin dogs first.
2. Transports from the South expose Wisconsin dogs to new diseases.
3. It is unethical to take the puppies and small dogs from the shelters that need the revenue they could have generated by adopting them out in their own community.
Through October 2013, 1554 dogs have lost their lives at MADACC. That is more than five per day. Yet the Rescue Waggin' rolls in to Wisconsin, week after week, month after month. At least four Wisconsin shelters use the Rescue Waggin': Wisconsin Humane Society, Ozaukee Humane Society, Elmbrook Humane Society and Bay Area Humane Society. There are some other shelters, like Fox Valley Humane Assocation, that also have private transport agreements with southern shelters.
Here are the MADACC statistics year to date (click to enlarge):
My thoughts (and again, you are welcome to post your thoughts below):
I could agree with the "diversity" argument a few years ago when the transports were bringing up a diverse mix of dogs. But this is no longer the case. Small fluffy dogs are in high demand and short supply in most parts of the country so they are seldom coming by transport. Puppies also fly off the shelves in many shelters. So the "diversity" argument is fading fast. The remaining dogs that are coming on the Rescue Waggin' are typically all the same, although they may be a slightly younger version of what are currently being killed in Milwaukee. They are large, mixed breed dogs, of which we have plenty right here at MADACC; less than 10 miles from two of the Rescue Waggin' receiving shelters. Here is an example of a dog that arrived on the Rescue Waggin' to Elmbrook Humane Society in October. He looks lovely and I'm sure he is a wonderful dog - but there are many here in Milwaukee that look just like him that need a home also.
This is from the Rescue Waggin's frequently asked question on their website. An interesting note, they recently changed their website and have now omitted this page of FAQ's.
Here are the MADACC transfer statistics for October 2013. You can see that transfers are down yet the number of dogs killed has increased over the same period last year. Click to enlarge.
Your thoughts? Please feel free to comment. Healthy discussion leads to new ideas and new ideas can save lives. Thank you.
More reading on the subject of out of state transports:
From Maddie's Fund: http://www.maddiesfund.org/About_Us/Maddies_Editorials/Dog_Transport_Editorial.html
Also from Maddie's Fund: http://www.maddiesfund.org/Maddies_Institute/Articles/The_Pros_and_Cons_of_Dog_Transport.html
From Animal Ark: http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/ViewArticle?OpenForm&Photo=AF9BC5483AB26DC186257BE10043D9F2
From Out the Front Door:http://outthefrontdoor.com/2013/12/06/what-colorados-statistics-say-about-transports/
Frankly, is not a life saved a life saved? Were those dogs not transferred up from the south it is highly likely they would have been euthanized.
ReplyDeleteI have not done any research on this organization, but are the dogs they bring up already temperament and health tested? Knowing the prevalence of heartworm in Southern dogs I would hope they are at least testing for this before bringing them up this way.
Perhaps MADACC would have better success at getting shelters to take their animals if they stopped sending dogs with known illnesses and disease without telling the receiving shelter.... I know they sent a slew of dogs with kennel cough to my local community shelter this year and it caused a GIANT mess. After looking over the health papers of the dogs, MADACC was fully aware of their symptoms prior to transport. I'm sure they've lost more than a few opportunities for such shady practices.
Karissa, you complain of being "sent a slew of dogs with kennel cough" the dogs were not "sent", you ordered them. It was May 1st, and you pulled 4 dogs, 2 were pitties, 1 beagle and a bearded collie. One if them had kennel cough which was noted on the paperwork. (I think meds were even sent).
DeleteOnce you indicated you were unaware of the diagnosis/treatment of kennel cough, and dramatically made your displeasure known, you did NOT even want to call MADACC. I called the Vet tech staff and handed the phone to you. I even offered to return the dog to Milwaukee, but you decided to keep it. So you share some responsibility.
Bordetella (Kennel cough) is an opportunistic pathogen that thrives in crowded, high volume/high stress facilities. So at that time it was widely accepted that a dog had a near 100% risk of exposure to Bordetella at some time during their 7+ day stay. All dogs either were recovering, had it, or were exposed.
I must say that MADACC under the direction of Karen Sparaponi , and Lorraine Sweeney, communication, honesty and accountability has returned, and are improving. So it's not fair to make a general comment based on one event 7 months ago.
I don't know who you think you are talking to, but apparently you are mistaken. I did used to work for CRHS but have not since early this year (beginning of April, I believe). The MADACC dogs came after my departure and I heard about it through friends/previous coworkers. You certainly did not speak to me about anything and I have no part in this.
DeleteKarissa, pardon me. By your comment I thought that you were there that day, and were in charge on intake at the kennel. So you are defaming MADACC without direct, first hand knowledge of what really happened. hmmmm
DeleteI didn't realize I needed to be there that day to understand what a burden it would be for a shelter with four isolation kennels (that are back-up to the full-at-the-time quarantine kennels) to receive four dogs that all needed to be isolated from the rest of the population. While MADACC might think it's normal/common for dogs coming out of their shelter to have URI, for smaller shelters who try to keep their population healthy, they are not equipped to deal with the two-week isolation period (or more) and it can be a death sentence if the sick dogs expose others. It's one thing if a shelter has the option to decide if they are able to handle the situation in advance, but completely another for it to be dumped upon them without warning. CRHS tries VERY hard to prevent the spread of disease and I know this plagued them for some time. It adds hours of work to the already overburdened animal care staff (which I was for three years).
DeleteI have no idea who you are as you hide behind the "Unknown" moniker, but apparently you were involved first-hand -- and apparently you find nothing wrong with sending sick dogs out to local receiving shelters without disclosing these facts. That is unfortunate.
It was very nice of you to offer to take the dog with the confirmed diagnosis back -- after you sent it out on transport and knowingly exposed/infected the other three dogs traveling with it. I'm quite sure that's why they opted to keep the dog, as what is the point of sending it back once it has contaminated everyone? If you have to isolate three, you may as well isolate four.
My understanding is that Rescue Waggin' transports CAN include dogs with Upper Respiratory Infections, heartworm, ringworm, parvo and distemper without telling the receiving shelters.
ReplyDeleteMADACC, under Karen Sparapani's leadership, tells receiving shelters about URI's and sends medical paperwork. Rescues that do not have the same access as shelters to medical care and/or resources for medicine are given free antibiotics.
MADACC is very honest about the state of the animals that are there. The biggest problem is that most of the larger "humane societies" will only take perfect animals. Not sick. Not injured. No baggage. And we all know that a stray dog or cat on the street is not perfect. They can become perfect, but they need a little TLC. Usually not even all that much. So maybe confronting the places who actually get most of the resources to help animals, who typically take out of state animals and let the ones in their own backyard be put down, would be a better bet. Just my opinion. From someone who does pull the sick, the injured, the needy out of MADACC and care for them until they can be placed.
DeleteI guess only healthy dogs deserve to be saved.
ReplyDeleteJust thought I'd point out that "Larry Norman" is Joyce Madsen from Thiensville who uses this and several other screen names to troll blogs and no kill articles to make irrelevant comments.
DeleteThanks for calling that out - that really bothers me. I think Kathy does a great job of welcoming open discussion on even the toughest of topics. Be yourself, Joyce ... even if you're being a troll, at least have the decency to be yourself.
DeleteThis hits home for me as I have a dog that I adopted last year from Elmbrook that came from Kentucky via the Rescue Waggin. I also have another dog that I adopted this year from a local rescue group who had pulled her from MADACC and fostered her until I adopted her. The way I see it is either of my dogs could've been euthanized had someone not made the decision to transport or foster and give them a shot at getting a good home. To me it does not matter where they came from as the need was the same, I'm only thankful that I have them both and can provide them a happy, comfortable life. I agree a life saved is a life saved.
ReplyDeleteI am torn about out of state transport. From a broad perspective, I feel it is morally correct to try and give every animal a good home regardless of the random fact of their birthplace. But I also know first hand that transporting dogs does cause issues for local rescues who now are competing for placements and therefore their funding and livelihood from states far away. One thing I am sure of: Transports who advertise to the general public on Facebook to come pick up a dog sight unseen for 'adoption' at a transport drop-off site is just plain wrong.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say ...."advertise to the general public on Craigslist...."
DeleteI am posting a comment for Jennifer who has not been able to log in and comment so emailed her comment to me:
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about the issue. I agree we need to "take care of our own" but I certainly can't fault anyone for saving lives of animals no matter where they are from. However, there is one business in my area (they are not a nonprofit) who I will not name, that ships up dogs from down south - 80% puppies. They sell them for $300 + because they know there is a market for puppies up north since most people do a decent job of spay/neuter up here. the animals are not altered before they leave the facility. I have a very hard time processing that. They ARE saving lives, but they are picking and choosing the most desirable lives to save - ones that they know that will sell for the price they want. Is it wrong? I don't know. Something about it feels wrong to me. I think it's a great business decision from a money standpoint - they say they are a "rescue" and make people feel good about rescuing these little puppies but .....something about it does not sit well with me. Plus the fact that they are not altered prior to leaving the "rescue" makes me wonder if they truly care about reducing the population of homeless animals. And if the dog does not work with the family they will only take it back for a hefty fee. To me, that's not rescuing. That's controlling inventory to make the most money possible. It's a business. So what do I think? I don't know yet.
I find adopting unsterilized pets is irresponsible, regardless of where the pet came from. In my mind, that's not rescue work and they perhaps shouldn't be doing it if they can't figure out how to get them spayed/neutered first. This is a good example of why I support managed programs like PC Rescue Waggin because there is no way they would allow the receiving shelter to adopt without spay/neuter, and they pay the staff who monitors such things so the sending shelters can concentrate on what they need to be concentrating on.
DeleteYears ago, I brought a few dogs up from a shelter in central Indiana that was struggling to place as many as they could. They never wanted to keep many puppies- so many free ones are available in the area it didn't pay for the shelter to try and adopt them out. There are just TOO MANY puppies in most of those areas down south, and it's hard for them to euthanize so many. I can see why they try so hard to find other shelters to ship them to.
ReplyDeleteWe DO seem to have a shortage of puppies in Wisconsin for the people who want to adopt them, and sometimes (rarely), people who come in to look at a puppy will chose an adult dog instead. Most will just keep looking, or end up going to a breeder or pet store if they can't find a pup at a shelter or rescue. Having extra pups to adopt out can potentially boost a shelter's Live Release Rate, if you're not bringing up lots of disease with the puppies.
I think there are rescues and shelters who do it in moderation and it's probably not a bad thing. There are others that seem to be treating Wisconsin like an Outlet Mall for Puppies and bringing in large groups and dumping them quickly (along with their diseases). That, I can not condone.
So, I guess I'm not against the concept, but there are good and bad ways of carrying it out.
I oppose mass transports of dogs. It is outsourcing and it is unnecessary. I live in the south. The shelter in the city where I work has a partnership with a large organization in New York. They ship dogs north regularly, most of which are young or are the best looking and with the best temperaments. My position is that the dogs can be marketed right here without shipping them off. There are dogs in New York needing rescue. Mike Fry of The Animal Ark in Minnesota wrote about this very subject recently and included some statements made by our local shelter director. I support transports for targeted adoptions (like those facilitated by some friends in New Hampshire). I do not support the load 'em up, ship 'em out method as if we are too hopelessly stupid to figure out how to rehome dogs right here in our own backyard.
ReplyDeleteI am unfamiliar with any of the organizations mentioned. Our rescue frequently transports dogs from out of state into our rescue. We get many dogs from rural shelters in-state as well (WV) Am I to understand that this particular organization mass transports dogs for local shelters? I have never heard of such a practice. How can local shelters deal with that and have open intake for surrendered/stray animals? Perhaps I am reading this imcorrectly?
ReplyDeleteIf you have access to the ASPCA transport map, I think the "transports out" correlate very well with poverty rate in those areas. So pet surrender in those areas is high. Pets are in demand in higher income areas. Transport is one solution to these problems, but is pretty expensive in terms of volunteer time and transport costs. Also, it can be pretty inefficient, when a dog of particular breed is transported across the country (maybe even twice, once to foster then once to an adoptive home), when there are dogs of that breed much closer, sometimes in the same state. On the other hand, a diversity of pets in the "transported to" shelter (I think) is likely to bring in more adopters, who may not necessarily adopt the first choice pet, but may adopt an alternate pet once they reach the shelter. And, we are mostly talking about dogs here, right? I don't know any transports of cats? So if you compare euthanasia rates of dogs nationwide (which have been declining over time) and cats (which have not declined all that much, if at all), part of this may be what transport does for dogs vs cats.
ReplyDeleteI don't think my first attempt to reply worked so at the risk of duplication - here it is:
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is a very complex issue. My gut says that states should place their own dogs before wheeling in dogs from all over the country who often come will varying illness many of which the North found to effectively manage in the past. However, this would be a hypcritical stance for me as the last 5 dogs I rescued all came from outside my state, IL. Three came from the Thorp Amish dog auction in Northern WI. I "saved" them when I attended the auction. The other two: one came from Missouri and one came from Indiana. These two I found on Petfinder and drove hundreds of miles to adopt. There are 3 shelters within 20 minutes of my home - all with a great variety of dogs at any given time. I could have easily went to any of the shelters and adopted a wonderful dog there - but I didn't. So, if we limit states and shelters to only placing their own respective animals - does that mean individual adopters should only be able to adopt from their respective states?
The transport issue hits close to home here in New Jersey. Our no-kill shelters largely pull dogs from down south and many of those dogs are direct competition for local dogs languishing or dieing in the very same shelters. Most of the transported dogs are puppies and their mamas of large breeds (and a significant portion are pit and pit bull mixes to boot) who clearly compete with our local large breeds. Volunteers at one local open admission urban shelter, which takes in mostly pit bull type dogs and does not transport, tell me many people come in looking for a small dog and leave with a small pocket pit bull because they fell in love with that dog. This shelter despite extremely strict temperament testing, a tiny facility, and few financial resources achieved no-kill for its dogs last year. On the other hand, another local no-kill shelter with a small animal control contract who transports huge numbers of puppies/mamas from the south (about 8 times local strays impounded through animal control) has local dogs languishing for years in shelter.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe more animals are saved indirectly by no-kill community success than through actual animals directly saved. For example, when a specific community achieves 95% live release rates it puts political pressure and financial pressure (if poorly performing shelter is non-profit) on neighboring shelters to improve. If an entire state is saving 95% of its animals, it puts pressure on neighboring states to save 95% of their animals and so on. If shelters are simply rescuing easy to adopt animals haphazardly from different areas, that goal will be harder to achieve. Additionally, local shelter policies are easier to influence when you can get feet on the ground and face to face interactions. Personally, I prefer Animal Ark’s, Nevada Humane Society’s and Austin Pets Alive’s approach of using excess life saving capacity to help nearby communities.
Personally, I can tell you how frustrating it is to go to adoption events with dogs who have been in shelters for years or life is on the line and seeing so many groups adopt dozens of puppies (most of which will grow into same types of adult dogs we have) and patting themselves on the back. It is demoralizing and leads to less volunteer participation. It has gotten to the point where we don't even want to go to events like Best Friends and other large scale ones since our dogs have little to no chance against the cute puppies.
I am entering a comment for Roxanne: I tried to post on your blog page but couldn't figure out how to create an "ID". What I wanted to say is that, if we transport a lot of animals from other states, when we are killing animals in this state, doesn't that lessen the chances of those out of state shelters doing a better job of finding homes for the animals in their area. It's as if we are helping them to do a poor job.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone should put more emphasis on free sterilization available in areas where the people need the service. Then the dogs in the North and the South would be less plentiful (especially the puppies) and ultimately there would be fewer animals entering shelters and at risk of euthanasia.
ReplyDeleteI volunteer at a rescue that brings dogs, mainly puppies and smaller dogs, up from a southern shelter about once or twice a year. At one time the head of the rescue explained to me that yes, people do want to adopt puppies, which we have fewer of here in WI. But sometimes when they see the rambunctious pups and realize all the care that will be needed, the decide on an older dog. I understand that dogs are killed in WI open-intake shelters, but the number is small compared to those that die in southern shelters. I applaud ALL the WI rescues that are stepping up, not only for out of state dogs but doing what they can to develop a larger foster network, more adoption events, more publicity etc in order to also help dogs who are right here in our own state and need placement.
ReplyDeleteI feel interstate transports are a mixed bag. There are some done well - there are some done poorly. I have a really hard time relating to this idea that lives "in our own back yard" are more important than others. What is my "back yard"? Why state lines and not county lines? How about time zones instead? What if Wisco shelters decided to draw the line at county, what would happen to MADACC then? Who decides what our back yard is? Rescue Waggin does some key things - not just covering the cost of fuel, vehicle and drivers ... but also investing in screening shelters, mediating conflicts AND holding sending shelters accountable for improving themselves. I don't see that at all with some transports, in fact I'm not aware of any one outside of PS Rescue Waggin that is activly working to also reform the source shelters. The value of PetSmart's investment in those aspects cannot be understated. I've been on the end of a receiving shelter when transfers from other Wisconsin shelters would happen AND LET ME TELL YOU THE CLUSTERF%$# stories. From completely the wrong animals getting transported, completely inappropriate handling by volunteer transporters, one shelter just passing problems (YES, LIKE PARVO) or aggressive dogs off on another shelter. Then you have to realize that in programs like Rescue Waggin, receiving shelters can select the dogs they know their adopting public will adopt fast ... making the biggest impact in lives saved when you take a national view. It's not just "puppy" or "cute", that's oversimplified. If every shelter already has half their kennel full of pit and lab mixes, what sense does it make to send them more? But in another week, a shelter might be full of hounds and able to take some lab mixes. By a shelter being able to save lives and at the same time increase the diversity of dogs on their adoption floor, it generates more traffic ... resulting in more "hometown" dogs getting adopted AND ... like it or not, dogs who are easy to adopt out fast and collect an adoption fee for essentially subsidize saving cats, who end up being given away for little to nothing. So not only is the life of the healthy, perfectly fine dog from KY being saved, but chances are the 3-year local lab in the kennel next to him does, AND they KY pup's adoption fee covers the expenses the shelter incurred vetting 2 cats adopted out for a whopping $10. NOW HAVING SAID ALL THAT ... the situation in Milwaukee between MADACC and Wisconsin Humane has always confused the bejesus out of me and still does. It seems like there is fault on both sides, and I've heard it had a lot to do with dogs coming out of MADACC being consistently sick ... but that perhaps it is time for some changes? I thought the new leadership at MADACC was improving that relationship and heading in the right direction? I can't help but wonder -- would MADACC qualify as a source shelter today under Rescue Waggin' requirements? But please, please don't apply Milwaukee's scenario to all communities or all transport programs. Lumping interstate transports together as immoral smacks of the resistance to pets as gifts, free/low adoption fees, and adopting black cats on Halloween -- it's easy to rally people who don't know much about the big picture and actual data to deem it evil but in reality, there is incredible life-saving potential there ... My 2 cents.
ReplyDeleteIf there was a "like" button I'd click it.
DeleteIf there was a "Like" button, I'd click on it.
DeleteI am very disturbed that people who have any credibility in rescue continue to propagate this backward viewpoint. If we decided which dogs to rescue based on the conduct of the people who put them in the positions they are in, then we could not rescue very many dogs. That is because bad human decisions are almost always behind the reasons the animals wind up in the plights they are in. I feel the backlash against out of state transports is nothing more than prejudice against southerners. Dogs do not know what side of a human-drawn line they are on. It is foolish and narrow-minded to say that we owe more to dogs in WI than in TX, or even rescues here than there. This country fought a very bloody war centuries ago to establish that we are not a collection of states, but a nation. And the reality is that abandoning our rescue friends in southern states will not lead to a change in the practices of the breeders in the south. It will just lead to more dogs dying in gas chambers and by heart stick. I find it disheartening and sickening that rescuers have to turn on each other and to try to discourage others from helping those who are trying to rescue in the south. If you don't want to do it, fine, But don't judge those who do.
ReplyDeleteI posted a long comment with my opposing view and it is apparently not being published. I disagree with dividing the rescue community and pitting states against each other. We should educate everyone, not hold dogs in one part of the country responsible for the bad decisions of human beings anywhere. Abandoning rescuers in the south will not lead to changes in the practices of those who are creating problems. It will only lead to more dogs dying by heartstick and gas chambers. This is the rescue equivalent of saying we should not let in political refugees who are tortured in other countries because we have enough poor people here already.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes. That would be my anti-southern conspiracy. LOL. April, I use a comment moderator on my blog to filter out the spam. Comments do not publish automatically. I lived in Texas for ten years. I don't need a lecture on the civil war, thank you very much.
DeleteI don't think starting a conversation like this is well served by being flippant or dismissive. These are serious accusations that you are making and they are directed at other rescuers. I think it is not too much to ask that someone who puts this issue out there would be respectful of opposing points of view.
DeleteI am very respectful of opposing views, April, and I have published all the comments that have come in on this blog. I also have a sense of humor, which you apparently do not.
DeleteI'm on the 'a life saved is a life saved'. Most of the rescues that I transport to already have homes for most of the dogs that are transported. I don't really do 'mass transports' either though. I am in WI and have gotten into many heated discussions with folks regarding my transporting out of state dogs into WI. My answer is normally that if a RESPONSIBLE rescue wants to pull an out of state dog, and I can help get that dog out of harms way, then I'm going to do it, period.
ReplyDeleteI see two statements in the above comments that are entirely correct. From Sarah Frankowski, " I understand that dogs are killed in WI open-intake shelters, but the number is small compared to those that die in southern shelters." Those stats were researched not too long ago by the Badger Area Rescue and Transport Service (BRATS). Turns out MADACC's stats are worse than some of the shelters sending up dogs on the Rescue Waggin. She also makes reference to dogs dieing in Gas Chambers. I believe if you do the research you'll find the numbers of shelters who actually that method for euthanasia is lower than you think. I have to say I have not seen the stats so I am only going by what two credible sources tell me.
ReplyDeleteMy compromise would be this. Certainly we all love animals or we wouldn't be responding to these posts with such passion. And no one wants to see an animal euthanized in any state but pulling them from down south is just putting a band aid on a larger wound. I would say we should be selective on what we bring in from down south. We don't need any more labs, shepherds, chi's, pit bulls, or the like. If you want to take a shot at pups...have fun. I pulled 4 litters from a shelter in southern, IL and 3 of the 4 had parvo. That's no fun. Thankfully, our rescue put the money (thousands) into at least giving the pups a chance but there are some that pull from the south that don't have those funds. That's another discussion. I'd say to find a balance on what you're pulling and first look within your own state. Second, focus on educating the public on what we have available right here in our State. BRATS is doing a good job of getting the word out. But people breeze right by their list and I wonder how much the all mighty dollar has to do with that. There is no grant or funding attached to the animals from within our state.
Finally, to the first four posts, I'd say REALLY? You make that big of a deal out of kennel cough? A common cold. Kennel cough isn't a huge deal in healthy adult dogs. They have a virus, they get over it. Also, MADACC is extremely forthcoming when it comes to health. They disclose whatever they are aware of. And who on earth could hold them accountable for sending a dog with kennel cough to a rescue? Afterall, they don't go out and beg the public to ditch their dogs there. Their facility houses thousands of animals. They are going to get sick. Maybe if we all worked together to get them out, their chances of becoming sick would be less. I've fostered some really bad cases of kennel cough and it runs its course and they get over it. Nothing to get upset about unless you're just looking to take in perfect, healthy dogs but then why call yourself a rescue? Another debate sooo...enough.
I'm glad Kathy opened up this discussion. Perhaps if the general public knew the truth about the Rescue Waggin, they'd see who really drives the rescue waggin. His name is Cold Hard Cash.
FYI, CRHS is an open admission shelter that is also the animal control facility for La Crosse County. They are not a "rescue" and kennel cough can cripple their small facility because sick dogs are NOT allowed to expose the general population. From time to time, CRHS works with other shelters in Wisconsin and takes in their overflow dogs when there is room and the favor is returned when CRHS is out of space.
DeleteSome of you may not consider kennel cough a "big deal," but once it is introduced into a shelter population it takes forever to get rid of. I heard horror stories about an outbreak that they dealt with shortly before I started. Thankfully in the time I was there we had only a handful of minor cases that were more or less isolated just to be safe and they weren't really symptomatic. Extreme precautions were taken to not spread anything to the healthy dogs. It is a BIG DEAL at a small shelter in a community that expects to adopt healthy animals. Nobody adopts sick animals here - hence the E rate of cats in the iso room...
It's hard enough to keep your own population healthy. What kennel manager would seriously say, "Sure! Send us sick dogs!" Not around here.
When its easier to rescue dogs from several states away rather then your own local shelters there is a problem. Are these shelters doing a better job of networking and marketing?
ReplyDeleteOn occasion, I take animals from an out of state on a limited basis, but I usually know the sender and/or transporter.
ReplyDeleteI do not support transporting large groups of dogs into Wisconsin. Often, the transport vehicles/trucks are packed with too many animals in too small of crates for too long of a time. These animals receive minimal vetting from the sending agency, are not tested for heartworm, have not been formally temperament testing, and some have no interstate health certificate.
I do not like the Petsmart Charities Rescue Wagon program. States like Wisconsin are creating a black hole for states who aren't adequately dealing with their pet overpopulation problem. Rescue Wagon dogs are promoted as being able to go right from the truck to the adoption floor. Often, it doesn't work that way. Some aren't spayed/neutered, some are sick, some don't have the needed vaccinations, and some need to be temperament tested again.
There is absolutely NO REASON why a Pit Bull or Pit Bull mix (or Am Staff) of any age needs to be brought into Wisconsin. (I love Pits and have owned two.) Adoptable Pits are being euthanized on a daily basis in Wisconsin, so why bring more into Wisconsin? Trying ti disguise a Pit Bull as say, a Boxer mix doesn't help either; it is what it is.
I understand a life saved is a life saved, but you can't convince me that bringing in truckloads of out of state dogs does not impact the lives of adoptable Wisconsin dogs. If dog are being transported by the Rescue Wagon from the same shelters 3, 4, 5 years after starting the program, how can the Rescue Wagon program be working? Measuring success by the number of animals transported is the wrong data to use.
I don't like the 'mass transport' things either. When I am doing an out of state transport, it's a few dogs, mostly Golden Retrievers for some reason, and Huskies (going to IL, not WI), but I've seen some transports that are just plain irresponsible and unfair to the dogs...IMHO. I hate seeing these run sheets coming out needing multiple drivers per leg - 40 dogs being delivered to unscreened rescues. That's what us TC's really need to be careful of. There is a bit of truth to the 'there are dogs in your backyard, why are you pulling from out of state' deal. Many of the rescues that have asked me to do transports to them have failed miserably on my screening process - hence why they are pulling from out of state. I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT SAYING that any rescue pulling from out of state is in this category though - please don't misunderstand.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that measuring success by the number of animals transported is the wrong way to do it. I don't know what the 'right' answer is, but I can't turn down sending an out of state dog, to a responsible rescue, where they are going to get adopted out to a fully screened home.
We have waited to chime in here, curious to see the comments made by others, not that they would sway us one way or another as we’re TOTALLY against the puppy wagons.
ReplyDeleteWhile we agree that all animals deserve a chance regardless of what state they started out in, we don’t believe it should be at the expense of those already here (in Wisconsin). (For example, I had a comment made on my FB page stating that bringing in animals also brings in funds for the shelters, funds which in this case were used to spay/neuter cats. Hey, all who know me know I’m a huge cat person, but I can’t justify saving a cat by killing a dog. Just doesn’t wash with me.)
What we find interesting is the biggest recipient of the charity vans are not open-admission shelters. They have the luxury of cherry picking their animals, the best looking dogs, the youngest kittens, and then they get accolades for their ‘humane’ work. Why aren’t these facilities labeled what they really are: ADOPTION CENTERS. They are not HUMANE societies.
Charity begins at home. Once we can provide homes for Wisconsin animals, then we can legitimately offer help to other states.
Just our $.02. Your mileage may vary.
MaryAnn Riggs & Phil Beitz
Okay, I'm going to have to eat a little crow on a previous comment about holding sending shelters accountable for improving ... and perhaps it dove-tails into what seems to be an emerging change in the make-up of dog age/breed coming from the south. It sounds like the Rescue Waggin' program - LIKE ALMOST ANY PROGRAM - might be suffering from a little loss of direction from the original vision since a significant change in management happened a while back ... coupled with the fact that they may have succeeded in some aspects and need to make adjustments (Kathy's point that the age and breed make-up seems to have changed) ... but I am still whole-heartedly against this idea that some moral lines are drawn at state lines. Let's look at it another way -- if Petsmart Charities were asked to change their program to add in-state transports to their generous transport support, what would be the barriers? I don't have the answers, I'm asking because I don't have much insight into the state of MADACC and what is true and current. I'd really like to see people talk about how programs like transport could work better, vs. comments like "cash is driving". Keep in mind that PetSmart Charities is a MAJOR FUNDER of critical life-saving work across the country ... from TNR grants and support, to funding low-cost spay/neuter programs, to bringing adoptable pets out of shelters and into their retail stores. We wonder why animal welfare continues to sit at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to philanthropy in this country - personally I believe it has a lot to do with the way advocates behave, particularly when we disagree with someone else's approach or priorities EVEN WHEN IT'S CLEARLY SAVING LIVES.
ReplyDeleteI would be clicking "Like" again.
DeleteThis story is about a group of 9- 10 German Shepherds pulled from California heading for New Jersey. Which happens regularly. The "rescue" collects tons of money for these dogs to be pulled for medical reasons, nothing specific or it can be made up. The Shelter that the dogs came from does not do extensive medical evaluations on dogs. If it does any medical procedure, it is just the rabies shot, only what is required by law. The dogs are then doped up and in this case a group of German Shepherds were piled in a small RV with a "transporter" who was being paid to drive them across the country. The picture of all the German Shepherds piled up in the RV was shocking. The "transporter" and his wife did it for ownership of the tired, thrash RV and some cash. The transporters motivation was the cash and the RV. Get the dogs out of California across state lines however they could, including muzzling and doping dogs. They did not care about the dogs. Lee whose picture has been shared by thousands was shot and killed by a farmer after he escaped his so called "rescue" in the Dakota's (not sure which one) still with a muzzle on. The money collected off Lee was $1500. It was never returned to those donors. Some of the other dogs from this ride from hell also disappeared. The originating rescue is in New Jersey. That New Jersey Rescue has a pattern of doing this behavior, no dogs are ever listed on this "so-called" rescues website, no happy endings, just a fake pretty website. They transport from California continuously because they have found a way to make money off dogs and make them disappear. No happy ending stories for Lee and the others on that ride from hell.
ReplyDeleteMy point, this is just one tragic example of dogs being transported out of state to other states and the Shelters have no clue as to what has happened to their dogs. There are more horror stories like Lee's. This is not an isolated incident. Just as in every business, the criminals are out there. It is easier to "lose" the dogs on these interstate transports because the Shelters can not keep track of the dogs as easily as they can inside their own states with (in our case) California Laws to help protect the dogs. How many dogs have been drugged, driven over state lines with big nonexistent medical bills? And the kindhearted donors fund those dogs with "big fake" medical needs? So many more, Lee is not alone, his story was traceable.
Lee went from one of the worse shelters in California (Devore) on his rescue ride to hell. Shot and killed. The Rescue in New Jersey made $1500 off him and more off the other 9 -10 dogs. There is no regulations in the rescue industry and the bad guys have made those of us that are aware refuse to send dogs out of state any longer.
Even my County Shelter has a No Out of State rescues are allowed to pull dogs. There is more regulations with trucking cigarettes across state lines. How about protecting the companion animals crossing state lines?
I wrote earlier that I opposed mass transports as someone who lives in the south. I do not oppose targeted transports of individual animals going to a specific adopter. I also do not oppose transports of groups of particular breeds of dogs. For example, if our Doxie rescue here cannot help with 20 dogs taken from a collector, I have no issue with them being accepted by another Doxie rescue in another state. My problem is with cherry picking the young or best looking dogs, loading them on snappy looking rescue van or truck and shipping them off en masse to some unknown future.
ReplyDeleteI work in a city which is very progressive and supports the space program. Our county population is half a million. Our city population is around 200k. In 2012, about 2,000 healthy and treatable dogs were destroyed in our municipal shelter. We have plenty of homes for those dogs right here. When we ship them out, we are not addressing what is broken here and we are displacing our issues elsewhere. This is not about borders or about who is smarter. My community will never become educated and empowered to embrace proven no kill sheltering programs if John and Jane Q. Doe think everything is running just peachy at the municipal shelter. We are responsible for our own backyard and I mean within this entire region.
I mentioned an article by Mike Fry of the Animal Ark in Hastings, MN, before. I’ve copied some excerpts here since Mike is smarter than I am and he can speak a little more freely on the topic than I can at present. His article is called Think Globally, Rescue Locally.
"Why Transports Happen
A logical person would be inclined to ask, "If the transports result in no net life-saving (and they don't), then why do they happen?" It was a question I was able to ask the director at a southern shelter that regularly ships dogs to New York.
The shelter in question was the Huntsville, Alabama animal control facility. The shelter's director, Dr. Karen Sheppard, has maintained a miserable save rate. She is currently saving only about 25% of the cats for which she is responsible, for example.
During a recent phone conversation with Sheppard, we talked about these transports. Almost immediately, she acknowledged that the New York shelter system was very broken, resulting in a lot of needless killing. When she said this, I immediately asked her, "If you know about all the killing going on in New York, why are you shipping so many animals there?"
Sheppard laughed and simply exclaimed, "You KNOW [emphasis hers] why we are doing it!"
In fact, I DO know why she, and others like her, are shipping animals to communities that are still killing large numbers of their own animals: It makes all of the shelters look like they are doing better than they actually are. Sheppard herself has recently been credited with "improving" the "save rate" for dogs to nearly 50%. However, a careful look at the statistics shows that nearly all of the "improvement" is the result of the transport of dogs to New York.
Another Problem with Transports
Over the years, I have visited and consulted with poor performing shelters in the North and South. In each case the problem has basically been the same: ineffective leadership in the form of an ineffective shelter director who is not given adequate oversight. The transport of animals out of those shelters to other states enables those poor-performing directors to remain in their jobs by making them look better than they are. The transports, therefore, serve no meaningful purpose and are actually harmful to animals at both ends of the line."