Have something to say about this article? Share Your Comments with our readers. Or, leave a message on the Animal Wise Radio Comment Line by calling toll-free (888) 668-0687.

Comments from readers:

On 04/29/2009 advocate said: Restructure AHS of MN The petition is asking for the resignation of the top directors at AHS in Minnesota. Please sign and send on to others to change this facility and bring awareness to 14,500 animals that have died in their care. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/14500-unnecessary-deaths-by-ahs-in-minnesota PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL OF YOUR CONTACTS

On 09/05/2007 Mike Fry said: Thanks Everyone - Nathan Winograd Coming to Twin Cities I wanted to send a big "thank you" to everyone engaged in this discussion, including Berry, Anna, Ellen, Karen and others. Regardless of anyone's position on the subject of no kill, this is a very important discussion to have. A lot can be learned by many people so long as the conversation continues. On that note, I would like to extend a personal invitation to anyone concerned with animals to attend a free event at Hamline University on October 2. Nathan Winograd, author of the much talked about book "Redemption: The myth of pet overpopulation and the no kill revolution in America" will be speaking and signing books. As one of the leaders of the no kill movement in the United States, and as someone who has actually helped to ACHIEVE the no kill goal in several communities, he has a lot to offer to this discussion. On that note, I would especially like to invite anyone who still believes no kill to be an unachievable goal to attend. More information about the event is here. Also check out Nathan's Blog.

On 09/04/2007 Berry said: After thinking some more I decided not to post right away after reading Anna's post. I am glad I didn't post right away. At first I was really ticked off - she said that Berry (me) was wrong, that she hadn't disappeared. But she still has not really answered any of the questions she said she would answer. To Karen and others I also think "working together" is important. Doing that seems really hard to do when a group like Ark is trying to teach people about a subject the humane society is covering up. It seems like all it would take to end this fight would be for the humane society to report the number of animals they kill.

On 08/27/2007 Mike Fry said: Thanks Karen For that very thoughtful post. You are very correct on every point. If you look closely at the formula the Asilomar Accords uses to compute save rate, it accounts for "Owner Requested Euthanasia". Most all open admission shelters provide this service. I agree there is value to it. I also agree that it is important for everyone to work together, which is why we are working so hard to grow and expand the Homes For All Pets coalition. I also firmly believe that it is crucial for shelters to openly share their statistics, so that the problem of pet overpopulation can really be measured in a meaningful way. Because of this, it is painfully frustrating when an article like the one published in the Humane Society newsletter comes out. People who fail to see that no kill needs to be a community-wide solution, and involves the funding and implementation of programs that will prevent unnecessary killing, often miss the bigger picture. A more fundamental question I have - relating to how shelters decide who lives and who does not - is this: if animal shelters are going to serve as the disposal centers for people's unwanted companion animals, who in our society serves as a public role model of responsible pet care?

On 08/27/2007 Karen said: Itis so easy to fight, when you are passionate about something. I skimmed through the Asilomar Accords and realized that we all need to be working together. I apologize if I am guilty of attacking the humane societies. In support of the humane societies I do believe that their low cost euthanasia is an important service to the community. It is important that pet parents make responsible decisions to end their pets suffering. I didn't see anything in the Asilomar Accords about euthanasia services. Does this information need to be published? Vets do not publish their information. I think that what no-kill supporters want, is for the person who makes the decision to euthanize to say " would I euthanize this animal if it were my pet?" For pet parents of sick animals the decision can be made quickly. When my kitten was diagnosed with FIP, I made the painful decision on the spot to end his suffering. But how long does a pet parent endure behavioral problems before deciding to put them down? I think that when an organization takes an animal under their legal ownership, they need to think of themselves as the temporary parents of these animals, treat each and every pet as if it were their own.

On 08/26/2007 Mike Fry said: Thanks Anna Thanks, Anna, for trying to address some questions. However, didn't really answer any of the questions that were asked. If you read your own newsletter, you would learn that your "adoption" numbers include animals returned to their owners, animals transferred to other organizations and virtually any other "live" animal that leaves your building. So, for example, the wild animals you take in (that, in my opinion, you should not take in, you should refer them to licensed wildlife rehabilitation centers) that you transfer to wildlife rehabilitation centers are counted as "adoptions" when these are actually transfers. I believe you are close to correct, in that if you add up all animals, and if you include all live animals leaving your building, your "adoption" rate is close to 60% (note: not 60%, but close to it). However, if you count only the live dogs and cats surrendered to your shelter only for adoption, I believe the adoption rate is much closer to 50%. I tend to focus on the wildlife issue, because, as the former Clinic Coordinator for the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center, I was on the receiving end of those wildlife "transfers" that, according to your newsletter, you count as "adoptions". I know that a very higher percentage of these "adoptions" were DOA at the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center, because the urgent care they needed was delayed, because the voicemail, web site, etc for the Humane Society directs people to bring injured wildlife to YOU, even though you do not have the expertise to deal with these wildlife issues, which is why you transfer the animals to the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center. Your own director has stated that you destroy 20% of your "adoptable" animals, which paints a somewhat different picture than you have. Animal Ark not only published our euthanasia stats. We go one step farther and will tell anyone specifically what happened to any animal that comes to our facility. That subject, in detail, was discussed earlier in this conversation, including a complete list of the animals euthanized at Animal Ark last year. Since you claim to have access to the dog and cat euthanasia statistics for Animal Humane Society, can you do us all a favor and put those numbers out for 2006? Just dogs and cats. Additionally, before posting again, I recommend you read the Asilomar Accords. The formula for computing the save rate for an organization accounts for animals surrendered for the purpose of euthanasia. Read the Asilomar Accords, apply the formula for dogs and cats and report back. That, is a pretty simple thing. If you have access to the data, and if you have not been told to not publish it, please do. Vary rarely does anyone every abandon an animal we turn away. It does happen sometimes. When it does, we take the animal, and contact authorities. . . animal abandonment is illegal in Minnesota. We, therefore, believe we should involve law enforcement when this happens and we know about it.

On 08/26/2007 Anna said: Here I Go Again First off, I would like to address Berry. Please don't assume that i have 24-hour access to a cumputer- just because i didn't respond immediately after Mike's, Karen's, and Ellen's posts doesn't mean their words shocked me into silence. Ellen- thank you for your kind words, i appreciate them amongst the onslaught i was faced with when i finally had the chance to log back on. I will do my best to answer questions. I would like to say that i am not any sort of all-knowing person in our organization- some information i don't know off the top of my head because i have plenty of other work that needs to be done. I will do my best to answer Karen's questions. How many animals are euthanized? Depends on your reference. We offer euthansia services to the public who cannot afford the service at their vet. We also euthanize for health and behavioral reasons. Health is usually chronic illness (diabetes, pancreatitis, epilepsy, etc), major illness (cancer, distemper, FelK, FIV), or reaccuring illness (cats diagnosed with the calici virus, etc). Animals that are euthanized are clasified as adoptable, potentially adoptable, or not-adoptable. Potentially adoptable are usually things that could be treated but that we don't have the resources to treat. Unadoptable are fatal illnesses. I cannot give you the numbers off the top of my head. I believe our adoption rate is about 60%. Does that mean our euthanasia rate is 40%? No- animals can leave the shelter for other reasons, such as being sent to rescues, or being stolen, or escaping etc etc. And i'm not sure if the 60% is all of our animals (including those surrendered for Owner-Request Euthanasia) or not. There are also times when a person is intending to surrender their pet in the hopes of finding a new home, but it turns out that we cannot place them into the adoption program (such as an animal that has ever bitten). In those circumstances they are told at the time of surrender that we cannot place them into the adoption program- they can choose to leave the animal for euthansia, or attempt to find a better option. Unfortunately, studies show that people struggle with the decision to get rid of their animals and average of 8month before taking action. We understand that most people try other options before coming to us, and that we are usually their last option (as evidenced by the amount of people that still leave their animal to be euthanized). I do not know the percentage of these animals surrendered either, but hopefully this info helped a little. I don't know because i don't need to know- it is not hidden from me, i could access the information if i wanted to. But will that change what i do or how i feel? No. There is no rule about 'not speaking about our euthanasia'. As said up above, we often tell customers at the time of surrender that their animal will be euthanized if left here. For the rest, we advise that their animal will get a health check and behavior evaluation prior to being placed for adoption- major health problems and behavior problems (most commonly aggression) are the most common reasons that animals are euthanized. if they have any concern about their animal's chance at adoption, they can choose the AnSWER Program. As I said above, i don't believe we keep this information secret, so i cannot answer the last 2 of Karen's questions. Mike- does Animal Ark publish it's Asilomar Statistics? Where can i get a printed copy of them? I cannot vouch for Janelle- nor can i convince her to come on here and answer any questions- i don't know her personally. Mike- i am not assuming that everything the feral cat woman told me was the truth- she said your staff person swore at them, and i doubt that. In fact, i stated both times that i wasn't there, so could not speak as to what actually happened. Please don't make assumptions about what i am and am not assuming- i have tried very hard to be open-minded while writing here. Also, once again, i do not think it is unfair that Animal Ark uses us as a resource. i think it is unfair that you badmouth us while offering us as a resource. When i tell people to come to you, i certainly don't say "But don't bother going there, they'll jsut turn you away, doesn't matter how badly you need their help." I tell them that you are a No-Kill resource with a good reputation. Likewise, all i ask is that when offering us as a resource, is to please offer us in a proffessional manner "They're an open admission facility, which your animal may face euthanasia, but they can answer any questions you may have about that." The feral cat lady and the cocker family are just a sample of the many people that have said that we were spoken of poorly when they visited your facility. Ok, on to Mike's questions. 1) I am not the organization. I have never said that No-Kill doesn't work. What i personally believe is that selected-admission shelters are a good part of filling the animal welfare niche that allows people different options when faced with the dilemma of re-homing their pet (just as Home for Life fills part of that niche). But i personally cannot believe that turning people away makes the problem go away- too often have i advised customers with stray animals to bring them to their local impound facility only to have them turn up tied to a tree outside. Mike, how often are the animals you turn away left outside your building? 2)I have none I am okay with the euthanasia i assist with because I believe that the reasons we euthanize are valid. I have personally had many of my animals euthanized in my lifetime- most for health but 2 for behavior. I chose to end their lives myself instead of passing them off to be someone else's problem, or to imagine that someone would manage to love them more than me and be able to 'fix' their problems. Ok, that was a really long response. Hopefully that helped a little bit. Again, i don't have all the answers, but i tried my hardest to be as thorough as possible.

On 08/26/2007 Mike Fry said: I agree, too Karen, I completely agree with you. My post was not, in any way, directed at you. However, when I have been involved in this discussion in the past and the "cash card" comes up, some people like to take it one step farther than I am willing to go. My comments were directed at anyone who might be thinking that their operations are all about money. I think their failure to report statistics is all about money. Failing to report those statistics, I believe, hurts animals. But I believe there are good parts of their organization. That being said, I fully agree that donors and volunteers are the ones who can make the greatest impact. Another strategy to make change there would be for their donors to offer contributions, with conditions attached to them. I believe, for example, if a couple of very large donors offered sizable contributions, with the requirement that AHS join the Homes For All Pets coalition, that would get their attention. People can also earmark money for specific purposes - like low-cost spay/neuter services for owned pets. Then, they should follow up and ask for an accounting of how their dollars are spent. Ironically, a review of the finances for AHS shows that if they simply put their budget SURPLUS into some of these programs, they would be able to make a huge impact. http://www.ag.state.mn.us/charities/SearchResults2.asp?Fed=410693842&Yr=CURR&cmdSearch=Submit In 2005, Animal Humane Society had a budget surplus of $ 581,774 - which is enough money to subsidize about 6,500 spay/neuter surgeries at local veterinarians - which would prevent thousands of puppies and kittens from being born, and thousands of shelter deaths.

On 08/25/2007 Karen said: I do agree with you Mike. I know for certain that the individuals who work at shelters are good caring people who have become shell shocked. But I also believe that in order to get the organizations to change their practices, you have to hit them where it hurts. Since the idea of killing animals no longer hurts, the only place I can think of is their financial support. I just can't think of any better way to convince them they are wrong, than by convincing their donors and volunteers that they are wrong. Does anyone have any suggestions? What could an individual do to help convince shelters that their way is not the only way?

On 08/25/2007 Mike Fry said: Why the resistance? I think I know. Wow! Some interesting discussion! And, some fascinating questions. Karen makes some really good points. I strongly believe that financial and PR concerns are the primary factors that prevent some shelters from disclosing their raw euthanasia figures. Some people go farther and suggest that some organizations operate entirely for financial reasons, and that is why they are so resistant to no kill solutions. I do not believe that at all. I think, in some ways, the actual answer to the question "why do they resist solutions to pet overpopulation" is, in some ways, more tragic. I think it is because they are good, caring people, who have been shell-shocked by the constant deluge of companion animals coming at them. They have been killing dogs and cats under the false assumption that there is no other solution. And, they have been doing it for years. I also believe that, in order to survive emotionally, they HAVE to believe there is no other way. Imagine if you were an animal lover involved in the killing of tens of thousands of animals every year, and you believed you HAD to do it, because there was no other way. Then imagine someone comes along and says, "you don't have to do that, and you didn't have to do that all along." Can you imagine how difficult and painful that realization would be? Nathan Winograd says it like this: (click the play button to listen) By the way, Nathan will be in the Twin Cities for a book signing of his new book "Redemption: The myth of pet overpopulation and the no kill revolution in America". The book signing will be held at Hamline University on October 2. There will be a special VIP reception with Nathan for anyone who pre-orders a book beginning at 6 PM. The main presentation and book signing will begin at 7 PM. More info is HERE.

On 08/24/2007 Karen said: I do not expect answers But those who should expect answers, are those who volunteer, donate and surrender animals to AHS and HSCA. Those who surrender their animals, are individuals faced with a hard choice. They bring their animals to a humane society because they want their pets to be placed into a loving home. When they ask if their animal will be put down, they are told "most likely not." DO NOT risk your pets lives on "most likely." Saying that an animal "most likely" will be placed, implies only a 51% placement rate. Now I believe that their rates are actually higher than 51%, but without disclosure on their part, how is the public to know? DEMAND to know actual percentage placement of all animals, not just "adoptable" animals, before surrendering. The next group who NEEDS to demand answers are the some 1280 volunteer (http://smartgivers.org) and the countless donors. Sadly the answer to the question "how does keeping this information a secret help the animals?" is "it doesn't." "So why do it?" they may ask. I hate to play the cash card, but in my experience, whenever ones motives appear cloudy, it is because their true motive is money. Would you donate your time, or your money to a multi-million dollar organization (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/5328.htm) that pays their executive director a 6 figure income, AND cannot be bothered to tell you the truth for fear of loosing your support? If an organizations motives are pure then so should their deeds and their words will reflect those deeds. Until questions can be answered, one must assume that the humane societies motives and deeds are not in the best interest of the animals. I would love to be wrong. But silence will not prove me wrong. DEMAND answers.

On 08/24/2007 Berry said: a noticeable hush . . falls over the discussion . . . as we await the answers from the humane society. Ya. Right. Like they are ever going to answer any of those questions. Anna has now officially disappeared, like others have disappeared without ever answering the questions. This has opened my eyes to the humane society! I am done supporting them unless then can pony up some answers!

On 08/24/2007 Ellen Weinstock said: thanks, and....? Hi, Anna: First off, I want to thank you very much for coming to the site and joining the conversation. I really appreciate your willingness to discuss. I don't know that you are an official spokesperson, but would love to hear your take on the questions posed by Mike and Karen. I would also really love to hear Janelle Dixon, the director of the combined AHS/HSCA/GWMHS, address these questions in a calm way, because I have never been able to figure out, as Karen says, why keeping the "euthanasia" numbers secret from the public is beneficial to the animals. Any theories you can give on that? Thanks again so much, Anna, for stopping over here, and I hope you will continue to.

On 08/23/2007 Karen said: I have some questions For any employee of an open admission shelter: How many animals are euthanized at your facility? If you don't know, why not? If you're not supposed to tell, why not? How does keeping this information secret help any animal in any way? How does a shelter, that claims to be dedicated to education of the public, justify keeping this information secret?

On 08/23/2007 Mike Fry said: To Anna Again Sorry, Anna. I am really confused now. First, what questions did you think you were answering when you made the post titled, "Willing to Answer Questions". Was that an invitation for people to ask you questions? If so, I gave you a couple of really good ones in my last post. I really would like someone to answer those. Second, I am glad you realize that people do not always abide by their agreements. However, you seem to be operating under the false assumption that whatever people tell you they heard is the complete and total truth. At Animal Ark, we know that people hear only part of what is ever said, and then they add their own slant or spin to it. That is one of the reasons why we typically do not run around complaining about what some of your customers say that you said. Regardless of what path the woman took from Ark to you with those feral cats, your assumption that we did not talk to the woman about our program and explain how it works is grossly unfair and unreasonable, especially given the fact that you apparently know we had multiple conversations with her before and after. You know she signed a contract (and not a very complex one at that) which spelled out the program. You have to know that, in all probability she was told repeatedly how our program works. I believe she knew full well what our program was about - and she was simply trying to circumvent it. I will also restate that - because Animal Ark held our ground and did not take the cats - the animals are safe. Sometimes, not accepting animals is the best thing a shelter can do for them. Lastly, if you think it is unfair for Animal Ark to consider the Humane Society a resource to which we should refer people, I recommend you immediately terminate all of your contracts to serve as impound centers for various local municipalities. By taking these government contracts and dollars, you, in effect, mandate that we send you "referrals". And, you are paid for taking them. Complaining about it after the fact does not seem productive. Again, I, and many other people, are still waiting for answers to those questions. They have been hanging out there for months now, with no one even trying to answer them, in spite of the fact that many people "in your camp" have posted to this forum. In case you missed them here they are again: 1) How do you explain your organization's repeated claim that no-kill does not or will not work, in the face of so many communities in the United States that have either achieved it, or are well on their way to doing so? In other words, is there something unique in the Twin Cities that means the programs often referred to as "the no kill equation" will not work? 2) What are your specific experiences with trying to implement these programs that prove your answers to question 1? In my view, if your organization cannot answer those questions in a complete and thoughtful way, you have no business discounting no-kill. Additionally, I believe you have a very real moral obligation to get on board with the Homes for All Pets coalition to begin getting the work done needed to make no kill across the Twin Cities a reality. If your organization can do neither of those things, then I believe you have some serious questions to ask yourself about your purpose and mission.

On 08/23/2007 Anna said: Please Clarify I looked through the posts, but most of the questions that i saw asked were addressed specifically to Danny Johnson and Suzy, and pertained to direct quotes they said. Since i am neither of them, I cannot answer those questions. If Ellen will retype more general questions she would like answered, i will do my best.

On 08/23/2007 Anna said: Let me try again Ok, first, let me say that i didn't realize there were questions already asked. I'll have to go down and find them before answering them. I'll just respond to Mike before i go find the questions. I'm not surprised for your answer regarding the cocker- it's pretty much the same answer you give every time, which is fine- i understand that that is your stance, and we most likely will not sway each other's opinions. I agree with offering people other resources- we offer resources every day, including Positive Reinforcement training, as well as Trained Behaviorists. We also offer other orgnaizations as well- i will recommend people to you if they want a No-Kill shelter. But I am offended that by your offering of other resources, your staff person offered us as a resource and then said "but they'll just kill it any way". Your staff person cannot justify that as fact- as i said, we accepted the dog with the potential to adopt him after his health checks and behavior evaluations. And we offer the AnSWER Program, so people who have concerns about their animal's behavior has the option of reclaiming them and finding a more appropriate home. I feel that by accepting any animal, regardless of circumstance, we are in the business of helping People AND Animals, not just animals. As for the Feral Cat situation, let me clarify. First, once again, i support TNR. 2nd, as i said, i understand your procedures- i do in fact know that she signed a contract and then tried to go back on it (don't i know how often that happens!!). And i think you are confused about the order of what happened- I spoke with her, she spoke with animal control, then i spoke with her some more and explained the benefit of TNR, and then she decided to release the cats. i just feel that this is another example of helping people and animals- once again, i wasn't there so i cannot say as to what transpired, but i feel that if all it took was 15 minutes of my time to explain to her this program to avoid wasted time, effort, and lives, i just feel that Animal Ark could have offered her the same instead of getting angry when she mentioned going to another organization- an organization that you recommended! I feel that both of these circumstance are relevant to the Real Meaning of No-Kill (which is the point of this discussion), because most Open-Admission shelters have the biggest problems with Selected-Admission shelters in that you turn people away. Personally that's what hurts me the most- not that you condemn what we do but then use us as a resource, but that you turn people away. I would rather offer our services honsetly to everyone and let them make an informed decision as to what is best for their pet, than to pick and choose who gets the benefit of my help. Ok, i hope that clarified some things about my previous post. Off to find questions below.

On 08/23/2007 Mike Fry said: Still Waiting for Answers To Anna, I have to say, I was really looking forward to reading your post when I read the title. People have asked some really good questions, specifically relating to how the people who are talking down no kill can explain the many successes with the "no kill equation". Additionally, they have asked for specific examples of these people trying it. The point is that if they have not tried it, and if they cannot explain why the programs that have worked elsewhere will not work here, then they are simply complaining with no purpose. Instead of answering those questions, as the title of your post suggested that you would, you proceed to do the very thing I think you were complaining about, when you wrote, "But i also say the jobs are hard enough without all this fighting." You referenced two customer issues you dealt with relating to Animal Ark. These stories, as you have told them, have nothing really to do with the point of the discussion. However, I do think that the conclusions you reached, and your way of dealing with them here, can cast some light on the subject of pet overpopulation and the no-kill movement. First the Cocker story: I have no personal knowledge of this case at all. However, I am willing to take at face value that what you are saying is generally true. Animal Ark is not in a position to take every animal that comes to our shelter. We are very up-front about that. Many people like to come to us with the attitude that, somehow, their pets are our responsibility. But, they are not. And some people get angry with us when we will not take their pets. The false conclusion you reached was that by "turning him away" (we like to think we are referring to other resources that may be able to help), the man had no other choice but to bring him to you and for you to, I am guessing, destroy the dog. In fact, everyone always has a lot of choices, and so did this man. They could have consulted with behaviorists, trainers and veterinarians to help them manage their dog. If the dog needed to be destroyed for dangerous behavior, they could have taken it to the vet and had that done. And, yes, one of the choices he had was to take the dog to an "open admission" shelter (including animal control, which, I believe should be responsible for dealing with dangerous dog issues), where any dog with aggression issues is likely to be put down. It is our policy to explain all of those choices to people who come to us so they are capable of making an informed decision. We believe we are providing a service when we explain all of those options, and then allow the people responsible for the pets to make their decisions. As for the feral cat situation you describe: I am familiar with that case. I am guessing the woman did not tell you that she signed a contract before we sterilized these felines. When she failed to abide by the terms of the contract (by trying to dump the feral cats on us), she told us that she understood the program, but was hoping that, after the surgeries were done, she would be able to get us to make an exception for her and get us to "take the cats". Guess what? We do not make exceptions with feral cats. We cannot take them into our shelter. Ever. That is why we have a TNR program. The R is for return or release. It is not "K" for "kill". As I understand it, though, the situation ended up working out. After talking to the Humane Society and animal control, the woman finally "got it". (Note: obviously she still didn't "get if" after talking with you, or she would not have gone to animal control after talking with you.) Sometimes a person needs to hear the same thing from multiple sources before they do "get it". In this case, as in many others, by standing our ground and strongly enforcing our policies, we saved those cats. Because if we took them in, they would have had to be destroyed. But, by standing our ground, we sometimes cannot always do what people want of us. That sometimes makes them angry. Personally, I am unwilling to take in and kill animals just so these sorts of people will like us and tell their friends about us. As for your statement that you are willing to answer the questions that were posted below. . . I am all ears. I am still looking forward to your answers.

On 08/23/2007 Anna said: Willing to answer Questions I work at the Animal Humane Society. And let me just say i'm the first to applaud everyone doing their part the best way they can. But i also say the the jobs are hard enough without all this fighting. I concur that some of the previous posts have been typed in anger and emotion instead of discussion. So, Ellen, if you would like some answers, i would be happy to oblige the best i can. I would like to share my 2 most recent customer situations that involved Animal Ark. The first was a gentleman who was surrendering a very shy cocker spaniel (i can't remember the reason). They had tried surrendering him to Animal Ark previously, but apparently the staff person deemed him aggressive. They were told that because the dog was aggressive, Animal Ark would not accept him. They were then told they they could take him to the Woodbury shelter, but that 'we would just kill him anyway'. This is frustrating to us in many ways, but the first thing i felt was 'How does this help this person?" By turning him away, you left him no other options. I feel that you cannot condemn what we do, but then send people to us that you are unwilling to help. By the way, we accepted the dog as potentially adoptable, but the next day the owner changed his mind and reclaimed him. The 2nd customer issue i experienced involved Feral Cats. Now, I am all for TNR, and i'm glad Ark is offering this service to the public. The woman i dealt with trapped 9-10 feral kitties in her backyard and brought them to Ark and had them sterilized. But when it came time for her to reclaim the cats and release them, she had some second thoughts, and asked if she could possibly leave them at Animal Ark. Now, i understand your procedure regarding TNR, but this woman obivously did not. Since i was not a witness to what exactly transpired, all i can say is what the woman told me. She said that the staff person became very angry with her and insisted that she take the cats back. The woman then said she may have to take them to the humane society. The staff person apparently told her (i was told with swearing), that we would just kill them, and asked her to leave. So at a loss for what to do, she brought the 9 cats (or so) to us. I spent a lot of time talking with her about the situation. I explained to her that if the cats were indeed feral, we would unfortuantely have to euthanize them. I tried having her speak with St. Paul Animal Control (since i know they work with you in TNR), but they told her the same thing- the cats would be euthanized. I told her that it seemed like a waste of time and effort on everyone's part to leave the cats with us. I then spent 15 minutes explaining the benefits of TNR and why it was important to release the cats back in to her colony. She apparently had no idea that this is how the program worked, and decided to take all but 1 cat back with her. The single kitten she left with us was apparently already sterile according to Animal Ark's surgery team. So we accepted him with the knowlege that if he was feral, we would have to euthanize him. Luckily for everyone involved, this kitten was not only not sterile, he was also not feral. He has since been neutered and placed for adoption. My concern with this situation, is that a little time and explanation went a long way to help this woman make the right decision. And i fear for your sakes that the negative experience she had at your shelter will hinder your efforts in the long run (they say 1 unhappy cutstomer tells 5 friends). All right, that's all i had to say!

On 08/15/2007 Ellen Weinstock said: at a loss for words? I wish it weren't so, but -- notice how the folks who say "no-kill" can't be done don't answer any questions? Perhaps they're not used to having their beliefs challenged? Perhaps they come to realize that it's hard to say that the U.S. can't go no-kill (in other words, no killing of homeless dogs and cats except for painful, incurable disease or unfixable behavior problems that cause a threat to human safety) when it has already been done in San Francisco.... and Ithaca, NY.... and Richmond, VA... and many more places. I would like some answers from previous writers Danny Johnson, Suzie, and a few others, but perhaps they don't have any. (Again: those who say it can't be done should get out of the way of those who are doing it!)

On 07/22/2007 Mike Fry said: "Facts" Suzie? With all due respect, Suzie, your post seems a bit disingenuous and very short of facts. When it comes to pet overpopulation, I have yet to hear anyone from your organization present any "facts" to point to why our approach to addressing the problem will not work. Facts of that nature would be difficult, since we are modeling our programs to address pet overpopulation based on the many, large successes that have taken place in other cities in the United States. Saying, "your wrong" without presenting ANY discussion about why or how is not, in my view, productive, constructive or helpful. Resorting to calling me an "idiot" is also not particularly helpful to your case. As for the story of the puppy with Demodex, here is a photo of him. He was found running at large (stray) in the City of Oakdale. He spent some time with some very nice people from the Oakdale Police Department, before he was taken to the Humane Society shelter in Woodbury. Because the puppy was so sweet and charming, one of the staff at the police department kept following up to see when the puppy would be made available for adoption. They were eventually told the puppy was scheduled to be destroyed because of the demodex. The Oakdale staffer ended up raising a pretty major fuss, called Animal Ark, and arranged a transfer of the dog to us. Note that the coloring of the fur in this picture has nothing to do with the demodex. "Tiger" had a spectacular "harlequin" coat with some brindle markings. The Demodex spot was a single, small bald patch on his shoulder. This story is ridiculous, and not because I have made it up. I don't believe people who refuse to consider no-kill solutions are "heartless". I DO believe, with all my heart, that very many people who work in "open admission" animal shelters start out with good intentions, and then lose their way. I think Nathan Winograd may have said it best when he wrote: Most Americans today hold the humane treatment of animals as a personal value, reflected in our laws, the proliferation of organizations founded for animal protection, increased per capita spending on animal care, and great advancements in veterinary medicine. However, the agencies that the public expects to protect animals are instead killing more than five million annually. How did this happen? How did the very charities founded on the highest ideals of compassion become the nation’s leading killers of dogs and cats? And why does the animal-loving American public, the very same people who talk to their own pets and celebrate their birthdays, not only accept this situation but continue to foot the bill for the daily killing of animals through taxes and voluntary donations? Redemption is the story of animal sheltering in the United States, a movement that was born of compassion and then lost its way. It is the story of the "No Kill" movement, which says we can and must stop the killing. It is about heroes and villains, betrayal and redemption. And it is about a social movement as noble and just as those that have come before. But most of all, it is a story about believing in the community and trusting in the power of compassion.

On 07/22/2007 Suzie said: Get the facts right, Mike Mike, You are so mislead on 99.9% of your information here, but I don't have the time of day to even try to correct you. You're obviously not going to see over-population in a different light. No point trying. I work at the Animal Humane Society. I can't even believe you would make up some story about a puppy that we wouldn't treat for demodex. Give me a break. You really do think we are a bunch of morons. I've never ONCE heard of an animal that was going to be euthanized because it had demodex. We aren't heartless, you idiot. It's so sad you have to get people on your side by telling ridiculous stories.

On 07/08/2007 Mike Fry said: The Opposite of Silence While some shelters remain virtually silent about the subject of pet overpopulation, some shelters are doing the opposite. Check out these YouTube videos to see what I am talking about. Most of these videos were produced by animal shelters that were willing to put their public education concerns ahead of their own personal PR concerns. These are shelters that actually have the concern of animals as their top priority. At shelters that put more value on their own PR, you will never see this sort of material. WARNING: some graphic content. But, if you are going to debate "no-kill" you should be willing to watch these videos, IMO.

On 07/08/2007 Jeanne said: Killing puppies About a year ago, I applied for a job at a nearby humane society shelter. I met four small puppies that were scheduled to be put down because during testing, when fingers were placed in their mouths, they bit. They were declared not adoptable. Puppies! I'm quite sure the Animal Ark would have "selected" these little darlings. If someone had taken the time to work with these PUPPIES, they would have made fabulous pets. Thank goodness no one jammed their fingers in the mouths of the two incredible dogs I adopted from the Ark.

On 06/27/2007 Mike Fry said: Misc Comments I am finding this conversation very interesting! Though I have not had much time to comment, I have continued reading. . . For now, here are a few comments, in no particular order: First, I feel really, really compelled to point out that while some folks like to emphasize the "selective admission" aspect of no-kill shelters, it is really important to note that this is no different than so-called "open admission" shelters. "Open admission" shelters have "selective admission" into their adoption programs. Those not "selected" for adoption are simply disposed of. To Marie N - I suspect most anyone who really understands the history of pit bulls at the humane society would feel that adopting some is better then adopting none. However, I suspect there are many people who do not know that nearly all pits had previously been destroyed, simply because of their breed. I think that learning this to be the case could easily make any animal person sick. To Danny - I would like to echo Ellen's question back to you. What makes you think no kill is a "faiirytale" when it has been accomplished in communities all over the United States? Additionally, what makes you feel you have "no choice" but to run your shelter the way you do? Are you not capable of implementing the various programs that are often called the "no-kill equation"? Have you even tried?

On 06/26/2007 Marie N said: Re: Project Pit Bull Terry B: Regarding your comments on "Project Pit Bull"-- I re-read your post a few times, and I am confused; do you think these dogs should not be available for adoption? Or is it the way the email from your friend reads? I'm not sure I understand what exactly "makes you sick" about starting to adopt out this breed. Whereas before this organization did not adopt out these dogs; instead sending them to rescue groups or euthanizing, they are now taking steps to place them into homes. I think that is a positive thing! I'm sure we are all aware of breed specific legislation and the stereotype of these dogs, especially of those in the "pit bull" category. Therefore I can understand how you would have to be careful as to which dogs are going to be placed with new families, so as to not reinforce the bias. Unfortunately, there are many dogs in this category (and many in others) that are surrendered to shelters across the nation that haven't been raised with proper socialization, care, etc; and have in fact been trained as guard dogs, fighters, etc. I also can't imagine how many people walk into shelters looking for "tough breeds", specifically wanting a dog that will guard, fight, etc. I would expect anyone adopting out these breeds to 1) provide some extra screening of potential adopters, 2)to provide extra education about these breeds to help debunk the stereotype, and 3)to take extra precautions because many in the general public DO consider these dogs dangerous. Granted, these conceptions are highly misinformed but unfortunately they are out there. From your post, it sounds like the HS is taking precautions with both the dogs and the people who will be adopting them to insure the "pit bull" label is not negatively reinforced. Anyone who really knows these dogs, knows they are extremely affectionate, loyal dogs with great temperaments. Regarding the stipulations from the email: Any breed of dog can be viscous. Any breed of dog can be aggressive. "Pits" have simply been given a bad rep, and that’s how much of the public sees them. Therefore, in the interests of the dogs and those adopting them, doesn't it make sense to make sure you are representing the breed in the most positive light? Especially when a shelter is introducing these dogs for the first time? ESPECIALLY when said breeds have such a negative stereotype by so many people? I would hate to see them stop adopting out these dogs entirely because a couple are returned to the shelter for resource guarding, food aggression, or because they weren't temperament tested, (therefore reinforcing the "viscous" stereotype). Actions that any dog is capable of are more scrutinized and analyzed in the “PB” category than with any other breed. I understand this and think that is why those parameters seem so strict. It is not a perfect world, and even less perfect for these misunderstood breeds. But there is something to be said for trying to get at least some of these dogs into homes with good, loving people. Would you rather the Humane Society not try at all, and continue to euthanize dogs just because the public sees them as a dangerous liability, however wrong that may be?

On 06/25/2007 Ellen Weinstock said: explain, please? Mr. Johnson: Could you please tell us more? I don't know where you are a humane society director. Where is it? How big an organization? Does your organization do impound holds -- in other words, do you serve the function of both Animal Control and humane society? Also, how do you square what you are saying with the various no-kill cities initiatives in San Francisco, Ithaca, Richmond, Reno, and more? Have you read about those? Would you explain to me why they are "impossible?" I am sure you can enlighten me beyond the terse note you wrote, and I would appreciate that.

On 06/25/2007 Danny Johnson said: " No Kill " As a humane society director, I have to disagree with Mike Fry's "fairytale". It is so easy for a no kill shelter to judge other shelters who have no choice. Selective Admission is what really a no kill shelter is. Plain and simple.

On 05/28/2007 Terry B said: Email sent to humane society volunteers A friend of mine that volunteers at the humane society sent me an email from the humane society that makes me sick. They are starting a new program called Project Pit Bull. Here is what the email says. *Project Pit Bull Beginning June 1, all five sites will be implementing a pilot program called ?Project Pit Bull?. As of June 1, pit bulls and pit bull mix dogs will be accepted at all five of our shelters and will be considered for placement into the adoption program. Having pit bulls available for adoption will not be new for the Woodbury and Buffalo facilities, but the education/adoption/support process that is part of this program is new. More detailed literature will be available in the volunteer rooms of all sites for any of you who would like to review it. Here are important points of the program for all volunteers to be aware of: * The Project Pit Bull program?s focus is to match exceptional dogs with exceptional owners. To counter the Pit?s bad reputation, and insure the success of the program, only the best representatives of the breed will be made available for adoption. Pits will be evaluated with the standard behavior assessment as well as an extended behavior assessment, and will need to pass with flying colors. Pits and pit mixes available for adoption will be perfect ambassadors of the breed. * Potential adopters will be required to review educational materials that will help them understand the special considerations for this breed, and will complete an additional application that addresses concerns such as insurance and liabilities. Our overall adoption philosophy is ?education and matchmaking? vs. ?restrictions and denials? and this process is a reflection of that. * Pit bull adoption fees will be higher than other dogs due to the fact that the adoption will include an 8 week training pass to be used at our Woodbury, Coon Rapids or Golden Valley sites. * Pit bulls and pit mixes usually take a longer period of time to place into a home; therefore they typically are spending more time in the shelter than the average dog. Unfortunately, Pit bulls tend to deteriorate more quickly in a shelter than other dogs; physically and mentally. We will be re-evaluating their behavior assessment on a weekly basis while in the shelter to ensure they are maintaining their adoptability. * We will be relying heavily on volunteers to watch for and report any signs of deterioration (grabbing the leash in his mouth and pulling you, grabbing at your clothes, tugging at your sleeve or pant leg, jumping at your face, etc.) If any questionable behavior is observed, the dog will be removed from the adoption floor and placed on behavior assessment for further review.

On 05/23/2007 Mike Fry said: "Good Death"? Leslie - I never said that making a no-kill county or nation was a simple task. In fact, I know and say that it is hard work. Regarding your definition of "euthanasia", I guess it comes down to what you consider a "good death". In my view some in the humane community have taken hold of that word, in part, to help justify the killing that takes place in their shelters. I know of no other context in which we would consider ending the life of a perfectly healthy being as "euthanasia". If, for example, Mother Theresa had decided the orphanages in Calcutta were too sad, and that there were too many children and, therefore, started killing kids rather than feeding and sheltering them, no one would have called what she was doing "euthanasia" - even if she used lethal injection, and the death was "painless". It is also worth noting that animal shelters use all sorts of techniques to destroy pets that are NOT painless, and they still call it "euthanasia". Not that long ago the Animal Humane Society was using a carbon monoxide chamber to kill animals en-mass, even though this procedure had been outlawed in several states, because it is widely regarded as inhumane. Even still, the humane society called what they were doing "euthanasia". Before the carbon monoxide chamber, they used a decompression chamber, which caused a relatively prolonged and painful death through suffocation. And guess what, they still called what they were doing "euthanasia". This method of killing shelter pets was outlawed, which is why they switched to the carbonmonoxide chamber. People who use the term "euthanasia" to describe the mass disposal of healthy pets are doing so not for the sake of accuracy. I believe they are avoiding dealing with the hard, harsh reality of what the "humane community" is actually doing. In my experience, the only animals that are truly "unadoptable" are those with terminal illness, or those that are seriously dangerous to humans. There are people willing to take the rest, in my experience, especially if shelters implement the programs often referred to as "The No Kill Equation". This equation has been known and documented since about 1994, though many organizations (including Animal Ark) were using it as early as the mid 1970's. It has been used successfully in all sorts of communities all over the United States. Yet there are still some very wealthy shelters that stubbornly refuse to take a serious look at it. They fail to implement the TRN, spay/neuter, training and outreach programs needed so they can stop the killing. To stop killing pets, shelters have to change the way they work. And change is inconvenient. So, the killing really is about human convenience. Sadly, for some shelters, continuing to do what they have always done is much easier than doing something new - especially if they have been justifying their activities for decades. This is not really much different when you talk about municipal impound centers. However, there are some difference. Municipal impound centers are not founded for humane reasons. They, primarily, serve a public health and safety function. As a result, they have a government mandate to take in and handle any pet that comes to them. They also have a more challenging process required to change their policies and to implement new programs. For these reasons, I find it ironic that in the Twin Cities metro area, both Minneapolis and Saint Paul animal control centers are helping private shelters and rescue groups to implement some of the programs that are the "no-kill equation". Both of these centers are participating in the Twin Cities Pet Fix program. Saint Paul is in the process of developing a pilot TNR program for feral cats in their City. In this context, it seems pretty unfortunate that our states largest and wealthiest shelter continues to refuse to consider the vary life-saving programs that could stop the killing of about 20,000 dogs at cats in our area every year.

On 05/22/2007 Leslie said: Euthanasia I just wanted to point out that "euthanasia" means a good death, or a painless death. The definition has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason for the death. Also, "killing for convenience?" Does that mean that shelters that are obligated by their state or county to take in all animals to be killing for convenience when they are forced to euthanize an animal to accomadate another? And what about "unadobtable" animals? What should happen to them? Your article mentions county funded shelters, but you don't say anything specific about their policies. Is it ok for county shelters to euthanize animals, but not humane society shelters? I wish there was a way to save every homeless pet, but I also know that there are plenty of people who will surrender and abandon pets and it seems to me that the idea of a "no kill" country, or even county, is not a "simple" task. Educating people and advocating and providing spay/neuter programs is a great thing, but I can't see it solving the problem of homeless pets. It's entirely possible that I misinterpreted your article, but hopefully you can enlighten me on what you really meant.

On 05/08/2007 Mike Fry said: "Take Over"? For Tina, I could not really tell from your post if you were kidding or not. In terms of changing the organization, I have highest hopes that the successes being created by the Homes for All Pets initiative will help the Humane Society begin to see there is another model that is working. If you have not yet done so, please refer to Beth Nelson's comments to the blog post on this subject. You can find that Here.

On 05/08/2007 Mike Fry said: Answers for Lisa Hi Lisa, As an animal person I am, naturally, concerned for the welfare of all animals. My concern over what a person may do with an animal if they grow impatient while on our waiting list is overruled by what I know I would HAVE to do if I open my doors to animals when we are full. If we are full, and I take in more animals, there is really only one choice. If we are full and we refer people to other resources - resources that may be able to address behavior issues - resources that may have space available - resources that may be able to provide veterinary assistance, that animal may have a chance of getting help. In other words, by NOT taking in more animals than we can care for, we give each pet the best chance of survival. While on our waiting list, and with our assistance, some people actually resolve whatever issue they have been having with their pets. The notion that the only way we can help a pet is to "take it into our shelter" is absolutely false.

On 05/07/2007 Tina said: Take Over Mike- Why don't you try to get into the large humane society and save the state with their 10 million dollar budget. It sounds like you think it is possible....

On 05/07/2007 Lisa said: When you're full When you are full and put an owned animal on a "waiting list" are you concerned that they will not be willing to wait for months to bring an animal to you? Do you worry about what they might do to the animal if they can't leave it with you? How long is your wait list for cats during the summer? How many people on the wait list actually end up bringing you their cats? Do they simply find somewhere else to bring their pet?

On 05/07/2007 Karen said: No Attempt to Reduce "Euthanasia" at "Humane Society" As a former employee of one of the "humane societies" now part of AHS, I can tell you that I witnessed NO attempts to reduce the number of animals killed. It was almost as if there was a quota. Animals would be trucked in from out of state, even if we were full. I even overheard a manager say that they had to "get cracking" on putting down "surplus" dogs that were already in the shelter to make room for dogs from out of state. Those dogs, by the way, were not "temp evaled" before being shipped and many of them ended up being put down as well.

On 05/05/2007 Mike Fry said: Read Nathan Winograds New Book Hi Jenna, I think you are right Jenna, a LOT of shelters try really hard and don't succeed. Unfortunately, hard work alone is not going to solve pet overpopulation. This problem is large and very complex. Solving it requires that animal shelters and impound centers think about their work differently. Too often shelters spend all of their time/attention simply trying to survive daily, and to deal with the animals pouring in their front doors. So long as they keep their attention there, the problem will never be solved. Animal Shelters need to get to the source of the problem and fix it. Shelters cannot wait for someone else to start TNR programs. They have to implement them themselves. Shelters cannot wait for someone else to establish large scale spay/neuter programs in their area. They have to start them themselves. Animal Shelters also need to partner more constructively with local municipalities. Simply taking over the "animal control" function for the municipality does not work in my view. The shelters need the municipalities to be full partners in solving the problem. Only when that combination of things is done by an animal shelter can a community think of being no kill. This model has been successful in large urban areas, small rural towns, in the north, south, east and west. When the shelter where you worked was disposing of 12,000 animals (about) per year, you may not have seen that as a "convenience". However, I guarantee that not all of those 12,000 animals needed to come into your shelter. If they came into the shelter, simply because the shelter management failed to implement other programs that would keep animals out of the shelters, then it was killing for convenience, even if the people working at the shelter had all of the best intentions in the World. I strongly recommend that you get a copy of Nathan Winograd's new book Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America Here is a quote from it: Most Americans today hold the humane treatment of animals as a personal value, reflected in our laws, the proliferation of organizations founded for animal protection, increased per capita spending on animal care, and great advancements in veterinary medicine. However, the agencies that the public expects to protect animals are instead killing more than five million annually. How did this happen? How did the very charities founded on the highest ideals of compassion become the nation’s leading killers of dogs and cats? And why does the animal-loving American public, the very same people who talk to their own pets and celebrate their birthdays, not only accept this situation but continue to foot the bill for the daily killing of animals through taxes and voluntary donations? Redemption is the story of animal sheltering in the United States, a movement that was born of compassion and then lost its way. It is the story of the "No Kill" movement, which says we can and must stop the killing. It is about heroes and villains, betrayal and redemption. And it is about a social movement as noble and just as those that have come before. But most of all, it is a story about believing in the community and trusting in the power of compassion.

On 05/05/2007 Jenna said: No kill? Would be wonderful, but impossible in many areas While I cannot speak to issues surrounding animal shelters in Minnesota , I would like to share some other thoughts on "Open Admission" shelters. I think "No Kill" sounds like a great idea, but in a lot of communities it's not yet feasible, and I don't think this is due to a lack of trying on shelters' parts. I worked for 2 years for an open admission shelter. We took in 8,000 dogs a year, half of which were euthanized (usually when they did not pass a temperament test), and 12,000 cats, 3/4 of which were euthanized (most became ill from fast-spreading upper respiratory and did not get better or there was no room in the isolation area). We worked tirelessly to cut down these numbers. We had an education program for adults and one that traveled to the classrooms of children. We provided vouchers for low-cost spays and neuters, and referred people to another program if they needed a free one, which we could not afford. A clinic was held regularly to provide free spays and neuters for feral cats. We worked closely with breed rescue programs. Our foster families were constantly filled. And yet... the numbers kept growing. The fact is (at least in our communties) too many people still viewed animals as just a "nuisance." And I strongly believe that many animals euthanized at our shelter would have met a worse death if we did not take them in. You used the example of feral cats - sure, it would be great if we could convince people to TNR, but too many people want the cats off their property for good. I've known of too many people "disposing" of them in worse ways - poisoning them instead, for example. Take another example - our shelter was attempting to instate an appointment policy, though we would never turn an animal away. A woman came to the front desk one day asking about making an appointment, and my co-worker set one up for her. A few minutes after she left, we learned that she had had the kittens with her (my coworker had no idea of this), and instead of waiting for the appointment the next day, her boyfriend had thrown them out of the car and backed up over and killed one of them. I don't know about you, but I would much rather be euthanized than crushed by a pick-up. The examples could go on and on, but the fact is that there are simply too many animals and not enough people who care about them. In communities like mine, where there is literally no where else for these animals to go, euthanasia is in many cases a more humane option than what the animals would find if we turned them away. When we took in animals when we were "full," I never saw euthanizing them as a "convenience killing" and I think it's insulting to the many shelters like mine to refer to them that way. It was an act of mercy. There are worse things than euthanasia.

On 05/04/2007 Mary said: regarding "adoptable" animals As a previous employee at one of the large Humane Societies, I must interject a few comments about how animals are determined to be "adoptable" - at least while I was employed there (4 years ago). I am a dog person and especially am smitten with the older ones and the shy ones. One thing that continues to bother me from my experience there was that shy/fearful dogs would be "euthanized". There were many foster homes available and willing to help with dogs such as as these, yet if they appeared "too fearful" in the shelter environment, they simply were killed. I don't know many dogs, including my own, that are not out of their element and fearful in a kennel/boarding/shelter circumstance & therefore it is difficult to determine the true temperament of an animal in those types of situations. One example I can speak of that Animal Ark currently has is a Chihuahua named Peanut. She is terrified at our shelter, but once she gets to know you, she LOVES you and wants nothing but to snuggle on your lap. Is she adoptable? YES. And, once she goes into a home, she will be someone's grand companion. Bessy is another shy gal that would easily be euthanized at a Humane Society because she isn't the most confident dog in the world - however, she would never bite. She is is very friendly with the folks she gets to know. Temperament testing (the practice used by "humane societies to decide who lives and who does not) can be a subjective sort of thing. When I was employed at the Humane Society, there were a few vet techs that assisted in the testing who were fearful of dogs &, in my opinion, had no clue as to reading the body language of dogs. They also seemed to not know that a person's body language could effect dogs behavior. They had virtually no training and these were people deciding the life and death of animals. When I was at the Humane Society, I personally dreaded going to work every day, knowing that there would be some animals that other rescue groups would consider taking and I couldn't send them out; their only escape from that "shelter" would be by death. They don't heartworm treat dogs who are heartworm positive (but also don't test dogs for heartworm prior to adoption?) and don't treat most skin simple conditions - those conditions simply meant an animal was "unadoptable". I don't mean to bash any of the Humane Societies. But, the realities of some of their policies are dreadful & simply unnecessary. In my experience, they did help many animals and placed several. There are also many wonderful people that do work in those organizations. I also agree with Mike, that stray's should be brought to their local animal control facilities - and any good impound facility should allow rescue groups to take animals from them after their impound period has expired. This allows families a better shot to find their lost pets, as well as for the animal to find a new home following it's impound period.

On 05/04/2007 Mike Fry said: To Jane Again Hi Jane, Thanks again, Jane, for your comments. You are right, there are some good people at the Humane Society. Unfortunately, the leadership there has absolutely failed to realize that their policies and programs have failed to solve our areas pet overpopulation problem. So, while they may be good people, their policies need to be seriously questioned. When Animal Ark is full (which is most of the time), we have a very strict protocol for intake. Owned animals in situations that are not life-threatening can go on a waiting list. Cats that are feral can go into our TNR programs. Stray animals are referred to their local impound centers (where their families are most likely to look for them, and where we may be able to rescue them when their impound period expires). Animals with life-threatening conditions are sent to emergency care at vet clinics, under our supervision. Animals with behavior problems are referred to trainers. Though management at the Humane Society would like to say this means we are "turning animals away", in fact, we are referring animals to programs where they are best able to get assistance. If we are "full" there would be only one option available if we took these animals in. By referring them to non-lethal sources, we significantly increase the animals' chances of getting care. It is also worth noting that while we are very thoughtful about how we conduct intake, to give each animal the best chance of survival, we are also implementing large programs to reduce the numbers of animals entering shelters. Our Feline Feral Friends program will sterilize more than 1,000 feral cats this year, and, thereby significantly cut the number of kittens being born in our community by tens of thousands. Our Twin Cities Pet Fix program will spay or neuter a couple of thousands pets. And, with the help of our Homes For All Pets partners, we will adopt more homeless pets than ever before. These are the kinds of programs the Humane Society needs to either join or implement in order to solve our areas pet overpopulation problem. So long as people continue donating $10 million every year to the Humane Society in our area, and so long as the Humane Society continues to fail to implement these kinds of programs, we will continue to have a pet overpopulation problem. And they will continue destroying nearly 20,000 dogs and cats every year for want of good homes. It is that simple. Thanks again for your comments and questions.

On 05/04/2007 Jane said: What No Kill Really Means Thanks for your response to a previous question. I am glad to hear that you do work with the Humane Society. There are really great people that work there that do a good job and try to save as many animals as they can. One more question for you: Linda L touched on "turning an animal away". What do you do when you no longer have room to take in owned animals in need? Thanks for your time.

On 05/04/2007 Mike Fry said: Define "Turning Away"? To Linda L, What you may call "turning away", I would call referring to an appropriate authority. Stray animals in our community have an abysmal rate of return to their families. This is in part because there are far too many facilities people need to search to find their lost pets. In the Twin Cities metro area alone, there are more than 32 official impound centers. Add to that number the "open admission" shelters that routinely take in stray animals, and the number of places a person has to look for their lost pet is overwhelming. Factor in the fact that there is very little time to find them, and you have a very high kill rate for stray pets. This problem is only made worse when shelters take in stay animals for which they are not responsible. Here is another way to look at it: If a shelter is "full" and a stray comes to their door that has a municipal impound center that is responsible for that animal, why would the shelter destroy a pet to make room for the stray, rather then referring the stray to the responsible impound center? Referring the stray to the impound center may actually save a pets life. I don't call that "turning an animal away". I call it responsible animal rescue.

On 05/04/2007 Linda L said: Response to "What No Kill Really Means" Mike Frye writes: "It is common place for the Animal Humane Society to take in stray animals, even if those animals come from communities where there is a different, municipally-funded impound center that is responsible for those animals. Taking in these stray animals, that have another place they are supposed to go, only serves to fill Animal Humane Society shelters beyond overflowing. At the same time, it makes it more difficult for owners to find lost pets, because it means there are more places they have to look for them." Are you implying that the Humane Society should turn away animals that are brought to thier facilities? As someone who has been doing dog rescue since 1991 [and teaching dog classes since 1995], I can tell you some folks are just doing the best that they can and imposing more restrictions on humna behavior may not help the animals one bit. Better to make it relatively easy for the unknowledgeable person to help an animal. And to do more unjudgemental education about options for animal care. [For example, someone contacted me about getting a dog after their dog died of bloat seeing they did not know about (1) dangerous symptoms and (2) the existance of emergency vets.] I'm just trying to keep my eyes on "the prize" of helping animals get into tenable situations with good quality of life. And to keep humans safe from animals that are likely to damage humans. Linda in Minneapolis

On 05/04/2007 Mike Fry said: Selective Kill? Amy, "Selective Kill" is how I would describe the Humane Society. From your comment, it is hard to tell whether or not you read the article above. It clearly states our belief that there is a difference between killing and euthanizing. When we end the life of a terminally ill pet to end its suffering, that is an act of compassion and caring, i.e. "euthanasia". When we end the life of a pet because we have taken in more than we can care for, that is an act done for human convenience, i.e. "killing". Because we guarantee the life of every pet we take in, unless it is terminally ill, we believe "no kill" very accurately describes our shelter.

On 05/03/2007 Amy (No Email Provided) said: Euthanasia I'm confused. Your facility is no-kill but in one of your responses to a reader, you said that you do euthanize. Shouldn't you be considered "low-kill" or "selective-kill"?

On 05/02/2007 Mike Fry said: Answers for Karen Hi Karen, and thanks for your questions. Animal Ark not only openly provides information about the number of animals euthanized at our facility (FYI, in 2006, we euthanized a total of 6 animals, including 5 cats and 1 dog), we also provide very specific information each time we end the life of a pet. For example, one of the animals we euthanized in 2006 was a wonderful (though very old) dog named Dudley. If you would like, you can reference the Blog posting Mary Salter submitted to Animal Ark's blog regarding the decision to end Dudley's suffering. That posting is HERE. We believe the decision to end the life of a pet is very serious. We do not make that decision lightly. Often times, we find we can help people (volunteers, sponsors and donors) to understand our process by talking very openly about it. All of the animals that Animal Ark euthanized during 2006 were euthanized because of terminal illness. However, in very rare cases, we have sometimes euthanized due to severe temperament issues. In the years I have been working at Animal Ark, we have euthanized a total of 3 animals for behavior issues. One of those animals we later learned was likely a wolf hybrid. Animal Ark does do intake evaluations. And, we cannot take in every animal. We believe the best authorities to address problems related to severely dangerous animals are animal control centers, who have a government mandate to deal with public health and safety issues. In the Twin Cities, we have very well-run and professional animal control centers that are very capable of dealing with dangerous animals in a socially responsible and humane way. There is, in our opinion, no reason for humane societies to take these animals into their shelters. If Humane Societies do feel compelled to, in effect, subsidize government programs by taking over aspects of the job of "animal control", we still believe the humane society has an obligation to be transparent, and to report the numbers when they do. Animal Control reports the numbers. Why would the Humane Society not? One final note about Animal Ark's reporting. Not only do we report our numbers, but we encourage anyone interested in knowing the outcome of any specific animal to contact us and inquire. Obviously, we cannot tell anyone specifically to whom an animal was adopted. However, we are very open to telling them exactly what happened to any animal. Our computer system automatically notifies animals' sponsors, in fact, when they are adopted. Another thing I will add is that in most cases, "euthanasia" (i.e. "killing") is not the appropriate action to take when dealing with "ill behaving animals". The majority of behavior issues fall into the categories of "manageable" or "correctable". Issues like separation anxiety, resource guarding, inappropriate urination and fence jumping represent the overwhelming majority of behavior issues seen in animals in our society. Only in very, extreme, severe cases, where these behaviors escalate to a point where they can no longer be managed safely, should "euthanasia" (i.e. "killing") be the "corrective" action of choice.

On 05/02/2007 Karen said: Questions for Animal Ark In the article Ms. Dixon writes that "Many people don't realize that 'no-kill' does not mean 'no-euthanasia'. Does Animal Ark report the number of animals they euthanise? If so where can this information be found A few more questions. Does animal ark ever euthanise an animal because of temperament or any other reason, other than in the case of severe animal suffering? Does Animal Ark ever refuse to take in animals because of an animals temperament or are any "temperament evaluations" used? If animals are refused because of their temperament isn't that giving other humane societies just reason for euthanising ill behaving animals? Thank you Karen

On 05/02/2007 Mike Fry said: Answers for Jane Hi Jane, Thanks for the great questions. Yes. We did work with the Animal Humane Society in Red Lake. We also work with some of their staff in different capacities on other projects. Just because we have "differences" does not mean we should not or cannot work together. They have some wonderful, caring and compassionate staff with great skills. Our issue with the organization is at the policy level, relating to their outdated views of "no kill" and their refusal to publish their raw "euthanasia" (i.e. "kill") statistics. This is a management/board issue and would never prevent us from partnering with talented, dedicated and committed staff at the Animal Humane Society in an effort to help animals. That being said, we wish they would report the actual numbers of animals destroyed at their facility. Additionally, we wish they would direct a larger percent of their massive annual budget toward proactive solutions, like large-scale spay/neuter initiatives, feral cat programs and education about pet overpopulation. We also very much wish they would look to the many successes a more proactive sheltering model has created all over the United States, rather than staying entrenched in old methods that include the "out of sight" disposal of thousands of animals every year.

On 05/02/2007 Jane said: Question I read this article and was curious to know why you recently worked with the Animal Humane Society in Red Lake. Looking at the blog that explains the Red Lake excursion, it seemed like you worked hand-in-hand with people from the other humane society and that everyone was quite happy about it. It seems strange that you would work with a group when you strongly oppose their practices.

On 04/24/2007 Mike Fry said: Answers for Kim Hi Kim, Thanks for your thoughtful post, and interesting questions. Before I answer them, I want to clarify something. You said that 20,000 dogs and cats were killed in animal shelters in Minnesota. In actuality, that is the number killed just in the Twin Cities metro area. I have known of some very happy, friendly and adoptable animals deemed "unadoptable" by the various "humane societies". One very interesting example: A very young Doxie puppy was brought to the Humane Society by a police officer who worked for a city that had an impound contract with the humane society. The puppy was happy, loved people and was generally in good shape. However, because it had a dime-sized bald spot on its shoulder, it was classified as "unadoptable". It turned out the puppy had juvenile demodex. This is a "condition" that nearly all puppies grow out of with proper nutrition and care; is easily managed, and is not contagious to people or other animals. Because the officer was aware of the high "kill rate" at the humane society, they continued to follow the puppy. When they learned it was scheduled to be put down, they raised a stink and got the puppy to Animal Ark instead. We provided a $7 treatment for the Demodex and had no trouble adopting the sweet, little puppy in very short order. We encounter cases like this on a routine basis. It is really tragic. In our experience, there is a very small percentage of animals that are simply beyond help. They either have medical issues that cannot be treated, or behavior issues that are so severe they cannot be managed or re-trained. These animals represent a tiny percentage of animals that come to animal shelters in our experience.

On 04/24/2007 Kim Troedsson said: Questions Mike, If it’s estimated that roughly 20,000 homeless pets are killed each year in Minnesota, do you have any estimate on what percentage of those would have been adoptable and, as such, would be cnsidered "convenience killings"? Could you discuss a bit about what kind of issues, in your opinion, would warrant euthanasia (illness, etc.) and alternatively what kinds of factors should not be considered as legitimate reasons for ending an animal’s life. Furthermore, what factors do you believe are the reasons that the Humane Society is euthanizing animals which would not be considered legitimate in your mind? Besides restricting puppy mills, I was wondering if there are any efforts anywhere to address the issue of too-many individual breeders producing too-many animals? At a most basic level, the homeless pet problem seems to be one of animal oversupply in relation to demand and the animal shelters are left in the middle to solve the oversupply problem. But it seems taboo to address some obvious sources of the oversupply such as breeding at will. Yesterday I was talking to a woman with a golden retriever who volunteered that her dog was born to a friend’s dog on some farm. The friend just thought it would be "fun" to breed her dog and did so. The woman’s nonchalant manner in which she relayed this story made it obvious that she found nothing wrong with pursuing this kind of "fun" and was oblivious to the ripple-effect consequence that more puppies displace other dogs from being adopted, leaving them homeless. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it does seem to me that the wider public apart from people involved in animal welfare is simply oblivious to the negative ramifications of multiple breeders. Any thoughts? Thanks. Kim

On 04/05/2007 Roxanne said: Your Clarification Thanks for clarifying the percentages and what they stand for. So it is even worse than is presented how many animals actually are adopted? It is truly sad they won't step up to the plate and do what is right rather than what is profitable. Your example of how they handle wildlife is indicative of this. So sad.

On 04/05/2007 Mike Fry said: "Adoption Rate" Hi Roxanne, One minor clarification - AHS does not claim to have an 80% adoption rate. They claim to adopt 80% of their "adoptable" animals. What that really means is hard to say. We do not know how many animals they declare "unadoptable". I have looked at their statistics for about 20 years and have concluded that, if you subtract off the wildlife they count, their overall adoption rate is somewhere around 50 - 55%. I believe the wildlife should not be counted. I believe that is another group of animals they should not take in. They are not a wildlife hospital and do not have the resources of knowledge or licensing to care for wildlife. Instead, they transfer wildlife they take into wildlife centers like WRC. They then count all of those wildlife transfers as "adoptions". When I was the clinic coordinator for WRC, I used to have to pick up animals from AHS. The animals would often be dead by the time we could pick them up. So they would be "DOA" at our facility, but they would be "adoptions" at AHS. The animals would get much faster emergency attention if AHS would simply refer all wildlife directly to WRC rather than having people leave them at AHS. However, if people bring injured wildlife to AHS, they often leave a donation. I don't know if this has changed. But when I was at WRC, AHS would keep the donation, and give the work of caring for the animals to WRC. It seemed to me just another way of padding their adoption statistics and getting more money, often at the expense of animals.

On 04/05/2007 Roxanne said: I Read This Article, Too I just read this article last night. It made me so angry that this "newly" formed Humane Society thinks all the public out here is as stupid as this article points out. I am requesting my name be removed from their mailing list and I will never give another dime of my money to them. My very first thought when I read the "proud" way they talk of the 80% adopted rate was what did you do with the other 20%? What was wrong with them? Who were they? What was their story? Why were they so unadoptable? I have a friend who worked at Golden Valley for a short time. They were told NEVER to ask about the animals that just seem to disappear. I have no respect for an individual or organization that continues to be so blind and expects me to follow them.