Category: No-Kill

Posted on

Compassion is not a finite commodity by Ed Boks

In many communities, decisions regarding animal welfare are complicated by a host of competing priorities. When evaluating competing priorities it’s easy to look to the bottom line. When that happens, the questions of conscience concerning animal welfare can be overlooked.

There will always be enough injustice and human suffering in the world to make animal welfare seem less important.  But compassion is not a finite commodity.

Still it’s not difficult to understand how decision makers can feel strongly that human need and wants are more important than animal needs and wants. When this happens, animal welfare can be reduced to a simple equation of what’s affordable, profitable or expedient.  We can almost fool ourselves into thinking we’re dealing with widgets rather than lives.  It’s at this point that our moral fiber emerges.  

German philosopher Immanuel Kant opined that “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”  Indian Prime Minister Mahatma Gandhi expanded on this tenet stating the moral progress of an entire community “can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”  No less than Abraham Lincoln said he considered animal welfare as important as human welfare for “that is the way of a whole human being.”  

Ed Boks and Matthew Scully
Ed Boks and Matthew Scully  at the White House to discuss the No-Kill Ethic

Matthew Scully, senior speech writer for President George W. Bush and author of the book Dominion, put it this way: “We are called upon to treat animals with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but because they don’t; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us. Animals are easily overlooked, their interests easily brushed aside.”  The danger is to think there is only enough compassion in our community for our elderly but not for our children; or just enough love for our children but not for our mentally ill; or just enough kindness for our human populations but not for our animals.  St. Francis of Assisi taught that to regard the lives of animals as worthless is one small step away from regarding some human lives as worthless.

We compound community wrongs when wrongs done to animals are excused by saying there are more important wrongs done to humans and we must concentrate on those alone.  A wrong is a wrong, and when we shrug off these little wrongs we do grave harm to ourselves and others.  

“When we wince at the suffering of animals, that feeling speaks well of us… and those who dismiss love for our fellow creatures as mere sentimentality overlook a good and important part of our humanity.” (Scully: Dominion)

If your circle of compassion includes animals, let your elected officials know how important their support of a no-kill ethic is to you.  You can also help by making a year end donation to your local shelter; including your local shelter in your will; joining their volunteer program; or adopting a pet from them.

Together we can transform our communities and demonstrate “that good and important part of our humanity.” This can only be done with your help, involvement and support.

Posted on

Feline Immunodeficiency Virus nothing to fear by Ed Boks

Ed Boks and black cat
FIV is responsible for the unnecessary killing of far too many cats in way too many animal shelters; and that is not right, because FIV cats often live long, healthy lives with few to no symptoms.

This week I want to feature Portia, a 4-year-old domestic short hair with a spice for life; described by those who know her as cool, calm, confident, playful and a joy to be around. She is mellow enough to get along with a cat-savvy dog and respectful children.

Portia has had many suitors in her two months in the shelter, but potential adopters quickly lost interest when they learned she has feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV). Continue reading “Feline Immunodeficiency Virus nothing to fear by Ed Boks”

Posted on

Animal abuser registries would protect all of us By Ed Boks

Sex offender registration is a system designed to allow authorities to track the residence and activities of sex offenders. Information in the registry is made available to the public via a website or other means. In many jurisdictions registered sex offenders are subject to restrictions including housing, being in the presence of minors, and living in proximity to a school or day care center.

Efforts are now underway to expand this concept to include animal abusers. Initiatives are gaining support and legislation has been introduced in at least five states, including Arizona.

The Arizona Animal Cruelty Registry Law (HB 2310) would require people convicted of animal torture, mutilation, intentional killings and animal fighting to register with the police and provide an array of personal information along with a current photograph, much like sexual predators. The information, along with the registrants’ specific offense, would be posted on the Internet.

Animal welfare activists hope laws like this will inspire governments nationwide in the same way Megan’s Law registries for child molesters have proliferated in the past decade.

In Florida, State Senator Mike Fasano proposed Dexter’s law, named after a kitten beaten to death in his state. His proposal would require convicted animal abusers to register with authorities. Their names, home addresses and photographs would be posted online, and they would pay $50 a year to maintain the registry.

Registries have also been proposed in Colorado, Maryland and New York and similar proposals are expected in other states.

Suffolk County on Long Island moved to create a registry in 2010, and has since been followed by two other New York counties. No names appear on the Suffolk County registry yet, because it was only recently set up. Convicted abusers will appear on the registry for five years. Those failing to register are subject to a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

The New York counties require pet stores and animal shelters to check the names of anyone seeking to adopt or buy an animal against the registry.

Maryland State Senator Ronald Young said he plans to introduce legislation in the wake of two incidents in his state. In one, a Yorkshire terrier was thrown off a 23-foot-high balcony; the dog, Louie, survived. In the other, a golden retriever puppy named Heidi was shot to death.

A bill to create a registry in California, introduced in 2010, didn’t make it through the Legislature, partly because of concerns about its cost.

Liberty Watch Colorado, an advocacy organization committed to holding elected officials accountable, says such legislation is “an unnecessary expansion of government.’

However, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an animal rights law organization based in California, outlines some taxpayer benefits. For instance, well-managed registries can reduce the number of abused animals and the animal control costs associated with caring for and treating abused animals. They also serve as an early warning system for potentially violent criminals like Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz and Jeffrey Dahmer all of whom tortured and killed animals during their childhoods.

“Researchers as well as FBI and other law enforcement agencies nationwide have linked animal cruelty to domestic violence, child abuse, serial killings and the recent rash of killings by school age children,” says Dr. Randall Lockwood, vice president of training for the Humane Society of the United States.

Albert Schweitzer said it best when he warned that “Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives.” Registering felony animal abusers not only helps protect innocent animals, it helps protect our families, friends and neighborhoods.

Posted on

Children’s moral development influenced by adopting a pet by Ed Boks

Ed Boks and Pia Salk
Dr. Pia Salk,Psychologist, Writer, Spokesperson, Animal Advocate

Psychologist, animal welfare advocate and human-animal bond expert Dr. Pia Salk is a regular contributor to Martha Stewart’s The Daily Wag. In a recent article, Salk asked the provocative question, “Can adopting a shelter animal make a difference in your child’s moral development?”

Salk offers important insight into the values we teach our children when we adopt a companion animal from a shelter. According to Salk, the very decision to devote family resources to caring for an animal in need sends a clear message to your children about who you are and what you stand for.

When you adopt a shelter pet, Salk explains, children internalize important values – “We are a family that uses the power of choice to save a life.” This teaches kids that by taking personal responsibility, their choices can affect the larger community.

Children need to feel they can impact their world. Parents need to give children opportunities to do so in positive, pro-social ways. Adopting and caring for an animal can provide this opportunity.

Where should this life lesson begin? Salk suggests a family meeting to discuss if the family is willing and able to meet an animal’s needs. Together, a family should explore every facet of these questions, such as: Do we need landlord permission? How much exercise will the animal need? How will we provide medical care? Who will be responsible for feeding, training and walks? Who will care for the animal during vacations? How will a pet affect plans to move? Such conversations teach the importance of planning, navigating around potential obstacles and committing to a goal, for better or worse. This exercise is an important step in teaching children the inherent value of the animal’s life and well-being.

Answering these questions will also help you determine what sort of animal is a good match for your family. Don’t hesitate to ask your local shelter for help in making this decision.

The choice around which animal to adopt can lead to deeper discussions about family values. Perhaps your family is willing to provide a home to an older pet abandoned because of an eviction, or maybe to a cat who has lost an eye or a limb. These choices help children see past age and physical “limitations” so they appreciate another being’s intrinsic worth. This teaches acceptance and gives children a chance to witness the inspiring resilience of animals.

Perhaps your family is willing to take in a breed disadvantaged by negative stereotypes. This teaches kids to learn for themselves and not be influenced by a biased or misinformed public perception.

For kids who are adopted, adopting a pet provides an opportunity to talk about their feelings while learning more about their family’s love and compassion for others in need. Likewise, for a child who is hearing-impaired or has a condition such as diabetes, adopting an animal with a similar condition, or other special need (provided the resources exist to properly manage it), can be therapeutic and enriching for all involved.

“There is no limit to the great lessons you can teach your children when you opt to adopt,” says Salk. “These lessons benefit everyone involved and they live on in the minds of children, manifesting in a lifetime of compassionate acts.”

What better time to have this compassionate, life-saving family discussion?  Visit your local shelter today to see all the pets waiting for the perfect home – yours.

Posted on

Euthanasia not acceptable for healthy or treatable pets by Ed Boks

The mayor of Los Angeles once told me that he considered managing animal shelters more difficult than running a metropolis like L.A. I had to agree. Animal shelters represent the worst – or best – in a community. They are a nexus of heartache and compassion. When one of these outweighs the other, the soul of a community is revealed.

Understanding the daily challenges inherent in managing animal shelters, my heart goes out to the Arizona Humane Society (AHS). AHS is caught up in a public relations nightmare involving a homeless man who brought his kitten to them for medical care. Daniel Dockery, 49 years old, had hand-raised a 9-month old kitten since she was born. Dockery attributed his companionship with the kitten, Scruffy, to his ability to stay off heroin.

When Scruffy suffered “non-life threatening injuries,” Dockery rushed her to AHS where a medical examination determined it would cost $400 to treat her. Unable to pay the fee, Dockery surrendered the kitten to AHS after being assured she would be treated and placed in foster care. Several hours later, Scruffy was euthanized. The report of her death went viral. It seemed every national mainstream and alternate news source reported on Scruffy’s untimely death. The resulting outrage forced AHS to hire a publicist to help alleviate public ire.

The publicist explained that Dockery’s lack of funds combined with the number of animals in need of urgent care led to the decision to euthanize Scruffy. The betrayal of trust left Dockery feeling responsible for Scruffy’s death and prompted an angry public to threaten withholding funds from AHS.

One positive outcome from this ordeal is that AHS created an account funded by donations to cover the cost of emergency animal care. The account is similar to the Yavapai Humane Society’s STAR (Special Treatment And Recovery) fund, which is funded by donations and is responsible for saving the lives of many homeless animals in need of critical care.

Having been involved in animal shelter management for 30 years, I understand that mistakes can be made. I have also learned that policies and procedures can be implemented to help ensure errors are made on the side of saving a life, not taking it.

I share this lamentable story because it sits in juxtaposition to many life and death decisions made by the Yavapai Humane Society. For instance, in recent weeks YHS took in four senior pets, each surrendered by their respective owner claiming the pet was suffering from a life threatening illness.

While YHS provides euthanasia to owned animals who are irremediably suffering, we make it clear to pet owners that we will not euthanize an animal when it is determined that the animal is not suffering, is actually healthy, or can be treated.

In each of these cases, after ownership was legally surrendered to YHS, medical examinations were performed. A consultation with the private veterinarian handling the healthcare of each animal prior to surrender was conducted when possible. In each case no life threatening condition or suffering could be found. These animals have since been placed for adoption in hope they will live their remaining years in a loving home.

Every day employees at animal shelters across the United States are faced with decisions to kill or not to kill. Whether it is killing an animal too quickly or not quickly enough, shelters often find they are damned if they do or damned if they don’t.

If the Yavapai Humane Society is to be judged, let it always be for trying to save the lives of animals others have given up on. Since embracing our “no-kill ethic,” the Yavapai Humane Society has reduced shelter killing 77 percent – making our community the safest for pets in all Arizona.

If you are able to help YHS sustain this life-saving mission (regardless of age) please make a tax-deductible donation to the Yavapai Humane Society today.

Posted on

Woman sues to prove animals are ‘living souls,’ not property by Ed Boks

“Today Show” contributor Scott Stump recently reported on a New Yorker named Elena Zakharova who filed a civil suit in a New York court against an Upper East Side pet store. The store, Raising Rover, sold Zakharova a puppy that developed numerous medical complications. The suit seeks to hold the store liable for the dog’s pain and suffering, and medical bills, as if the dog were a person rather than an inanimate product.

New York law considers pets “property,’ but the complaint wants to change that definition. The goal is to help shut down puppy mills that often mass-produce animals sold in boutique pet stores like Raising Rover, where “Umka” was purchased.

“Umka is a living soul,’ the suit reads. ” She feels love and pain.’

Ownership of Raising Rover has changed since Zakharova purchased Umka.

“I know nothing about the sale. The prior owner has the records. We are careful about where we get our puppies,” Raising Rover’s new owner Ben Logan told the New York Daily News. Logan declined to provide information about the prior owner.

Zakharova is seeking compensation for surgeries and medical treatment for Umka totaling about $8,000. She also wants a full return of the dog’s sale price plus interest since the date of purchase in February 2011. Zakharova intends to donate any award to an animal charity, Lask said.

New York state has a “Puppy Lemon Law’ that allows buyers to return sick animals to a pet store within 14 days for a full refund. The law is meant to slow puppy mills’ mass production of dogs with inherent medical problems. However, Umka’s medical issues did not become apparent for months after Zakharova purchased the dog.

“The Puppy Lemon Law doesn’t cut it,’ Lask said.

If the definition of a pet is changed from property to a sentient being, it could substantially change the amount of damages awarded when an owner buys a defective dog born in a puppy mill. That could have a chilling effect on pet stores buying animals from puppy mills fearing large payouts from lawsuits.

“It’s going to put a number on my dog’s broken hips that you created because you’re negligent, you’re greedy, and you’re mass-producing puppies,’ Lask said. “Right now, even if you return it, they just kill it, which is so inhumane.’

Lask is an animal lover who owns a Chihuahua named Lincoln who was found to have a hole in his skull months after her purchase. That discovery led her to investigate the practices of puppy mills. She waited six years to find a case to help correct the larger issue.

“It’s much bigger than this case,’ she said. “I am looking to shut down the puppy mill world.’

The main issue will be proving to a judge that pets are living souls who experience feelings of pain and emotion. “Human beings have treated other humans as property in history before recognizing it was wrong,” said Lask, “so it’s not too much of a stretch to ask the courts to change the definition.”

“It’s already a felony to abuse an animal. If animals have criminal rights, why not put rights on a damaged leg or a heart condition? If we’re not equating (an animal) to a human being, and we’re not equating it to a table, there has to be something in the middle.’

The suit brings to light the practices of puppy mills and their damaging effects on animals and their human owners. A 2011 investigation by The Humane Society of the United States revealed that Raising Rover, where Umka was purchased, was one of 11 upscale pet stores that purchased animals from Midwestern puppy mills with horrendous conditions.

The moral of the story is buyer beware! Experts agree consumers should opt to adopt from shelters to avoid the trauma that comes from paying exorbitant fees for pet store animals with hidden defects.

Posted on

The power of a STAR Program to save lives By Ed Boks

Ed Boks and the STAR Program
Ed Boks’ Special Treatment And Recovery (STAR) Program saves Sally’s life

Local shelters and rescue organizations exist to help save the lives of lost and homeless pets who have no one else to turn to.

Sally is such a case. Sally is a 3-year-old female sharpei-chow mix, although she behaves more like a giant teddy bear.  It is difficult to understand how someone could lose such a sweet animal.  Animal Control first spotted Sally running the streets in late April.  Tried as they might, she proved elusive despite what appeared to be a broken leg.

Fortunately, persistence paid off, and Sally was finally rescued on May 3 and brought to YHS.  Unfortunately, she did indeed have a broken left hind leg. Both her tibia and fibula were broken in two.  She was also badly flea-infested. The flea infestation was easily remedied.  Not so easy to remedy was her broken leg.

To save her leg, Sally required a surgical repair that included placement of a bone plate to realign the bone fragments, immobilize the fracture and allow healing.  She also had entropion – a chronic eye condition resulting from her eyelids rolling inward.  This condition can result in ulcers and even blindness if left untreated.  Corrective surgery to her eyelids was also necessary.

These medical needs qualified Sally for our STAR (Special Treatment And Recovery) program.  STAR provides medical care to abused, neglected, injured and sick animals rescued by the Yavapai Humane Society (YHS).  Lost, homeless and abandoned pets with poor medical conditions tend to be dismissed as adoption candidates by many shelters even though these animals could be treated if only the funds were available.

Thanks to our STAR Program, funded by donations from generous supporters, YHS is able to provide animals like Sally the time and treatment they need to recover.  This is done with the help and support of local veterinarians and foster care families able to provide safe haven to an animal for the recovery period.

Sally was particularly fortunate in that she had two veterinary “champions” volunteering to help with her surgery.  YHS is thankful for and dependent on our veterinary partners.  Without their support, animals like Sally would have no chance at survival.  Our local veterinarians are truly every day heroes!

Sally’s surgery was successful saving her life.  She is now in foster care until her recovery is complete, at which time she will be available for adoption.

A local veterinarian’s compassion made Sally’s surgery possible.  But it would not have been possible without your donations to our STAR program.  If you want to help animals in distress, animals like Sally, please make sure your local shelter has a life-saving STAR Program you can help support.  Without a coordinated commpassionate community veterinarian partners and shelter volunteers, these animals would truly be hopeless.  By working together  your community can be among the safest communities in the nation for pets – owned, lost, and homeless.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society.

Posted on

No-Kill Ethic gives every dog a chance by Ed Boks

Ed Boks and Xena
Behavior rehabilitation saves lives! Visit: Bound Angels for more information.

There are moments on this job that make all the heartbreak and disappointment worthwhile. Recently Sandy Nelson, who had adopted one of our shelter animals a few months ago, called me to say, “Thank you for believing Xena (pronounced Zeena) deserved a chance to live.” That was one of those moments.

When I first arrived at the Yavapai Humane Society (YHS) in July, I found Xena on the euthanasia list. Alone in her kennel, surrounded by barking dogs and abandoned by her family, she was understandably frightened. She responded to her new surroundings the only way she knew how – by demonstrating a behavior known as “fear-based aggression,” which is not uncommon in shelter dogs when they first arrive.

Although we knew she was acting out her fear, her behavior was so fearsome that our most experienced animal handlers were unable to handle her. One of them admitted that, in all his years at YHS, Xena was the only dog that actually scared him. By the time I arrived that first week in July, it had already been determined that there was no chance Xena would ever be adopted. She was marked for euthanasia.

Public safety is the primary focus when evaluating dogs for adoption. With nearly 30 years experience in animal control and welfare, I understand better than most that there are dogs who are dangerously aggressive – dogs who should never be adopted out. Was Xena such a dog?

Imagine what must go on in the mind of a dog abandoned by her guardian. You wake up as you do every morning at the foot of your master’s bed – but tonight you inexplicably find yourself alone in a cold concrete cell surrounded by excited barking dogs and strange people. Wouldn’t you lash out in fear to defend yourself?

How do you discern a truly dangerous dog from an estranged pet?

Ed Boks and Robert Cabral
Robert Cabral (Bound Angels) provides the training shelter staff and volunteers need to save the lives of behaviorally challenged dogs.

Fortunately for Xena, renowned Malibu-based dog trainer and behaviorist Robert Cabral came to the rescue. Waiving his $250 per hour fee and all the expenses he incurred from driving himself and his two dogs, Silly and Goofy, to Prescott, he came to help staff and volunteers learn his life-saving techniques.

Cabral is not your typical dog trainer. His focus is not training beloved pets how to sit and stay in your backyard. His expertise is rehabilitating behaviorally challenged shelter dogs. He has been called upon to rehabilitate dogs adjudicated as “vicious” by city magistrates – dogs most of us wouldn’t want to be in the same town with, much less on the same leash.

Believing that even these dogs deserve a chance at life is the essence of the no-kill ethic. These dogs do not come by this behavior naturally; they are trained directly or through neglect to be aggressive. The no-kill ethic asserts that every shelter animal deserves a chance at life. That means YHS will strive to treat animals in need of medical care as well as animals in need of behavioral rehabilitation in the effort to find each animal a loving home.

It was this ethic that saved Xena. The no-kill ethic created a way for the Nelsons and Xena to meet and fall in love. Today, Xena is in dog obedience classes, she happily sits for treats and she devotedly follows the Nelsons around their beautiful ranch in Chino Valley.

Cabral has a slogan: “You can’t save all the dogs in the world, but you can save one. Join the revolution.” Xena is one of many dogs benefiting from Cabral’s life-saving training. YHS staff applied what we learned and Xena responded. She overcame her fear, was removed from the euthanasia list and was adopted by the Nelsons in July.

Isn’t it time you joined the life-saving revolution? Adopt a shelter animal today.

Posted on

Circle of compassion rippling through universities by Ed Boks

The New York Times recently ran an article by James Gorman on the status of animals in universities across the United States.

Historically, academia relegated animals to the province of science. Rats were confined to psychology labs; cows to veterinary barns; monkeys to neuroscience labs; and preserved frogs to the dissecting tables of undergraduates. At the same time, the attention of liberal arts and social sciences was directed solely toward human interests.

No more. This spring Harvard is offering “Humans, Animals and Cyborgs,” while Dartmouth presents “Animals and Women in Western Literature” and New York University offers “Animals, People and Those in Between.”

These courses evidence a growing interest in animal studies. In fact, anything having to do with any connection between humans and animals in art, literature, sociology, anthropology, film, theater, philosophy, and religion is fair game for animal studies.

The Animals and Society Institute, itself only six years old, lists more than 100 animal studies courses in American universities. Institutes, book series and conferences are proliferating as formal academic programs emerge.

Wesleyan University, with the Animals and Society Institute, began a summer fellowship program this year. Michigan State now allows doctoral and master’s students in different fields to concentrate their work in animal studies. At least two institutions offer undergraduate majors, and New York University is allowing undergraduates to minor in animal studies.

Scholars never actually ignored animals. Thinkers and writers of all ages grappled with human/animal issues and the treatment of animals. However, the current burst of interest is unprecedented.

Jane Desmond of the University of Illinois, a cultural anthropologist, says public sensitivities are largely responsible for all the animal attention.

The trend may be traced back to Jane Goodall, who first showed us the social and emotional side of chimpanzees in a way we could not ignore. Most recently the popular YouTube video of a New Caledonian crow bending a wire into a tool to fish food out of a container caused academics to wonder how old a child would have to be to figure that out.

The most direct influence may have come from philosophy. Peter Singer’s 1975 book “Animal Liberation” was a landmark in arguing against killing, eating and experimenting on animals. He questioned how humans could justify causing animals pain.

Lori Gruen, head of philosophy and coordinator of the summer fellowship program in animal studies at Wesleyan, said, “Thirty years ago animals were at the margins of philosophical discussions; now animals are in the center of ethical discussion.”

Another strain of philosophy, exemplified by the French writer Jacques Derrida, has had an equally strong influence. He considered the way we think of animals, and why we distance ourselves from them. In “The Animal that Therefore I Am,” he discusses not only what he thinks of his cat, but what his cat thinks of him.

What animals think is something scholars are taking more seriously. Referring to academic programs that focused on disenfranchised populations like women or African-Americans, Dr. Weil of Wesleyan said, “Unlike (those populations, animals) can’t speak or write in language the academy recognizes.” This communication deficit lent itself to academics raising moral arguments on behalf of the animals.

The great variety of subjects, methods, interests and assumptions in animal studies raises serious questions about how it all hangs together. Law schools have courses in animals and the law; veterinary schools have courses about the human connection to animals; and some courses use animals in therapy as part of animal studies.

None of this diversity diminishes the excitement in what’s going on, although there are some academics within the animal studies rubric who think the scholarly ferment has a long way to go before it can truly consider itself an academic field.

One thing the new interest in animal studies does not lack is energy. If you want to better understand what all the scholarly excitement is about visit your local shelter for your homework assignment and adopt a pet today.

Posted on

Think globally; give locally By Ed Boks

Imagine how you might feel if your boss told you he was so pleased with your job performance that he gave a bonus to your coworker.  I suspect you would be dumbfounded.  Yet, in my line of work, it is not uncommon to hear, “I love the work our local Humane Society does – so I sent a gift to HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) or to the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) to support you.”

One of the greatest misunderstandings in animal welfare is the belief that HSUS and the ASPCA are affiliated with local animal welfare organizations.

Do you know how much funding HSUS and the ASPCA provide the Yavapai Humane Society each year?  If you said “nothing,” you would be correct – and this is typical for virtually every local humane society in the United States.

Ironically, HSUS and the ASPCA raise enough money each year to fund an animal shelter in every state.  However, HSUS has no animal shelter anywhere, and the ASPCA has just one shelter in New York – that actually handles fewer animals each year than most local humane societies.  The mission of these national organizations is to raise awareness of national animal welfare issues; the mission of local humane societies is to care for homeless, abused and neglected pets in their local communities.

Many mistakenly believe that gifts to national groups will trickle down to help animals in their own community. I only wish that were true.

People come to this assumption through misleading marketing tactics. Let me give you an example. Recently, the ASPCA sent a direct mail solicitation to millions of homes across the nation that said, “Together we can stop cruelty to animals. … As you read this letter, somewhere – perhaps not far from you – someone is inflicting pain on an innocent and helpless animal. … You may not be able to rescue that particular animal. … Please send the largest gift you can manage to help the ASPCA save animals like it.”

Clearly, national organizations understand that sending “the largest gift you can manage” to their New York or Washington, D.C., office is not the best way to help protect “an innocent and helpless animal,” a “particular animal,” an animal “not far” from where you live.

I have no objection to national animal welfare organizations asking for support for the wonderful work they do in calling attention to important issues. However, I do object to these organizations misrepresenting their programs by implying they are helping animals in our community. This is especially disturbing as you watch the daily barrage of heart-wrenching television ads these organizations use to seek donations.

I believe in the maxim “think globally; act locally.” However, I object to national organizations abusing this tenet by implying you are acting locally when you contribute to them. Don’t be fooled. When you contribute to these organizations, your money is leaving our community never to return. If that is your intent, fine, but be sure you understand what you are contributing to.

Every local humane society in every city, town and county, was founded to help homeless, abused and neglected animals in their own community.  Local humane societies are often governed by a local volunteer board of directors funded almost entirely by local support.

Most local humane societies receive no funding from the national groups, nor are they governed by or affiliated with HSUS or the ASPCA.  Local humane societies are often the largest local nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization caring for the largest number of needy animals in your community – and these animals, our animals, need our help. They need your help.

If you are looking for the best way to help homeless, abandoned and abused animals in your community, please consider volunteering with your local shelter or making a life-saving tax-deductible donation directly to your local Humane Society.