The “House of Horrors” Editorial by Mutt Lover | Reading Time: about 10 minutes

I wrote this letter in response to Stu Bykofsky’s (the Philadelphia Daily News) House of Horrors series. He wrote House of Horrors around 2003-2004 as an exposé about the situation at the city-run shelter, PACCA (Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association, now ACCT or Animal Care and Control Team ). For 20-25 years prior to PACCA opening its doors, the PSPCA  (a private shelter) had the animal control contract with the city of Philadelphia. But the director of the PSPCA at that time gave the city an ultimatum. Either impose a pit bull ban in the city or he would not renew the animal control contract. He no longer wanted the task of having to process and euthanize thousands of pit bulls every year (the PSPCA had a no-adoption policy for pit bulls at that time).

But the city could not pass a ban because Pennsylvania is one of the few states that prohibit breed specific legislation. So, the PSPCA did not renew the contract and the city had to set up their own animal shelter facility. Which they did, a few blocks from the PSPCA at what used to be some sort of warehouse and a totally inadequate facility to house the enormous numbers of animals they take in, historically about 30,000-34,000 each year.

The House of Horrors series led to a city council meeting (I was at that meeting) to discuss the situation and come up with some solutions.

_________________________________

Hello Mr. Bykofsky,

I am a member of Cavaliers of the Northeast Rescue. I also do some rescue on my own — all different breeds, usually cases with significant medical issues. And I have helped other local rescues, sometimes pulling dogs from PACCA, sometimes with transport, etc.

Last summer, I was involved with a group of rescuers in an attempt to get PACCA to be more rescue-friendly. It was a very frustrating experience at best, often heartbreaking. This was the first time I worked with a shelter so my comments do not have the benefit of extensive experience, but you really don’t need a lot of experience to know when things are wrong. And lots of things are wrong with PACCA. Much has already been said by other rescue volunteers about the conditions at this shelter. I do not want to bore you with more of the same. What they say describes what we have all seen there, but doesn’t even begin to express what a few visits to this shelter really feels like. If you have not done so already, I strongly urge you to visit the shelter, observe what goes on, see for yourself the dimension of the problem.

What has been said about this shelter and some of the people who work there is all true. The facility is totally inadequate given the number of animals they are taking in. Some of the workers seem uncaring and totally unsuited for this type of work. There are people working there who can’t tell the difference between a Boxer and a Lab. Some seem to have a difficult time determining the sex of a dog. Some seem afraid of the animals. Some show a distinct dislike for them. There are caring, hard-working people at PACCA too, but in my experience, they are outnumbered by those who obviously are there only to collect a paycheck. And that is unfortunate, for in this line of work there is no greater sin than apathy.

So, yes, I agree with everyone who has spoken thus far, PACCA has lots of problems. Some of the problems need to be addressed by the City. For instance, the shelter needs a better facility and they need better funding. The shelter also needs experienced and caring workers. The shelter needs to be accountable to “someone” outside the facility and it needs a strong and energetic leader who will be more proactive, not only in making sure the conditions at the shelter are acceptable — actually the goal should be better than acceptable — but in doing everything that can be done to find homes for as many of the animals in their care as possible. Frankly — given what I have seen — about the only hope you have for PACCA to be transformed into the shelter it needs to be is to hire a whole new management team and go from there.

Furthermore, the new management needs to be made up of individuals who have experience running a large city shelter and who will hire people with progressive ideas and the ability to make significant changes a reality, not just talk about them. The people running this shelter should be doing so because they have the necessary knowledge and expertise, not because they are related to somebody. The lives of many animals depend on that. And the shelter needs kennel workers who want to do what is right for the animals, who truly like working with animals, and who will be caring and compassionate. Even if many of these animals end up being euthanized because homes cannot be found, there is no excuse for their last few days on Earth to be spent in a filthy cage.

All that being said, the problem — at least in my mind — is much larger and more complex than just a poorly-run shelter. The real problem that needs to be dealt with at some point is the fact that over 32,000 animals are surrendered — or abandoned on the streets of Philadelphia — each year by their owners. You can have the best shelter in the country with the most caring and competent staff, and there still is no way you are going to be able to help that many animals.

Thousands of animals will still have to die every year, especially since a number of them are not exactly adoptable. As I said, go down to PACCA sometime and walk through the kennels, take a good look at many of the dogs that end up there, and tell me how many of them you really think the general public will be willing to adopt. As mentioned in your article, you will find a great many pit bulls and pit bull mixes that no one wants to adopt. Why? Well, to a certain extent, they are “unadoptable” because over the last decade or so, the public has been pretty much brainwashed into believing that every pit bull is vicious and unpredictable. There are also all those legislators who, in their diligent efforts to “protect” the public, have made it almost impossible for responsible owners to own a pit bull without living in constant fear. Practically every day there is some community, town, city or state passing some form of BSL.

To be honest, many of the pit bulls that end up at PACCA are not the best examples of the breed, having been bred and raised by people who have no business doing so. Many of them have had the misfortune of being horribly neglected so that their condition is such that not many people would be willing to adopt them. Others have been used for fighting and will not even be given a chance to be adopted by this or most any other shelter in this country.

This situation has to be addressed because whether we like it or not, a significant number of the dogs that end up at PACCA, or any other city shelter for that matter, are going to be pit bulls. But the “pit bull problem” is not really a dog problem, it is a people problem and it needs to be addressed, not with BSL, not with a breed ban, not with the systematic extermination of these breeds — that is entirely the wrong approach and certainly not very humane — but by holding people accountable for their actions. That means that those who are breaking the law by fighting dogs must be prosecuted and prevented from ever doing so again. There are plenty of laws on the books to deal with all these issues, now all we have to do is enforce them. As things are now, the dogs are about the only ones being punished. Of course, I am not so naive as to believe that this will happen anytime soon. There is a lot of money to be made in dog fighting and as long as that is the case, dogs will continue to die by the thousands.

Owners must also be held responsible for the proper care of their pets, and if they are being neglectful, they also need to be prosecuted. As long as I live I will never forget the pit bull boy that was brought in by his owner during one of my visits to PACCA last summer. He did not appear to be a fighting dog, he was not scarred and he looked to me to be someone’s pet. But he obviously had gotten into some confrontation with another dog. One of his ears was barely attached to his body, it had been practically ripped off, the whole area an open, bloody mess.

That was horrible enough, but it quickly became obvious that this was not a recent injury. Apparently, the owner had neglected to take his dog to the vet for treatment. The stench of infection permeated the entire waiting room and took your breath away. I remember seeing one of the kennel workers holding up his shirt to his nose to block out the smell. I went up to that dog and let him sniff my hand, his tail wagged and he licked my hand, I petted him, fighting with every inch of my body the tears that were welling up in my eyes. You see, I knew what would happen to that dog the minute his owner signed the surrender form and the dog was taken to the back. And I venture to guess that the owner also knew what would happen to his dog. Some people may be clueless, but they are not that clueless.

I cried all the way home because that was one dog that didn’t have to die. All he needed was treatment for his injury. He was a nice dog, he was not a fighter, he was not a vicious dog, he was just a dog that had the misfortune to be owned by someone who either could not afford to care for him or who did not want to spend the money on “just a dog.” A truly responsible owner would have figured out how to get the care that dog needed, but that requires effort and commitment, both of which are in short supply these days.

Then there are all those large dogs that have been poorly trained and that people living in a city are not very likely to adopt because not many have the proper home conditions for those breeds. What about those that are sick and old? I have been at PACCA at least twice when owners brought in very old dogs (both over 12) because they were sick. Those dogs should have been taken to their vets to be treated or, if they were beyond help, to be humanely euthanized. But that costs money, and these owners felt it was a better choice to bring their pets to the shelter.

I read all those stories you published on Thursday, the tales of owners bringing their dogs to the shelter thinking they would be adopted to “good homes,” only to find out later that their “beloved” pets had been euthanized. Although these stories are all very sad, the real “bad guy” here is not the shelter, it is the owners who didn’t care enough about their pets to inform themselves about what real chances their pets had at this shelter. It is not a secret that a very large percentage of the animals surrendered to this shelter never walk out the door. I am sure a quick call to some government agency can provide you with the stats. Perhaps the public needs to be better educated about city shelters in general and this shelter in particular.

Maybe you could consider a follow-up article that discusses what other options are available to an owner wishing to rehome their pet. They could contact a rescue group and surrender their pet to the rescue rather than to a shelter. Of course, that is a real option when the animal in question is a purebred as there are not that many rescue groups who will accept mixed breeds. Perhaps they can work with a group like Animal Rescue and Referral. This group lists pets needing new homes on Petfinder and local newspapers and does all the work of screening potential homes to make sure the pet will end up in a good home. The owner, however, will need to keep the animal until a suitable home is found as this group does not have foster homes available. But that should be the least an owner can do for their “beloved” pet. Or, the owner can find a new home for the pet. That is always an option.

Perhaps owners considering surrendering their pets might choose some form of counseling, if made available. The shelter could work with these owners to determine the issues involved, helping them find a workable solution so they might be able to keep their pets or, if that is not possible, giving them full disclosure as to the chances their pets have of finding a new home.

In addition, the shelter must find a way to work with rescues. Rescues have limited resources and they certainly cannot rehome 32,000 animals each year, but the ones they are able to rehome are much less likely to ever need another home than if the shelter placed them directly, especially given their current adoption process. This is particularly important with some of the more “problematic” breeds like pit bulls, rotties, mastiffs, GSDs, akitas, etc.

Finally, the shelter/city needs to do much more to prevent so many animals from ever needing new homes. Maybe we need to start with the children; educate them about responsible pet ownership. People need to learn that their poor decisions have very real consequences. When you make a poor choice picking out a shirt, you can take it back to the store, exchange it for the “right” choice or get your money back. No real harm done. When you make a poor decision about another living being, the consequences are much more significant.

I realize that in a free society, there is a limit to what can be done to prevent some of these problems. For instance, nothing much can be done to stop someone who is totally unsuitable to be a pet owner from going to a pet store and purchasing a puppy or a kitten. As long as they have the money, no questions are asked. But wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if we could somehow require a potential pet owner to demonstrate that they are capable of providing for the needs of a companion animal for his/her entire life? Or, if for some reason, they were not able to do so, that they would at least be responsible for finding a suitable new home? If that were the case, the need for animal shelters and the destruction of thousands of companion animals each and every year would become a non-issue.

Time to Work on a Real Solution by Mutt Lover | Reading Time: about 15 minutes

I thought I’d start with a sampling of the kinds of situations I would deal with pretty much on a daily basis during my rescue days. It is because of this constant and relentless barrage of emails and calls that I feel very strongly that we as a culture must tackle this “pet problem” from a different perspective. We all get too bogged down dealing with the day-to-day demands to really look carefully at the big picture and how our actions are in some ways perpetuating this problem.

 

The story of two dogs who couldn’t live together

I got a call from a man a few years ago, he said it was an “emergency.” He didn’t really explain what the nature of emergency was, just left his name and phone number. So I called him a couple of hours later to an all-too-common scenario.

He has two Pit Bulls, a male and a female. He said he got both from “rescue” about two years before. But when questioned for more details, it turns out that the dogs didn’t really come from a rescue per se. One was adopted from a vet clinic who I’m sure had it because the previous owner didn’t want it anymore for one reason or another. The other one came directly from his owner (via a woman in NY who does rescue … she was just the “middleman” so to speak).

So, the bottom line was that neither one of these two dogs really has a safe place to go back to. They were both about a year old when he got them and they have been fine together for over two years. But now they are a little over three years old and “all of a sudden” they are having nasty fights. The female has gotten beat up badly enough to end up at the emergency clinic.

This man wanted to find another home for the male dog because he thought the male would be “easier” to rehome. I had to break the news to him that finding a home for a 3-year-old male Pit Bull that isn’t good with other dogs is not exactly a walk in the park.

He sent me an email with pictures explaining the situation. Now, mind you he actually said that his male – who has beaten up that female he has been with for more than two years – loves other dogs and will be fine with other dogs. Huh? Apparently these folks had not taken the time to educate themselves about the dog-aggression issue in this breed and were not prepared to deal with it. And whoever placed that second dog with them obviously didn’t take the time to enlighten them because chances are their main goal was to “get rid” of their problem.

Update: while I was working on finding a home for their male dog, there was an incident in the home that “resolved” this situation. Although I made it very clear they needed to keep these two dogs separated until another home could be found, they either did not find my argument compelling enough or they were not vigilant enough. Either way, while the husband was at work one day, a fight broke out between the two dogs. The wife was seriously injured, requiring surgery in one of her arms, while trying to break up the fight. Most people don’t really know how to safely break up dog fights; which is not always easy, especially if you are the only human around but it is a super important thing to know if you own multiple Pit Bulls.

One of the dogs, the male if I recall correctly, was injured badly enough that the owners opted to have him euthanized. Sadly, some variation on this theme is how a great many of these sad situations end up being resolved.

 

Was she really ready to commit to a dog?

Then there was the email I got from a young lady who said she did take the time to educate herself about Pit Bulls and who felt she could “save one” by adopting it from a shelter. She was young and she lived in an apartment in the city. She went to the shelter and found a young female who, like so many others, had come into the shelter in very poor condition: very emaciated and very weak.

The shelter, however, went ahead and loaded her up with vaccines, then spayed her and adopted her out as soon as she was spayed. Within a couple of days, the dog got very sick. Her kennel cough turned into pneumonia and her spay incision busted open. The dog also had some kind of nasty sore on her tail that kept bleeding. The young lady took the dog back to the shelter clinic but didn’t get much help there so she ended up taking her to a private veterinarian.

Within a couple of weeks her $25 shelter dog had cost her a few hundred dollars in vet visits, medications, x-rays, etc. She may have educated herself but my guess is that she was not in any way prepared to deal with a sick dog, either financially or in terms of the time and effort caring for such a dog takes. She emailed me because she knew she would need to get more antibiotics for her dog and she could not afford to pay for them.

As if that weren’t enough, her apartment building was in the process of being sold and she had just found out that the new owners were not going to be quite as understanding about dogs; she would not be allowed to keep her dog once ownership of the building changed.

So, less than a month after being adopted, Lucy is once again in search of a home. God only knows how many homes she has actually been through in her short life. She is a terrific dog, she is gorgeous but she is an adult Pit Bull, which means she is not in high demand. She has been up on Petfinder as an “urgent” for weeks now. Will she be one of the lucky ones? Will she find another home? Will that be her last home? Will she go back to a shelter?

Update: Lucy did end up being returned to the shelter when the young woman decided to move back to Baltimore, choosing not to take Lucy along with her.

Lucy

 

If only they were all Boston Terriers

Then there is Dolly, the 9-month-old Boston Terrier female who belonged to one of my veterinarian’s friends. Let’s start with the reason this little darling was in search of a new home. Her previous guardian had a couple of older poodles; both passed away within a couple months of each other. The woman has MS, she works just about full time and she lives in a second floor condo with no yard and no easy way to deal with a dog.

This woman should have considered an older dog, maybe a 3- or 4- or even a 5-year-old dog that was already over the puppy stage, house trained, mellow enough to hang out with the family. A puppy was absolutely the wrong choice but everyone wants a puppy, they want to “start from scratch.” So she got herself a Boston Terrier puppy from a breeder. A breeder she found through a newspaper ad, a breeder who didn’t have either of the puppies’ parents on site, only the puppies. Do you think that is a “breeder” anyone should be supporting? Chances are pretty good she was simply an “agent” for a commercial breeding operation.

When you consider that anywhere between 4 and 12 millions animal, depending on whose statistics you believe, are killed every year for lack of homes, can we as a society rationalize supporting any breeders? So, now this puppy was 9 months old and already looking for a new home. She was a sweet puppy, she was cute, she was small, she was crate trained, she was not high strung as some Bostons can be, she was healthy. Pretty close to a perfect little dog …

So, I contacted a Boston Terrier group to let them know that I had this puppy in my rescue and that perhaps they could pass the word along to anyone they had on their files who might be looking to adopt a puppy. They got back to me with lightning speed – within a couple of hours – to let me know that they were sure they could take her into foster care immediately. Well, I didn’t really need them to take her into foster care, she was already in one of my foster homes. I was just letting them know that I would be happy to consider adopting her to any potential adopters they referred to me before I would post her on Petfinder.

I didn’t hear much else from the rescue group once they learned I wasn’t looking to “surrender” the puppy to them. So, I posted her on Petfinder the Friday before Mother’s day. Within one hour of posting her, late in the evening, the calls and emails started coming. By the end of the weekend, I had gotten at least a dozen inquiries. People have called from Connecticut to Louisiana. The woman calling from Louisiana didn’t understand why I wouldn’t ship Dolly to her!.

My plan had been to keep Dolly up on Petfinder for a week to see what options she might have. By the following Thursday afternoon, I had to remove her from Petfinder because I was spending so much time fielding calls and emails about Dolly, I couldn’t do much of anything else. Of course, none of these people would consider anything but a Boston Terrier. Hey, maybe that’s why so many rescues and shelters list what, to me, appear to be black and white Pit Bulls mixes as “Boston Terrier mixes.” Boston Terriers are definitely a popular breed and there is no shortage of homes willing to adopt a young, healthy, female Boston Terrier. So maybe the problem isn’t that there aren’t enough homes out there, the problem is that we don’t have enough Boston Terriers to go around.

Update: Dolly was adopted to a young Philadelphia couple who already had another Boston Terrier.

 

We must make better choices for animals in need of homes

While I was walking a couple of my dogs one day, one of my neighbor informed me that her brother had just adopted a Weimaraner puppy from the city shelter. Now, possibly this was a Weimaraner mix, I knew from experience that shelters are not always the best with breed IDs but it could very well be a a purebred, plenty of purebred dogs end up in city shelters every day. I also knew from experience that if that was a healthy, purebred Weimaraner puppy, the chances were pretty darn high the shelter wouldn’t have even considered contacting a Weimaraner rescue group, although that should have been their first option. Instead they adopted this puppy from their shelter because purebred dogs, especially puppies are super “adoptable.”

I don’t know what this woman’s brother did for a living but she and her husband were lawyers and both of them were pretty darn educated about the pet overpopulation problem. But despite knowing all about pet overpopulation and the millions of dogs that are killed in shelters every year, when they decided to get a Shih Tzu, they went to a breeder to get one and they had chosen not to spay their dog because they were considering breeding her.

This woman told me herself that her brother shouldn’t have gotten a puppy because he works very long hours and so the puppy would be home alone all day long. Not only isn’t a puppy a good choice for this home but a Weimaraner puppy could possibly be just about the worst choice given their typical characteristics.

One day when I have nothing better to do, I’ll have to go through my files and my already overloaded memory and write down all the situations that have come my way over the years that further illustrate my point. The seemingly endless parade of otherwise intelligent humans who can’t seem to get past their need for instant gratification who then expect someone else to deal with the consequences of their poor decisions. The shelters and rescues who can’t seem to consider what is in the best interests of the animal in question, instead choosing what is easiest for the humans involved.

And yes, I know the people who work in shelters and run rescues are overwhelmed, underfunded, underpaid, etc. But I refuse to accept those excuses anymore. If you are not going to at least make an attempt to do what is best for the dog or the cat or the bunny that has already been tossed aside once or a few times, then you should move on to another line of work. For better or for worse, if you are in the animal welfare field, then you must set the example. Just as a cop ought to set the example for the rest of us regular folks, shelter workers and rescues and anyone involved in placing homeless animals needs to set the example by making the needs of the animal their top priority. That means that when someone walks into your shelter who works 14 hours a day, they don’t get to adopt a puppy, no matter how nice they are.

And yes, I know what you are all going to say: but if we take this approach, if we really get tough and that selective about where we place unwanted animals, we’ll have to kill even more than we already are. Probably, at least in the beginning. but if you take that stand and if you stick to it, in time, the numbers of animals who will need help will decrease dramatically. There is only one way we are ever going to even begin to make a dent in this issue and that is to figure out a way to keep companion animals away from those who continue to dump them back into the “river.” Treating the symptom doesn’t cure the disease.

 

Get out of the river and head upstream

The following except is from One at a time: a Week in an American Animal Shelter by Diane Leigh and Marilee Geyer (see our book recommendations). It was written by two women who have worked in animal shelters and who obviously have reached a level of understanding and compassion rarely found in this field.

“One of our favorite fables is the story about a group of friends having a picnic on a riverbank. They hear the sound of crying and look up, shocked to see a baby floating helplessly in the river. They immediately dive in to rescue the baby, and to their horror, see another baby floating toward them. They rush to save that baby, but no sooner is that one pulled to safety than they see another. And still more appear; the river is full of them. Again and again the people dive into the river, trying to save the seemingly endless flow of drowning babies.”

“One of the people gets out of the river and begins running upstream. ‘Where are you going?’ his friends shout. ‘I’m going to find out who’s throwing babies in the river and make them stop!’ he yells back, as he heads upstream.”

“The homeless animal problem is a lot like that. Animal shelters and rescue groups try hard to save the homeless animals in the river. But that will never solve the problem. Real, lasting solutions to the homeless animal problem involve stopping them from being thrown in the river in the first place.”

For those of you who are “no-kill” advocates and of course most of us, no one really wants to kill millions and millions of wonderful companion animals for lack of homes. Let me just say that both of these women want the killing stopped. They also would like ours to be a no-kill nation but unlike the many no-kill advocates out there who won’t hear of killing anything but who have no true understanding of the realities of this current situation and who rarely, if ever, are able or willing to take even one of these unwanted animals into their homes, Diane Leigh and Marilee Geyer have this to say:

“Most shelters in this country, including municipal shelters and non-profits operating under municipal contract, are the type that accept all animals brought to them. And, in fact, virtually every community in this country has a shelter performing euthanasia to create cage space, as the current magnitude of this problem dictates that ‘no kill’ shelters could not possibly accommodate the volume of homeless animals that would arrive at their doorstep (emphasis mine). We tell you this not to defend euthanasia as a means of handling the homeless animal problem, nor to diminish the work that ‘no kill’ shelters do to help homeless animals. But often the public, the media, donors, volunteers, and even shelter workers themselves get caught up in questions focusing on which shelter performs euthanasia and which shelter is ‘no kill,’ while the most critical point is lost: there can be no victory declared if any shelter in the community euthanizes just to keep up with the flow of unwanted animals.”

Now the question is, as it always has been: How do we stop the flow? If we cannot answer this question, we cannot solve this problem. And if we spend all our time and energy “saving” those drowning babies from the river, we will never solve the problem.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Pet Problem: Prevention Should be Part of the Solution by Mutt Lover

From the intro of One at a Time: A Week in an American Animal Shelter
by Diane Leigh and Marilee Geyer, copyright 2005

“One of our favorite fables is the story about a group of friends having a picnic on a riverbank. They hear the sound of crying and look up, shocked to see a baby floating helplessly in the river. They immediately dive in to rescue the baby, and to their horror, see another baby floating toward them. They rush to save that baby, but no sooner is that one pulled to safety than they see another. And still more appear; the river is full of them. Again and again the people dive into the river, trying to save the seemingly endless flow of drowning babies.

One of the people gets out of the river and begins running up upstream. ‘Where are you going?’ his friends shout. ‘I’m going to find out who’s throwing babies in the river and make them stop!’ he yells back, as he heads upstream.”

Most of us intuitively understand why going “upstream” is an important step in solving any complex problem, whether it be world hunger, global warming, homelessness, poverty or in this case, the “pet problem.”

Philadelphia, like most cities in this nation has a rather serious “pet problem.” Whether the issue is animal neglect, abuse, the “pit bull problem” or simply lack of responsibility when it comes to pet ownership, humane organizations and animal welfare groups are literally drowning in unwanted animals. Dog fighting is a hot issue right at the moment, thanks in part to the Michael Vick case; although the problem has been endemic in urban settings for at least a couple of decades. Animal neglect and cruelty have been a problem for hundreds of years. There is a significant body of evidence in the mental health field that makes the case that animal neglect is very often a clear sign that others in the home (children for instance) are also being neglected or abused. There is also plenty of evidence that young children who are animal abusers will “graduate” to commit other antisocial and/or criminal acts as adults. In most cases humans – as well as animals – are their victims. It is rare the serial killer that does not have a history of animal abuse as a young child.

It would seem logical that early intervention, in the form of humane education, programs to “redirect” criminal activities such as dog fighting and other animal cruelty would be a priority for any city. The PSPCA used to have a staff member devoted to providing humane education programs to the community, primarily directed at educating young children in a school setting. As far as I am aware, this was the only organized and widely known humane education program in Philadelphia. Recently, the PSPCA has done away with that position as they feel that humane education should be the function of the school system. I have not yet had the chance to contact The Pet Problem: Prevention should be part of the solution
Page 2

the Education Department to inquire as to whether they are addressing this issue but my hunch is that they have more pressing priorities.

Having been involved in animal rescue (primarily pit bull rescue) during the past 5 years, I have gained enough knowledge and expertise to know that “fixing” what is already broken is not going to achieve a real solution. Although what animal welfare organizations in this city (such as PACCA and the PSPCA) are doing may be necessary, if we want to make a dent in that “river full of drowning babies,” Philadelphia must start addressing the core problems, must start “educating” its children that animal abuse, animal neglect, animal cruelty and irresponsible pet ownership are simply not an option. We can continue to “rehab” the offenders and “rehab” their victims but if we really want to someday get our arms around this problem, we must intervene BEFORE the humans become offenders, and BEFORE the animals become victims.

I would welcome any ideas and leads on how we can make this case to the city of Philadelphia, how we can find the resources and the funding to start a humane education program and how we can establish some preventative programs.

The media’s role in the demonization of an entire breed | Reading Time: about 10 minutes

Since the 1980s, the media has played a significant role in drastically changing the perceptions the average person has about an entire breed of dogs, a breed that was once considered “America’s dog” and proudly owned by many. Did the dogs change that dramatically in less than a century?

These following three perspectives (two blog posts, one video) just scratch the surface on this issue. For sure, there are many factors at play and sometimes it is difficult to tease them all apart to make sense of the situation but the media has certainly played a significant part in the dynamic that has led to the wholesale destruction of millions of dogs.

As mentioned in the Denver Post Fetch blog post, it is worth reading Karen Delise’s book, The Pit Bull Placebo (see our book recommendations). Also, check out the two editorial I wrote (below this post) in response to newspaper stories published in the Philadelphia area while I was involved in rescue and animal welfare.

The Media Takes its Lumps Over Reporting About Pit Bulls, Denver Post Fetch, by John Davidson, Guest Blogger

“The press has lacked greatly in being part of a solution to improve the public’s safety, by reporting one side mostly, which is the one that sells …”  Read the entire article here.

Breedism, The Dog Star Daily, by Dr. Ian Dunbar

Why Are Pit Bulls Banned? How Media Hysteria Created Stupid Laws, Reason TV, Rob Montz

Scary Words, Editorial By Mutt Lover | Reading Time: about 10 minutes

I wrote this in response to a feature article published in The Philadelphia Inquirer in October 2007, in the wake of the Michael Vick dog fighting case.

At one time, in addition to the newspaper article, there was also a news video on The Philadelphia Inquirer’s website, showing a couple of minutes of the PSPCA agents bringing E.T. to the shelter. Both have since been removed. The article is included here, in full, as it appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer following the editorial.

Sadly, E.T. did not have a happy ending. After spending several months at the shelter awaiting a ruling from the courts, he, along with the rest of the dogs became the property of the shelter. The shelter made the decision to make E.T. available for adoption, most likely because of the article, he had become somewhat of a cause cé·lè·bre within the rescue/animal welfare community in Philadelphia. People in the area were keeping tabs on the situation and watching how the shelter handled his case. He was placed in a home with another male pit bull and a couple months later returned to the shelter, at which point the shelter made the decision to euthanize him.

Scary words

Animal cruelty “epidemic.” Dog fighting and dog fighting rings “growing by leaps and bounds.” “Fearsome and deadly” pit bulls. Those are some mighty scary words. But without some real evidence to support such claims, they are just that; words. Words that are intended to shock, sensationalize and yes, glamorize a “sport” we could all do without, especially the dogs who are the victims.

As I read Robert Moran’s “Saving dog fighting’s victims” (Philadelphia Inquirer, October 29, 2007), I kept looking for the evidence. I’ve even reread the article a couple of times to make sure I didn’t miss anything. I didn’t. Lots of hot button words, not much actual evidence.

We are told that last year the PSPCA confiscated 42 pit bulls from “suspected” dog fighters and that this year the figure is at 74. We are not told, however, whether their suspicions have been confirmed in court. Were all these dogs indeed from dog fighting rings? Even if they were, how do these numbers justify declaring an “epidemic?” The numbers have almost doubled in less than a year, you say? But is this surge in pit bull confiscations evidence that dog fighting is growing “by leaps and bounds,” or the result of animal control agencies being more proactive when it comes to arresting suspected dog fighters? Or are authorities in Philly – as they seem to be elsewhere in this country – finally noticing the dog fighting culture and doing something about it in the wake of the Michael Vick case?

Unless you can provide me with a census of the numbers of dog fighting rings/numbers of dogs involved in dog fighting last year (or preferably for the last few years) versus this year and those numbers show significant growth, the claim that dog fighting and animal cruelty have reached “epidemic” proportions is meaningless. Just about as meaningless as the “statistics” the media tosses around as proof that pit bulls are “vicious and unpredictable.”

To be perfectly honest, by far the most frightening words I found in this entire article are these: “They certainly can be fearsome and deadly, which has prompted breed-specific laws against them in some states. There is no such law in Pennsylvania or New Jersey.”

I read this sentence to someone I know, someone who is a dog person but doesn’t really know a whole lot about pit bulls and the issues surrounding them. I asked him to tell me what this sentence meant to him. “That pit bulls are killers and that we should have laws against owning them,” he said.

Yeap, that’s exactly what I think this sentence is meant to imply. That, my friends, is something every pit bull lover should really worry about because it is the kind of thinking that leads to a great many innocent dogs losing their lives.

Case in point: Denver Colorado. Since the city started enforcing its pit bull ban in May 2005, some claim 1,100 to 2,000 dogs may have been killed [Source: Best Friends Animal Society], not because they are dangerous or vicious, simply because they are pit bulls and now illegal in this city. In addition, many responsible dog owners have had to move out of the city in order to keep their family pet or have had to make the difficult decision to re-home their dog outside the city to spare his/her life. The “average” pit bull is in much greater danger of dying as a result of breed-specific legislation than from the activities of dog fighters.

Not only are breed specific laws costly and difficult to enforce, not to mention unfair to those who are responsible dog owners and their dogs, they have been shown time and again to be totally ineffective in solving the problem of dog bites and dog attacks. The reason is simple. They target a breed of dog rather than a behavior which can be and is exhibited by dogs of just about every breed and more importantly they do not address the real issue, the reason most dog attacks happen in the first place: irresponsible dog owners.

So, I am hoping Mr. Moran and the Philadelphia Inquirer are not suggesting that we should all be thinking about breed-specific laws when it comes to solving the “pit bull problem” in Philadelphia. Or that, like some “animal rights” organizations, they are not implying that the way to “save” pit bulls from the horrors, abuse and cruelty of dog fighting, is their wholesale extermination.

I would further question on what evidence Mr. Moran bases his claim that pit bulls are “deadly?” According to Karen Delise, author of Fatal Dog Attacks and a leading expert on dog attack statistics, there has not been even one human fatality attributable to a pit bull type dog in the entire state of Pennsylvania in the last 50 years. I only wish my odds of staying alive and well were nearly as good by hanging around my own species, especially in a city like Philadelphia where there is a homicide just about every day of the year.

As someone who has been involved in dog rescue – including pit bulls – for a few years, I have a few insights to offer:

• Hard core dog fighters – or “dog men” – have been around for a couple of centuries and they will probably be around long after everyone has forgotten all about Michael Vick. They have been fighting dogs for a very long time and frankly don’t need the likes of Michael Vick to provide “affirmation” for what they do. Whether we like it or not, like most of society’s other social evils (prostitution, drug dealing, organized crime, gambling), dog fighting is a tough one to eradicate. Rounding up a few dozen dogs now and again isn’t going to do it.

• While city punks who fight pit bulls is a much newer phenomenon, as the article points out, they have been around for at least a couple decades. Again, nothing new here. And unless you are also taking significant steps to make sure they can’t get more dogs, they will continue to fight them.

• Dog fighting is a horrible crime and like everyone else in this city who cares about pit bulls, I would love to see it come to an end. However, when we look at the big picture, dog fighting is only a small portion of the “pet problem.” Let’s look at some really big numbers. On average, the city of Philadelphia takes in 30,000-34,000 unwanted animals every year. Out of those, about 10,000-11,000 are dogs and a significant number of these are pit bulls and pit bull mixes. So, if in 2006, the PSPCA confiscated 42 pit bulls from dog fighters, that’s less than half a percent of the total. Even with the newly discovered “epidemic” in 2007, we are still talking less than one percent of the total. Who is responsible for the other 99%?

• We have no way of knowing exactly how many dogs lose their lives through dog fighting activities in this or any other city. The best we can do is take a wild guess. However, we do know that more than 4,700 dogs lost their lives in 2006 in Philadelphia because they were no longer wanted by their owners. And 2006 was a good year. That figure has been higher in previous years. By some estimates somewhere around 6,000 companion animals are euthanized in this country’s shelters every day. I have no doubt that some of these animals are the victims of dog fighting but the vast majority are not. The vast majority lose their lives because their humans did not hold up their end of the bargain. There are those humans who get pets on impulse with little thought and without researching breeds and their traits, proper care and who just as thoughtlessly discard them when they become an inconvenience. Or the humans who refuse to alter their animals and who keep adding to the overwhelming numbers of unwanted and homeless animals. Or the ones who can’t figure out how to move and also take their companion animals along. There is literally an army of animal welfare workers/volunteers/rescuers whose lives revolve around cleaning up the mess they leave behind. Unless you start addressing the real issue (i.e. irresponsible pet owners) this “army” will continue to drown in unwanted animals that need to be killed year after year because there simply is no place for them to go. That is as serious a crime as dog fighting.

Yes, Mr. Moran and Mr. Nelson, there is indeed an “epidemic” in animal welfare. It isn’t new and it isn’t very glamorous but it is the reason millions upon millions of companion animals die every year, not just a handful — comparatively speaking — at the hands of dog fighters. The real epidemic is one of ignorance, irresponsibility and apathy. And the ones responsible for that epidemic are not a bunch of punks fighting their dogs on the streets of the inner cities. Now how about we start doing something to save the victims of that epidemic?

Dog Fighting’s Victims: Animal cruelty “epidemic” sweeping city
By Robert Moran, Philadelphia Inquirer, October 29, 2007

For the record, he is animal No. 1157638 at the Pennsylvania SPCA’s North Philadelphia shelter, but the staff has dubbed him E.T.

Like the beloved movie alien, the rambunctious but friendly pit bull has a big head and no ears.

Unlike the character, the canine E.T. had his floppy ears sliced off – by Philadelphia dog fighters, probably because they were vulnerable in fights, PSPCA officials say.

E.T. was one of the 12 pit bulls discovered in February in an alleged dog-fighting ring in Kensington. On October 16, one of two men arrested at the scene pleaded guilty to felony animal cruelty. Barry White, 33, also faces a dog fighting case in North Carolina.

On Oct. 9, the head of the PSPCA declared that an animal cruelty “epidemic” was sweeping the city.

In particular, dog fighting and the abuse of pit bulls has become prominent. Along with dog fighting rings, the PSPCA is investigating the dumping of dead pit bulls in Fairmont Park. Last month, 17 live pit bulls were found hoarded in a moving truck in Oxford Circle.

George Bengle, a PSPCA enforcement officer, said dog fighting was “growing by leaps and bounds.”

Last year, the non profit agency confiscated 42 pit bulls from suspected dog fighters, chief executive officer Howard Nelson said. This year, the PSPCA impounded 74.

When NFL superstar Michael Vick pleaded guilty in August to a federal dog fighting conspiracy charge, animal lovers and the general public responded with revulsion.

For “dog men” and other participants, however, the Vick case was an affirmation that dog fighting is “glamorous,” Bengle said.

Having a pit bull and fighting it is like “walking around with a gun. It’s like a badge of honor,” he said.

But for dogs like E.T., it is a life filled with brutal training and vicious maulings in the ring. And not long ago, in Philadelphia, even a rescue meant likely death at the city shelter, where pit bulls were routinely euthanized because the breed was regarded as dangerous.

“It’s a terrible shame that all the public sees are these punks in the city fighting them,” said Michelle Chedeville, a Chester County breeder of pit bulls.

To help turn their image around, Deirdre Geurin of Morrisville, Bucks County, puts out a non profit calendar, which benefits pit bull rescue groups through www.pinupsforpitbulls.com.

Lindsay Condefer, owner of Chic Petique in Philadelphia and a dog rescue organizer, said she was hopeful that the Vick case had made more people aware of who was to blame for dog fighting and the pit bull’s bad image. “It’s not the dog,” she said. “It’s the people.”

The ancestors of pit bulls were bred in England to fight, but they also were bred to be friendly to human handlers. Pit bulls were popular as pets in the United States through the early 20^th century.

Since they were bred to fight, they have always been part of the dog fighting culture. What has grown in the last two decades is the celebration of dog fighting in urban street culture, and the reputation of pit bulls as the toughest dogs around.

They certainly can be fearsome and deadly, which has prompted breed-specific laws against them in some states. There is no such law in Pennsylvania or New Jersey.

The pit bulls in shelters are not just dogs confiscated from dog fighters but also strays or dogs surrendered by owners.

In 2006, the city-contracted shelter run by the Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association euthanized 1,222 dogs – of 4,716 total – simply because they were pit bulls or pit bull mixes, CEO Tara Derby said. The figure is higher when counting treatable and nontreatable medical and behavioral conditions, she said.

This year, as the shelter has implemented dog behavior evaluations and other measures, the number of pit bulls put down was only 266 through Sept. 30, Derby said.

More pit bulls are being adopted. At the PSPCA and PACCA, prospective owners are screened to see if they can provide an appropriate home for a pit bull.

The dogs are screened, too. Until March, the PSPCA allowed adoption only of pit bull mixes and gave some purebreds to rescue groups. But the agency now has an animal behaviorist and a program to rehabilitate fighting dogs. The dogs are cleared for adoption after the criminal cases are resolved.

Not all can be rehabilitated, and some still are euthanized. But, Nelson said, “we’re optimistic that this program is going to work.”

The criminal case involving E.T. remains active because a codefendant, Joseph Roberts, 45, still faces a trial next month.

The pit bull was rescued when Police Officer Don Murdoch encountered two men with blood on their pants and sneakers on Madison Street. One was White, who pleaded guilty recently.

Murdock and other officers found pit bulls in White’s house on Madison, the backyard, and a minivan. Some were cut and bloodied, while others were emaciated. In a nearby abandoned house, Murdoch found a blood-covered fighting ring.

Investigators confiscated two treadmills, scales, a “break stick” for prying apart fighting dogs, and 12 pit bulls, including E.T.

Typically, fighting dogs spend hours running on a treadmill or treading water in a tank to build up strength and endurance. They also are trained with bait animals, such as smaller dogs or cats.

A cowering E.T. arrived at the PSPCA weighing 44.2 pounds. He had an infection from the improvised ear surgery and suffered from worms, assistant shelter manager Barbara Foley said.

Recently he weighed a healthy 51.4 pounds. Unlike pit bulls that are aggressive against other animals because of their breeding or training, E.T. is intimidated by other dogs, preferring to stay close to his shelter handlers.

“Maybe they tried to train E.T. as a fighter and it didn’t work out,” Nelson speculated.

Because of the screening, pit bulls are often adopted by families living outside the city. “They aren’t dog park dogs,” Nelson said.

E.T.’s fate is yet to be determined. “I think E.T. would make a wonderful pet for somebody,” Nelson said. “He is a great dog.”

A Pack of Pit Bulls Goes on Rampage, Mauling Every Child, Small Animal and Old Lady in their Path, Editorial By Mutt Lover | Reading Time: about 8 minutes

I bet I’ve got your attention, don’t I? There is nothing like another vicious pit bull story to get people’s ear. Well, I am sorry to disappoint you but this headline is a bit misleading. Actually, it’s a lot misleading, it’s totally made up. But hey, since journalists, who are supposed to be accurate and unbiased, can and do go around using such questionable tactics when it comes to dog attacks, I figured I can also get away with this strategy given this is only an opinion piece.

I don’t know what exactly it is that pit bulls have done to journalists in the last few years, but it sure must have been something awful because pit bulls have made the media’s hit list and can’t get off it.

A few weeks ago, someone asked me if I had heard the story of the older woman who had been attacked by her three pit bulls in Philly. Since I don’t often read newspapers, watch TV and only listen to the radio a couple hours in the morning, I get to miss a good many of these juicy stories. But given what I know about pit bulls, pit bull “attacks” and the media, I really didn’t lose much sleep worrying about how dangerous it is to live in the same city with a bunch of out-of-control pit bulls. Frankly, there are more real dangers to worry about. Like the fact that our city of brotherly love averages more than one killing a day, committed by a human, not by one of these “dangerous weapons” I keep hearing so much about. I will have to check into it, I don’t know this for a fact, but my guess is that not one human has been killed by a pit bull so far this year in Philadelphia, let alone 307 (killed by our own kind) or however many we are up to now. And what about all the rapes, assaults, muggings, etc? I think I’ll take my chances with a pit bull, thank you very much! I also figured that if this was a typical pit bull attack, when the details of the story came out, it would turn out to be less sensational than it seemed at first. And, I was right.

Right there, on page 8 of the August 30, 2007, Northeast Times was the story: “Pit bulls attack Wissinoming grandmother.” At least that’s what the headline said, and as most journalists know, the headlines are what people read and remember. But, being someone who understands that the real story is in its details, I took the time to read the article.

I didn’t have to go too far to find something that would bring that headline into question. The fourth paragraph tells us that “the Philadelphia Police Department’s Public Affairs unit could not confirm that the dogs were pit bulls.” OK, well that’s at least a step in the right direction. The Police Department Public Affairs unit has enough sense to not state what breed these dogs were. The fact is that the average person couldn’t identify a pit bull if they tripped over it. If you don’t believe me, go and play the Find the Pit Bull game. There are currently over 20 breeds that are commonly misidentified as being pit bulls.

And then of course there are all the pit bull mixes. If you have a mixed breed pit bull that attacks a human, how does anyone know which breed in the mix is responsible for the problem behavior? Is it the pit bull side? Is it the Shar Pei side? The Lab side? Oh no, never the Lab side, right? Labs are wonderful family dogs, right? Well, I can assure you there are plenty of Labs with temperament issues. But the media obviously doesn’t believe dog attacks perpetrated by Labs are newsworthy so you almost never hear about them. Unless they are as severe as the case of the French woman who had half her face torn off by her black Lab while she slept.

So back to that headline. Here is a question I’d like answered. If the Police Department Public Affairs unit could not confirm these dogs were pit bulls, why did the headline state they were? Did the person writing that headline actually read the entire article? Or did he know something the Police Department Public Affairs Unit didn’t? OK, so let’s give that writer the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say he took the perspective that the Police Department not being able to confirm these dogs were pit bulls doesn’t actually mean they were not pit bulls. Still the headline is a bit misleading but there is a possibility that it may still be accurate. But wait, let’s read further. A few paragraphs below we are told that “according to Tara Derby, CEO of the Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association (PACCA), one dog was a pit bull, while the other two were large breed mixes.”

Finally, here is someone (the Chief Executive Officer of Philadelphia’s animal shelter) who, hopefully, knows enough about dog breeds to have a fair shot at accurate identification. And that someone has stated that only one of these three dogs is a pit bull. The other two are mixed breeds. Here are a few more questions that beg to be asked. If only one of these dogs was a pit bull, why does the headline only say “pit bulls?” Were all three of these dogs actually involved in the attack? If not, which ones were? Which of these three dogs started the attack? When you have multiple dogs as you do in this case, often times one starts the attack, the others join in due to the pack mentality. That is pretty much normal dog behavior and has nothing much to do with the actual breed of the dogs.

Further into the article, we read about a 2001 AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) study that shows 70-76% of all reported dog bites are attributable to unneutered male dogs – that’s regardless of breed. Yet the article never tells us if all three of these dogs were males. It does tell us, however, that they were all intact. This study does make a rather significant point though. One would think that given this statistic, more pet owners might neuter their dogs. It would make sense that it would be one of the best ways to minimize the possibility of dogs biting. Certainly easier, more sensible and more effective than the extermination of an entire breed of dogs while the rest are allowed to keep on biting. A breed that, by the way, appears to be the least responsible for fatal dog attacks – when neutered. According to Karen Delise, an expert on dog bites and the author of Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics, of the 448 cases of fatal dog attacks from 1965-2002, there is not a documented case where a single, neutered, American Pit Bull Terrier was the cause of a human fatality.

Beyond the less than accurate headline, I found this article to be lacking some very critical information. For instance, what exactly precipitated this attack? The police stated that the dogs attacked after the victim made a sudden noise? What was that noise and why would that noise lead three dogs  – who up until this point had no history of aggression – to attack someone they knew well? It would be highly unlikely that all three dogs would “inexplicably” (as one reporter put it) “turn” on their owner at the same time. Is it possible these dogs interpreted that noise as some kind of threat? Did the dogs get into a fight amongst themselves because of the noise? And was the woman bitten in the process of breaking up a fight? These details are much more relevant than what time the police arrived on the scene.

Regardless of the reasons for the attack, this was still a very unfortunate incident, but had the details been investigated and reported, chances are pretty darn good that they would go a long way to a reasonable explanation of why three dogs would all of a sudden attack a human they were familiar with. Contrary to popular belief and although it does happen sometimes, dogs don’t act unpredictably all that often. What is much more likely is that they acted as one would expect given normal canine behavior. Unfortunately, these days a good many dog owners are quite unaware of what is and isn’t normal dog behavior. It is also quite possible that there had been warning signs that these dogs had some behavior issues that were missed or simply ignored. Often times these situations are the result of humans not addressing problem behavior, which is truly unfortunate because it leads to humans being hurt and to many dogs needlessly losing their lives.

Sadly, this article and its shortcomings are the norm these days when it comes to pit bull stories in the media. I don’t believe I am stretching the truth when I say that many more pit bulls lose their lives as a direct result of such inaccurate and sensational reporting than do at the hands of dog fighters. I will grant you that the dogs involved in dog fighting die more agonizing and brutal deaths but how many “humane” deaths can we excuse in the name of selling newspapers? Every time one of these “pit bull attack” stories is published, countless dogs die in shelters because the average person believes what they hear or read in the news and is too scared to adopt a pit bull. And how about those dogs that are in homes who have done nothing wrong but whose owners decide to surrender to a shelter out of the fear generated by the latest pit bull “attack” story? During one of my visits to the local shelter, I started a conversation with a man in the waiting room who had an adult male pit bull. He was surrendering his dog to the shelter and to an almost guaranteed death sentence. I asked him why he was giving him up. He told me he was “afraid” for his family and his children because of all the stories he kept hearing in the news about “these dogs turning.” I asked him if his dog had ever shown any signs of aggression. He said, “No, he is great. I’ve had him since he was a puppy, he’s always been great with the kids.” And it was evident to me that he was a sweet, friendly and well-tempered dog. But that evidence was not enough to counteract the media’s influence.

So here is my parting word to all of you, owners and media alike: RESPONSIBILITY. It is the longest 4-letter word in America today but I can guarantee you it will fix this “pit bull problem” faster than any other half-baked solution – like BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) for instance.

Dog owners of ALL breeds but especially pit bull owners: Be responsible. Keep your dogs properly confined, don’t let them roam free, obey leash laws. Train your dogs, socialize your dogs, educate yourself about your breed and their traits (preferably before you decide to get a dog), spay and neuter your dogs; don’t add to an already overwhelming problem by breeding more dogs. And if you can’t —  or won’t — be a responsible dog owner, do us all a favor and don’t get a dog. And for God’s sake, don’t get a pit bull, this breed deserves much better.

Members of the media: Be responsible. If you must report dog attacks, please be fair and unbiased, report all dog attacks whether they involved pit bulls or poodles. Keep things in perspective for the public. Dog attacks are rather infrequent compared to the total number of dogs and usually occur as a result of humans acting irresponsibly. Be accurate. Just because a dog is big and “scary-looking” doesn’t mean it is a pit bull. And watch those headlines. Unless you are writing fiction, they should have some semblance of truth.

The following article was published in the Northeast Times (Philadelphia Local Newspaper) on August 30, 2007, Page 8.

Pit bulls attack Wissinoming grandmother
By Diane Prokop Times Staff Writer

A 69-year-old grandmother from Wissinoming who was attacked by three dogs is on the mend. Gloria Grace, 69, was released Sunday from Frankford Hospital-Torresdale days after surgery for injuries she sustained to her ear, arm, face and leg.

Grace was rushed to the hospital Aug. 21 after being mauled by three dogs in her home on the 5400 block of Montague St. She lives in the home with her daughter Marge Davis and grandsons. The dogs belonged to Davis.

The Philadelphia Police Department’s public affairs unit could not confirm that the dogs were pit bulls. A department spokesman did say, however, that the dogs attacked after the victim made a sudden noise.

Police arrived on the scene at approximately 5:45 p.m. “The daughter was there along with her son. Officers and the woman did a good job of securing the dogs in the basement,” said 15th Police District commander Capt. Frank Bachmayer. According to Bachmayer, the medic unit took the victim right to the operating room. “They were scary looking dogs,” Bachmayer said.

According to Tara Derby, CEO of the Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association (PACCA), one dog was a pit bull, while the other two were large breed mixes. The youngest dog was between 1 and 2 years old. The other two were each 4 years old. There was no history of problems with the dogs.

The woman’s daughter signed the dogs over to PACCA. “She doesn’t want the dogs back. By law we’ll hold these dogs for ten days and then make a decision,” Derby said. The PACCA CEO explained that generally, once an animal is deemed vicious or dangerous by displaying behavior causing harm to humans or animals, if the animal is in the organization’s possession and PACCA has the right to make a decision, it would euthanize the animal due to the threat to public health and safety.

In a 2001 American Veterinary Medical Association study, unneutered male dogs are involved in 70 to 76 percent of reported dog bite incidents. In the Wissinoming case, all three dogs had not been sterilized. Derby emphasized that her agency has many wonderful large dogs that have no history of or tendency to violence that are available for adoption. PACCA is Philadelphia’s contracted animal control shelter, taking in 30,000 animals each year.

The Eagles Lost a Fan Forever by Mutt Lover | Reading Time: about 3 minutes

People who knew I was involved in dog rescue and especially people who knew I rescued pit bulls felt compelled to ask me what I thought about Michael Vick and about the Eagles hiring him to be their quarterback. To be perfectly honest, other than being totally baffled how any football team could be so greedy and/or amoral as to hire someone like Michael Vick, I don’t spend a great deal of time thinking about either the player or the team. Neither are worthy of my energy.

During my decade of rescue work, I did not have enough spare time in my life to spend on such things as professional sports. Basically, once I chose to devote my life to rescuing dogs, other choices had to be made. Choices as to how I would spend my time and my money. There was a time when I was a “normal” person and I spent time watching football or baseball. And I have even paid to watch a few football games at the Philadelphia stadium. Of course that was decades ago, when you could still buy a ticket for $30.

I am always perplexed and frustrated by the injustice of a society that believes it is OK to give someone who has tortured and killed innocent animals for the sake of a “sport” a “second chance” and rewards him by allowing him to play on a professional team again and pays him millions of dollars, while doing so little to support millions of animal rescuers  who sacrifice so much to help homeless, neglected and abused animals find a happy life.

Talk is cheap; rescuing animals thrown away by the likes of Michael Vick is not. Of course the Michael Vick dogs got the support they needed and deserved, the ones owned by less famous losers rarely do. I heard many people say that Michael Vick and the Eagles should donate lots of money to animal shelters and rescues. Yes, that would be nice but not likely to happen and certainly not likely to happen on an on-going basis. Once the masses’ attention shifts to something more interesting, like the latest reality show for instance, there will be no more talk and even less action.

Late in my life, I finally found the one thing I feel passionately enough about to give purpose to my life. I rescued mostly pit bulls, pit bull mixes, special needs dogs, senior dogs, dogs in such horrific shape no one in their right mind would want them. Without the financial support to do this kind of work, without committed foster homes and with so few homes willing to give the kinds of dogs I rescued permanent homes, my life’s mission was mostly just another impossible dream.

It is always easiest to expect “someone else” to get involved, to do the kinds of things that need to be done to bring about significant social changes. The reality is that if we don’t all do our part, if we don’t all do what we can do to make a difference, not much will ever change. Perhaps if people took a stand in these situations on behalf of the dogs and sent a message to organizations like the Eagles, management would hear them loud and clear.

Remember, talk is cheap. I am sure neither the Eagles or Michael Vick lost much sleep over all the criticism people voiced but I guarantee you they would pay attention if they noticed unsold seats in that stadium. Take that money you would have spent attending an Eagles game or even throwing a big football party at your home and donate it to a dog rescue instead. Now that would be something worth talking about!

 

A Shared Journey: The Power and Responsibility of Animal Assisted Interactions by Suzanne Clothier

Suzanne Clothier is someone who has had a profound effect on my perspective on dogs. She is the author of Bones Would Rain from the Sky: Deepening Our Relationships with Dogs (see our book recommendations). Although technically she is considered a trainer, she comes to that from the perspective that, first and foremost, the relationship/bond with your dog – or any other animal for that matter – is the most critical part of the equation.

She is also a fabulous public speaker. Her lectures are always insightful, informative and quite entertaining. Here a lecture she gave at the 2014 Nature-Based Therapeutics Conference Speak! The Quality of Interactions Between Humans and Animals hosted by the University of Minnesota.