Talk:Vertical farming

Criticism

This is a great concept, but is there any criticism that can be addressed to make this article seem a bit more relevant?

I wonder if there are any current projects being done by students at Columbia which would address this.

I think this is an exciting concept and I would like to see this article grow to reflect its current progress. --Joseph.r.martinez 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the only downside is the cost. Grundle2600 01:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly plenty to criticize, but nothing that I can find outside references for. But I'll soapbox here: first, there is no need for vertical farms. Even if 80% of Earth's arable land is in cultivation, it's not in very efficient cultivation. If the world average for crop efficiencies were brought up to the US or EU standards, production would at least double without a single additional hectare. Second, the concept as stated violates the first law of thermodynamics. Clearly, there is not enough solar energy hitting a tiny little building to feed 50,000 people, so a massive input of electricity would be needed for grow lights. The proposal is to get this from fermenting biomass, biomass produced with the energy of the grow lights! It's a perpetual motion machine.

Frankly, I have no idea how a Columbia professor can get away with this kind of nonsense. Chuao 22:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

When the idea was mentioned on Charlie Stross's weblog, he suggested putting a small nuclear reactor in the basement. :) --GCarty (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not read or seen any criticism pertaining to the obvious problem of internal city pollution affecting these crops. If a vertical farming tower is built in downtown Chicago near the river, how are all of the environmental pollutants from the atmosphere, the river, et cetera kept out of the process? These towers do not appear to be hermetically contained, and there has been no information about pollutant filtration either. Every discussion I see completely sidesteps this fundamental criticism. Anonymous 06:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Curious to know if GMO have been deemed required by the people behind vertical farming. If so, the intellectual property would increase the costs. jlam 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can think of at least one criticism for this- it claims to be a possible solution for desertification and deforestation, but the places where this takes place, the technology level and economic situation would never support the creation of such a tower. Also, for most places normal farmland is vastly preferable, due to the cost per results, and with modern farming technology deforestation and desertification is NOT an issue in the first world. I can't think of too many places where a) Something like a farm tower could be made, and b) there's a need for a farm tower to be made. Perhaps a Mars colony. 71.126.127.21 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Other companies making farmscrapers

Other companies that make or -have proposed- farmscrapers have not been described: See Michael Braungart's MBDC, Rafael Pizarro and finally Ken Yeang

87.64.163.98 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

removing of vegas claim

the ip reverted with comment - "24.126.76.179 (Talk) (4,468 bytes) (Removed Las vegas claim - refuted here:http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/28654" -

yet, http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/28654 does not seem to refute that:

"The city of Las Vegas, Nevada in the United States will build the world's first 30 story vertical farm. Scheduled to be open in 2010, the $200 million dollar project would produce food for 72,000 people."

please clarify this if you feel strongly that it does. Thanks. --Emesee (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this claim again. See http://blog.businessgreen.com/2008/01/so-is-las-vegas.html for justification. There's no source to be consulted - no contractor, no architectural firm, no city planner, no nothing - and all potential sources have been negative. 24.174.69.211 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

New York

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/15/eafarms115.xml Emesee (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

in NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15farm.html?_r=2&hp&oref=login&oref=slogin ... and the external links section looks like it could maybe use a bit of trimming. Emesee (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Advantages of Vertical Farming

Year-round crop production; 1 indoor acre is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more, depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres) 
No weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, pests 
All VF food is grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers  
VF virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water 
VF returns farmland to nature, restoring ecosystem functions and services 
VF greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface 
VF converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water of

evapotranspiration

VF adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible

parts of plants and animals

VF dramatically reduces fossil fuel use (no tractors, plows, shipping.) 
VF converts abandoned urban properties into food production centers 
VF creates sustainable environments for urban centers 
VF creates new employment opportunities 
We cannot go to the moon, Mars, or beyond without first learning to farm indoors on

earth

VF may prove to be useful for integrating into refugee camps 
VF offers the promise of measurable economic improvement for tropical and subtropical

LDCs. If this should prove to be the case, then VF may be a catalyst in helping to reduce or even reverse the population growth of LDCs as they adopt urban agriculture as a strategy for sustainable food production.

VF could reduce the incidence of armed conflict over natural resources, such as water

and land for agriculture ALERT RECIEVED First, a note from ADL-LA:

ADL-LA applauds Jennifer Pryor for FINALLY being assertive about the horrific atrocities going on inside the six LA shelters under the leadership of Ed Boks. In the past, Jennifer was supportive of Boks and one of his biggest allies when he first arrived on the scene here in LA. In fact, she was critical of ADL-LA for not giving Ed Boks more of a chance (ADL watched him for six months before becoming an outspoken critic of his failure to implement the programs required to stop the needless killing of companion animals). Another individual, Shannon Keith, a prolonged Boks supporter, refusing to allow during a press conference/toy drive she organized, two ADL-LA members entrance to the East Valley shelter to ask Boks some hard hitting questions about his previous work history. The press release sent out regarding Keith's event stated how wonderful Ed Boks was as General Manager of LAAS and other misconceptions regarding him. For the animals being slaughtered inside LAAS, this was a grave disappointment to activists throughout LA. But, those opposed to Ed Boks simply focused on exposing him and refused to allow those who were protecting him to get in their way.

Unfortunately, an individual who ADL-LA thought was an animal protectionist, is not only remaining silent about truths she knows regarding Boks, but went as far as to state that if she ever went "public with things she was told by Ed Boks, he would be fired from LA immediately." This individual has never come forward because of her own self-interests that include a personal relationship with Boks.

ADL-LA's question for all of you reading this is: How many animals were MURDERED while some, like Jennifer Pryor, were giving Boks "a chance", long after his intentions and methods were obviously ineffective? If it were YOUR dog or cat, or any other family member imprisoned inside LAAS when Boks took over, and with your knowing about Boks' history of being incompetent and failing to implement easy No Kill solutions at his previous jobs, would you have been so open to giving him a chance in LA???

Thousands of animals who could have been adopted through daily off-site adoption venues and other easy, cheap or free outreach programs implemented by Winograd's No Kill Solutions at other city shelters could have saved many of these innocent lives. But this was not to be. Unfortunately, this is STILL happening since it appears now, almost THREE YEARS AFTER Boks was appointed by Villaraigosa and his staff, that the most basic, practical and standard programs included in Winograd's No Kill Equation have NOT been implemented here in Los Angeles.

We should ALL feel guilty for allowing this slaughter to have continued and not risen up more strongly to demand that Boks be replaced two years ago. This is, unfortunately, exactly what many Germans did during World War II. They simply wanted to give Hitler a chance and then stayed silent when they realized the mass murder he was undertaking. Are we really going to allow this needless and senseless killing under Boks to continue? We should all ponder this question and come to our own conclusion, which will indeed bear witness to our character, our compassion and our wisdom.

If not YOU, then WHO?

If not NOW, then WHEN?

ADL-LA

From: Jennifer Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 10:01 AM To: Ed Boks Subject: As per our phone conversation Ed!..overcrowding and inhumane conditions at all the LAAS shelters!

Ed-

You accepted the position of General Manager of LA Animal Services and pledged to be the architect of a no-kill Los Angeles . Your incompetence and lack of vision (not the staff's) has left you with no alternative other than warehousing animals, which has become so extreme as to be inhumane.

True “no-kill” reserves euthanasia ONLY for animals who can NOT be rehabilitated. You, however, do an “end around” by warehousing animals until after a time, healthy and treatable animals become "irremediably suffering" or "aggressive" and are killed. Statistically you look like you have done your job. After all, no animal was killed for "time and space". But let's be honest, Ed, this is a numbers game played out on paper. The animals are dead, and the majority were healthy or treatable when they were impounded into your “care.”

You told me you are working on a "responsible" plan for the "alleviation of the stress" of overcrowding at the shelters. I just went on the LAAS website and saw your so-called "responsible" plan --- you have nearly TRIPLED the number of redlisted animals on the New Hope Alert List. Great solution, Ed!

Given the current crisis at the shelters, I understand the need for euthanasia. What I don't understand --- what none of us understand --- is the need for inhumane warehousing of animals while you are doing NOTHING to increase adoptions, increase owner retention, and implement educational and volunteer outreach programs (even programs created and presented to you by the humane community at no cost to the City). In addition, promised spay/neuter services are still not operating.

In an article you wrote some time ago, you stated "No-kill is achievable only if we work together to implement bold new strategies and interventions that get results." Inspiring, but empty words when not followed by ACTION. You have managed to alienate everyone who has offered you help (including me), and instead of taking responsibility, you blame your staff and the public for the overcrowded and inhumane conditions at the shelters. Stop pointing fingers, writing blogs, and schmoozing with the entertainment industry at every opportunity and start doing your job. Animals are suffering and dying, Ed, and no matter who you try to blame it on, the buck stops at YOUR desk.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Lee Pryor Director, Pryor's Planet

First a note from ADL-LA:

If you log on to this web site, NKE ( http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/nokillequation.html ) you can see that No Kill Solutions has programs, policies, and protocols which have been proven to decrease the kill rate and drastically increase the adoption rate in the city shelters where they have been implemented. Why should Jennifer Pryor or her "steering committee" (mentioned in her letters below), who are NOT experts in this field, try and reinvent the wheel?

If Ms. Pryor or her steering committee want to know how to implement multiple, daily off-site pet adoptions, she should consult No Kill Solutions. NKS has already implemented these and other programs at many municipal city shelters across the country, and have successfully and drastically increased their adoption rates.

If NKS has done the work of coming up with step by step instructions and formulas on what is needed and how to implement these types of programs, why wouldn't Ed Boks "inner circle" be taking advantage of this information? Is it ego? Is it lethargy? Or is it a case of not wanting to make Ed Boks mad? This lack of immediate action by Boks, the City, and those within the humane community is simply allowing more animals to be killed every day; therefore we all have the blood of these animals on our hands.

So our question for all of you reading this post is, what can YOU do about the fact that Villaraigosa and his staff refuse to carry through with the pledge made in late 2005 to hire No Kill Solutions to come in and consult, hire a general manager who would spear head the implementation of these No Kill programs and work closely with No Kill Solutions to make the city of LA No Kill? Nathan Winograd has stated many times directly to the humane community, and has apparently even told individuals like Jimmy Blackman personally, that if the City was interested and showed some level of sincerity, he would not only help them recruit a true leader who is able to implement the No Kill Equation, but if they hired the right person he would help that person through his consulting work to make LA into a No Kill city.

But Winograd has also made it very clear to the LA humane community that in order for him to consult and help LA become No Kill, there would have to be some show of commitment by the Mayor's Office to really make this No Kill model work; and as of this time, there is NO such commitment from the city.

We suggest to all of you that we must be more proactive in helping these poor suffering animals who are being killed inside LAAS; and the ONLY thing that is holding back a victory for these animals is YOU! If you are willing to demand that Villaraigosa keep his 2005 pledge then this will happen.

On the STOP THE KILLING web site there are all the addresses, e-mails and contact information you need to get in touch with ALL the big-wig "targets" and remind them CONSTANTLY that they work for YOU, and that they'd better start doing the right thing for these poor animals. Just go to www.StopTheKilling.net and click on targets and go from there. There are also effective demonstrations that take place, which unfortunately only a very small minority of individuals have the courage to participate in. So it's really up to you. If you're content doing the same thing you've been doing for years, with few positive results to show for it, maybe you ought to start thinking about a new strategy!

Remember,

If not YOU, then WHO?

If not NOW, then WHEN?

ADL-LA

---

Pryor's most recent letters to Boks:

Ed: I just got off the phone call you made to me regarding my last email and I feel somewhat manipulated. Here is why: You called and asked me to "help you euthanize the dogs" and when I suggested that that was better than warehousing them where they fight and get sick then you suggested that the Steering committee, of whom on this email there are 4, never followed through on concrete suggestions who would fund. I suspect that Pnina, Randee, Kari, Lawrence and myself will challenge that remark. ( For example, we agreed to have a volunteer based education program on weekends for the general public and we also suggested Special Events for adoptions/rescues).

But most disturbing to me Ed is that you are now blaming the management of East Valley. Allow me to enlighten you: the East Valley New Hope program and management is one of the most rescue friendly shelters. How I know this is because Pryor's Planet pulls from there a lot.. More importantly is the fact that the CRISIS is not just occurring at East Valley but it is just as alarming at North, South and at Harbor, a brand new shelter.

You are placing the blame on your subordinates, hard working people who are the back bone of LAAS. I would humbly suggest that you might begin taking some responsibility; yes, foreclosures are another part of the equation but the overcrowding in the shelter is certainly exacerbated by the housing crisis but absolutely not solely responsible and certainly not due to a lack of management, it is coming from the top because of the numbers game.

In closing Ed, I find the fact that you called me personally rather than addressing the many people whom I have been including in these emails, disrespectful to those on this email and myself. I most definitely had the impression you wish me to be quiet. I cannot sit in silence as I, and many others, watch this catastrophe unfold nor will I ever be quiet until the conditions in the shelters improve. Again, I must remind you Ed, the issue is that this is Los Angeles Ed and NO KILL will take many years to achieve and certainly, warehousing will not expedite it.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Lee Pryor

---

Ed, Respectfully, please don't reduce this to 'a shelter problem'....your workers are dedicated individuals who work to the bone to keep up, they always have been! This is a systemic problem which starts at the top. You are the one who needs to understand, we can only achieve NO KILL through education and outreach; no matter how many shelters you build, they will fill up and you will be warehousing as the case is now!

When we had the "steering committee" meetings we offered to create educational programs and multicultural outreach programs to the public that would be run by volunteers at no cost to the department. You never took us up on it. We offered adoption fairs to increase adoptions, you never took us up on that! I can go on, however, I am quite sure you get the point.

To resolve this agonizing crisis, it must come from you Ed, not the shelters, nor the hardworking staff.

Sincerely, Jennifer Pryor

---

7/11/2008 11:48 AM

Ed: I understand your quest to make the city NO KILL, however, without an education /outreach program in our community; you are actually warehousing the animals. I have been to the shelters, there are up to 5 to 6 large dogs in a kennel and over ten small dogs in puppy cages. This has reached crisis proportion.

Many cannot get to their food, others hide their cubbies in terror, the older ones are paralyzed with fear and all are unable to sleep at night. It is unsafe for the dogs, it is unsafe for the staff and more importantly, LAAS has become inhumane.

The ideal of NO KILL is phenomenal, however, it will take far more than simply stopping putting down animals in order to achieve it. Ed, you must begin listening to people and do something about it.

NO KILL cannot work by ware housing.

Sincerely, Jennifer Lee Pryor

have deleted the writer's name of the

below letter to two journalists in order to protect her from possible retaliation via Ed Boks.)

Forwarded to ADL-LA:

Dear Ms. Hall and Mr. Orlov,

My purpose in this letter is to get some light shed on the absolute ineptitude of most of the paid workers at our city animal shelters. To the point that I wish to refrain from calling them 'SHELTERS". That implies a safe haven. We should go back to calling it 'the pound'. I'll try to keep it short: I've worked in animal rescue and adoptions out of city shelters since 1988. I also trap/neuter/inoculate and release feral and stray cats at my own cost to keep down the populations.

When I ask for info on a dog at East Valley Shelter, request that a water dish be filled, point out dogs fighting with one another in over-crowded runs, or ask a basic question like: "Can someone tell me about the such and such dog?'"...I have been told by the PAID STAFF things like: "Who are you?", "Are you with one of those rescue groups", "Go tell someone at the front desk" or very rudely: "I can't help you if you don't go get the animal's ID# for me" Those are examples of rudeness. And I can identify those people. They are not volunteers or community service workers.

One of MANY examples of incompetence: I adopted out an 11 year old dog last week who clearly had kennel cough, severe flea dermatitis, and black teeth due to gum infection. The dog was in quarantine and never treated or even checked out. How do I know this? They were giving him hard food that he could not chew or swallow. And I was told to have him neutered when he was clearly ALREADY NEUTERED. $900 later at the vet, after being in quarantine for nearly a month, vet said he hadn't eaten in weeks! And that he was already neutered. He was treated for upper respiratory infection even though shelter vet-tech handed him to me after his medical 'check-up' and said he was NOT suffering from kennel cough. Dog was dry-hacking that moment.

Well, I have not made this short, sorry, but I have omitted countless stories of incompetence, rude attitude from staff, and seeing dogs labeled as unadoptable due to aggression when they were not in the least bit aggressive. These dogs are now happy in their homes after the efforts of rescue groups who don't believe what they're told. It's clear that dogs are intentionally 'mis-labeled as pit bull breeds when they are not close to that and as aggressive when they are just scared in order to justify unchecked high numbers of euthanasia's.

Further, I am calling for the resignation of Ed Boks, Director of Animal Services. I have spoken with him on the phone and sent several emails and he has consistently either turned a blind eye or misrepresented what's going on in his shelters. I believe that orders are coming from the top regarding the mislabeling for purposes of justified euthanasia. For your future reference, I have a vast network of fellow volunteer friends, rescue friends, and former volunteers who were 'pushed out' due to whistleblowing. They are available for comment. Many remain anonymous for fear of being banned from their adoption efforts at the shelters. I realize there a big problems and big 'stories' to be written about in this world. This is just what's happening in MY world. The world where I've chosen to donate my time, money, efforts and my heart.

We as a group don't have unrealistic expectations about euthanasia. It will probably have to be implemented for years to come. But Ed Boks and those under him should not be allowed to get away with this system of calculated euthanasia to keep his 'numbers' down and label his administration as one that is working towards 'No-Kill Shelters'. He has political aspirations outside of his current position or I'll eat my hat! Thanks for listening and feel free to quote me.

Forwarded to ADL-LA by an anonymous source.

Antonio Villaraigosa, because of certain personal and political ties has the L.A. Times in his pocket; this is one reason why Ed Boks is not being canned. Everyone in animal welfare (as well as many at the Times) knows that Boks is really bad, but the public doesn't know yet. What's been happening here is that Boks and his team make up facts, it is put out in a press release, and the Times reports it; and so the reality of what's going on at the department of animal services hasn't penetrated the public at large in LA.

I know from leaks inside the department that within Boks' own establishment: his own staff, city council, the advocates, the alternative papers, all hate him and so it is just a matter of time before Boks leaves on his own; but Villaraigosa's ties to the Times regarding issues like the department of animal services is closer then Hahn's was. Therefore one scenario might be when Villaraigosa moves on and whoever takes the job cans Boks as a Mayor V-hack which Boks certainly is. Another scenario would be if the humane community and animal rights community start getting really angry about this and hold the Times accountable and demand the truth about Boks be printed. Other then this, you may have a real challenge in getting Boks canned.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but unfortunately for the city, Villaraigosa has turned out to be one of the worst mayors in LA history as well as one of the most corrupt; but he also knows where his 'bread is buttered' and he's hanging on by having certain very powerful friends along with his staff pulling plenty of strings. I've been employed at the Times for years and I'm also an animal lover; it's a crime to see what's going on in the city right now.

FIRE ED BOKS! Taken from Nathan Winograd's Blog:

Up is Down and Down is Up in Los Angeles

You can smell the desperation in the air. It is like a thick, putrid cloud of toxic smoke wafting over Los Angeles . To save HAZMAT crews time, I have pinpointed the source of the current leak: the Los Angeles shelter systems. Decontaminate those and you'll eliminate the stench.

Of course, that won't entirely clean the air. Take the Department of Animal Control for Los Angeles County . The place where animals die of “marked emaciation" and disease which goes untreated and without care, where evidence is destroyed, and laws are violated. The place where abuse is responded to with what appears to be document tampering and promises that they are working on it but times are tough, just give us more money, never mind that we have already been given a whopping $160 million based on other unmet promises of doing a good job. But this isn't about the stink at the County shelters. That is the subject of three pending lawsuits against the Department.

This is about the City of Los Angeles and its animal control system. Over the last couple of years, Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) has seen skyrocketing rates of illness, skyrocketing rates of animal dying in their kennels, skyrocketing rates of animals stolen and/or missing, and skyrocketing rates of killing. In fact, a No Kill Los Angeles is nowhere in sight and will never be until that system is turned upside down and the union environment that protects shirkers and prevents innovation is terminated like so many of the animals currently are.

But you wouldn't know this if you read the press releases or the facile promises that the light at the end of the tunnel is just around the corner, unless you lived in Maricopa County or New York City where current leadership of LAAS made the same claims and promises while running those shelters; promises that were just as quickly forgotten in the day-to-day disaster that followed. It may be old news to anyone following these issues how Maricopa County 's animal services department was left in a state of bankruptcy or how a city auditor uncovered shoddy animal care in New York . But not to worry. Los Angeles has a plan. Things are going to be different this time.

The current plan: register cats. Forget underperforming employees, forget lack of systematic policies, forget accountability, forget a true and comprehensive commitment to the programs and services of the No Kill Equation, “cat licensing” will solve the problems.

O h it's a modest proposal. The administration which oversees LAAS wanted to start with a $5 fee and only on cats adopted (or reclaimed) from the pound system. The problem with the $5 fee and only on cats adopted from LAAS is two-fold. First, the licensing or registration tax is annual and fees increase. Second, since most of the cats who are supposed to generate this income are killed by LAAS, revenues would be negligible. As a result, there would be tremendous pressure to expand it to all cats. This proposal is dripping with so much irony, you can't possible uncover all the layers. But let's start with the obvious.

First, a plan was proposed to penalize people who adopt cats from the pound with a yearly cat licensing tax, whereas if people buy cats, they won't get taxed. Isn't this incentive a bit perverse? Shouldn't there be rewards or benefits to adopting, rather than buying? Has anyone in the administration overseeing LAAS ever heard of incentives to get people to do the right thing?

The second irony is that the City estimates that they are losing $6 million a year in uncollected dog licenses. So if they can't get it together to license dogs, how are they going to squeeze the revenue out of cat owners? It is like the oil companies asking to drill offshore when they are only drilling in less than 20% of the areas they already have drilling rights too. Maybe Los Angeles is taking its lead from Bush-Cheney-Exxon?

The third irony is that even if the cat licensing scheme passes, the money won't necessarily go to animal services. License fees collected generally go to the general fund. So the plan would be to pass a punitive measure that disincentives adoptions, that—if and when it is expanded to all cats—will also give animal control officers more reasons to find animals in violation and therefore write citations or impound cats, that has been proven time and time again to lead to increase killing, that costs more in enforcement than it generates in revenue, so that LAAS can raise money for someone else ?

This is the same administration which promised taxpayers and animal lovers that mandatory spay/neuter would save money and lives. But that hasn't happened. The ordinance is responsible for an increase in impounds and killing, costing more in both money and lives, on top of the $400,000 the pound received from legislators to enforce the law. Add to that the lost opportunity costs in taking money away from truly lifesaving programs that can actually reduce both. And now, by finding itself in a storm of its own creation, the City cries that it needs more revenue from LAAS.

The fourth irony is that LAAS is doing less with more. LAAS already has one of the highest per capita budgets for animal control in the country and yet the department takes in fewer animals per capita than the national average. Washoe County NV , by contrast, takes in over three times more animals per capita than Los Angeles , and yet is saving 90% of the animals, without punish-others-for-our-own-failings schemes like cat registration taxes or licensing. There is enough waste at LAAS to find savings and I propose a hard look at all the positions doing little more than passing paper to one another within the bureaucracy, while the dogs are left standing in their own waste, or the cats have to contend with abhorrently filthy litter boxes.

And finally, though primarily billed as a revenue generator, the reality is that cat licensing doesn't work. As most cats entering shelters are homeless and have no one to claim them anyway, all it does is create yet another category of violation for animals, which would, in the end, give LAAS animal control officers yet another reason to impound and kill them.

So, what should Los Angeles do if it is earnest about wanting No Kill? Or, as in the rationale for the current proposal, if it is interested in maximizing revenues (and as a corollary, controlling costs)? It first needs leadership willing to be held accountable to its own rhetoric. It needs policies which have the force of law that require the agency to adopt as many animals as possible (increasing revenue), maximize owner reclaims (increasing revenue), send as many animals as possible to rescue (reducing costs), increase volunteerism (reducing costs), and replace underperforming overpaid but immune from accountability union protected shirkers with a staff based on merit not seniority, and based on performance not politics. In short, it needs to pass the Companion Animal Protection Act . Unlike punitive and counterproductive measures like the current one, it puts the onus and the fix on the very agency doing the killing.

But that is not likely to happen without a consistent public outcry, because it is so much easier to avoid responsibility and pass the blame to others. But in so doing, Los Angeles ignores well over a decade of No Kill experiences and is thus moving backwards in time—back over a decade where cat licensing was all the rage and where increased killing was its result.

In 1995, the San Francisco SPCA published one of the definitive position papers against this approach which, for those who truly love cats, should have ended the debate. And for awhile, it appeared to do just that. But history, facts, and reality all seem to be a distraction in Los Angeles . At animal control in Los Angeles , up is down, down is up, and administrators can make promises and then ignore the ugly truth of their policies. I'd say there was something in the water, but this is the status quo. Welcome to Anytown USA : where agencies that pretend to be the animals' great protectors are, oftentimes, their worst enemies.

Thankfully, the Commission overseeing animal control did not approve the proposed registration of cats on a tie vote, so the issue will not go forward for now . But just like the forces behind other counter-productive schemes who do not care if animals are killed because of their policies, they will be back again. And because a call for position papers on the issue has been made, don't be surprised if cat licensing masquerading as a “modest cat registration to increase revenue measure” rears its ugly head again in the not to distant future.

For the 1995 San Francisco SPCA Avanzino-era position paper “Against Mandatory Cat Licensing,” click here .

For a copy of the 2007 Companion Animal Protection Act, click here .

Forwarded to ADL-LA:

A summary of the 1st "No Kill Workshop" held by Ed Boks last Wednesday night; it was PATHETIC!

=======

Ed Boks is the reason LAAS keeps killing more and more animals. After 2 1/2 years with Ed Boks in charge of LAAS, CNN reported in June that LAAS' kill rate is UP 31%. Hoping to distract from and cover-up his failure, Boks is now staging no-kill "workshops" for the public. Boks' idea has a problem: most people are sick and tired of his lies and won't waste their time on Ed Boks 'gatherings.'

The schedule for these so-called workshops reads like a checklist of Boks' failures:

Spay/neuter: (the subject of the first meeting:) He has SIX brand new spay/neuter clinics city taxpayers just spent a fortune to build at the new shelters, and he is not operating ANY of them.

Volunteers: After Ed Boks extorted a $20,000 contract by the city to pay for his friend to change the volunteer program, the program became a shambles of disorganization and lost the help of volunteers for the animals.

Feral cat TNR: Ed Boks has done absolutely NOTHING for ferals. Kill rate for feral cats has been climbing since Bok's arrival.

Rescue groups: Ed Boks took the old Adoption Partners program, made it worse, and foisted a lot of extra work on people who should be spending their time helping animals.

Pet Retention: Ed Boks has not started one single program for pet retention.

The list goes on and on. (Budget management is not on the schedule but Ed Boks has been a disaster in that area too.)

   This first "workshop" last Wednesday night, August 6, 2008 was pitiful. Ed Boks called it "historic."  Sure Ed, very historic.  Historic for showing what an ineffective GM you are, and historic for showing how little faith everyone has in you.  About 2/3 of the way into the boring hour and a half workshop, Rabbi Freehling, the "facilitator", says the crowd is smaller than expected. No kidding, Rabbi.  Who wants to go see Ed Boks blather on with his lies?   

   34 total bodies showed up in the room at this "historic" event. Of those 34, fifteen were there because they had to be, either as part of the presentation or as part of their job. LAAS sent General Manager Ed Boks, Assistant General Manager Kathy Davis, the head of Field Operations, the Acting Chief Veterinarian, the Director of Shelter Operations and more to this colossal waste of time. Also on the payroll for the meeting were two city videographers to record the historically "dismal" event. Another individual paid to be there was the head of the city's Human Relations Committee to serve as a second facilitator!  Plus five panelists, including another city employee.  After the 15 who were there because it's their job, that left 19 who were there by choice. Of those, 7 were known to be already part of the humane community, leaving no more than 12 at the most who were there to learn or add anything new. 

What does it say about an animal services "leader" in a city of four million people who cannot get more than 19 people to show up for this highly advertised meeting? The meeting was even promoted with a full story and photo in the LA Times by Villaraigosa's bootlicker journalist Carla Hall (a source confirmed to ADL-LA that Hall has been promised a one on one interview with the Mayor if she gives Boks' positive coverage in the Times.)

The truth is, everyone except Antonio Villaraigosa knows there is no point in listening to Ed Boks unless you enjoy being lied to, and no point in suggesting anything because he is too incompetent to turn good ideas into solutions, especially sustainable ones.

In contrast, Nathan Winograd hosts no-kill meetings and gets standing room only crowds in the hundreds. Ed Boks couldn't get more than 19 from the public, using his best efforts, his city E-Mail blasts, his city blog and the Los Angeles Times. Even the facilitator commented about how small the group was. He asked everyone to come forward to gather in the front seats, obviously so the city video would not show how badly attended Boks' "historic" meeting was!

   Ed blathered on about progress the city has made with animals ( none due to any ideas Ed Boks had). Three of the panelists (Sue Taylor, Teri Austin and Lori Weise) all do quite a bit of work to improve spay/neuter in Los Angeles, despite Ed Boks). One of two other panelists was LAAS' person who issues the spay/neuter vouchers that are so difficult to find and obtain.    

    WHY does Ed Boks need no-kill workshops to figure out how to help reduce his daily slaughter?  At more than $165,000 a year, shouldn't he know? After 2 ½ years, shouldn't he have done something about the killing rather than have euthanasia reported as UP 31%? 

    Ed Boks has done nothing that has helped the LA shelters; except maybe the "ice cream social" he held at one shelter! However that too was another Boks P.R. fraud, as he moves the most adoptable animals to one shelter and the animals he can't get adopted to other shelters to be killed. The plan is to declare that the ice cream social shelter is "no-kill". Anyone can cherry-pick animals and make the shelter no-kill, just like the lies he pulled in Maricopa with one phony no-kill shelter while all his other shelters were slaughtering those he did not cherry-pick. (That fakery is part of the reason Maricopa told Ed Boks to leave ASAP!) 

    WHY does the community have so little respect for Ed Boks that they won't even show up at his highly advertised meeting? We know why.  Everyone has by now seen with their own eyes that Ed Boks talks a big lie and blogs out his ass, yet does nothing tangible or proactive to save the lives of animals.  

   WHY is the killing of adoptable and treatable animals up so high under Ed Boks? The kill rate is up 31%, and Antonio Villaraigosa still can't figure out why people are so angry?? We know the answer to this too. Ed Boks specializes in smoke and mirrors, but is altogether incompetent to do anything concrete to help the very department he has unfortunately been allowed to run. 

    WHY are impounds increasing under Ed Boks?  Ed Boks blames foreclosures, but that is just his latest excuse.  Foreclosures in other cities are not producing huge increases in impounds and in Los Angeles the foreclosed homes get sold right away to someone who can move in with pets. The main LAAS impound increase is kittens, which have nothing to do with foreclosures but do have to do with Ed Boks not offering enough spay/neuter. He has not increased spay/neuter to the public at all, even though the city now requires spay/neuter by law. 

Boks has the six spay/neuter clinics we all wasted our tax dollars on, but hey still sit unused. An average of more than a full year the city's spay/neuter clinics have sat unused, times six clinics! That means ED BOKS HAS WASTED SIX YEARS OF SPAY/NEUTER! Is it any wonder impounds and killing are both up under Ed Boks?

Ed Boks is the modern day snake oil salesman, going from one city to the next trying to sell his "easy cure-all" to naive animal lovers based on a recipe of nothing but empty rhetoric. It appears that every legitimate humane organization in the Nation knows that Boks is a imposter. No decent or progressive shelter system would have hired Boks after his botched-up jobs in Maricopa and NYC. But Los Angeles, with a Mayor who was busy having affairs and fantasizing of being President some day simply allowed this faker to come into our city and run roughshod over the humane community and the poor animals who have no voice.

If not YOU, then WHO?

If not NOW, then WHEN?

Fire Ed Boks NOW!

A Louisiana shelter, Tangipahoa Parish Animal Shelter, unnecessarily slaughtered almost every animal in its facility according to media reports. More than 170 dogs and cats lay dead, the victims of a mass killing after animals started getting sick because of the shelter's own mismanagement. A former shelter employee says she'll never forget the image: "I did walk back there at one point and they were all piled on top of each other, just lying there dead."

While there will always be individual cases of disease in a shelter, epidemics or spread of such diseases is almost always a result of sloppy handling and poor cleaning practices. Not surprisingly, former staff "blame management." According to the news report:

"The[ animals] didn't get the proper feedings, they didn't get the proper cleaning, they didn't get the proper exercise," says Linda Winkler, a former Tangipahoa Parish Animal Shelter employee. "I mean every issue about taking care of animals got jeopardized."

And after creating a health risk through its own mismanagement, the pound added the ultimate injury (death) to insult (poor care that exposed the animals to disease) by killing almost each and every one. According to former staff, this occurred even though a veterinarian certified some as free of serious illness.

According to news reports:

Despite what some are now calling mismanagement, rescue workers still believe not all of the animals had to die...

Local animal rescue workers are calling the mass [killing] completely unnecessary. "I mean, I can see [killing] some that are sick and suffering," said Barbara Jaeger with Tangipahoa Adopt-A-Rescue. "...But to just [kill] everything in there, and we could have found rescue groups to help place them..." The shelter's excuse: "It's kind of like Monday morning quarter-backing woulda, shoulda, coulda..." Apparently, questioning the mass slaughter of animals and management failures to adequately care for them so they wouldn't get sick in the first place, is nothing more than Monday morning quarter-backing: "woulda, shoulda, coulda." In other words, who cares?

I care. Former staff and volunteers care. Rescue groups care. Pet lovers everywhere care. The question is, does Wayne Pacelle of HSUS care? Tangipahoa Parish Animal Shelter is an HSUS partner shelter.

Many involved in the Hurricane Katrina animal rescue effort may recall that HSUS not only faced criticism from the Louisiana rescue community, it was the subject of an investigation by the Louisiana and Mississippi Attorneys General over Hurricane Katrina related fundraising. HSUS raised tens of millions of dollars ostensibly to help animals impacted by the Hurricane Katrina disaster, but spent only a fraction of it. HSUS subsequently announced their own version of ‘Mission Accomplished’ and left, even while animals were still suffering in the aftermath of the destruction and with millions still in HSUS bank accounts—money that could and should have been used for the donors’ intent: to save lives in the Gulf States then and there.

Nonetheless, in response to continued criticism, HSUS went back to the Gulf States years later as part of a less-than-one-million dollar improvement campaign. The Louisiana pound that put these 170 animals to death is one of those HSUS affiliated shelters participating in its post-Katrina improvement plan, a shelter where Wayne Pacelle promised animal lovers "a new dawn for animal care."

That dawn clearly didn't rise for the 170 dead pets. Will he speak out on their behalf? The unnecessary slaughter of 170 animals, including those who were not sick, at Tangipahoa Parish Animal Shelter in the Hurricane Katrina-impacted Louisiana area this past week underscores the need for reform in what is clearly a broken U.S. system of sheltering based on neglect and overkill. It also underscores the need to challenge the large national animal “protection” groups like the Humane Society of the United States which legitimize and provide political cover for the killing and do precious little to change the status quo. As I indicated in an earlier blog, the Tangipahoa Parish Animal Shelter slaughterhouse is an HSUS partner. It is one of 57 facilities that received money from the Humane Society of the United States in the aftermath of investigations of HSUS “Hurricane Katrina” fundraising where they pocketed millions of dollars which were specifically earmarked for Katrina-victim relief. As part of the less-than-one-million dollar follow-up initiative (they raised tens of millions for Hurricane Katrina which were not spent before they left the devastated area), Wayne Pacelle, the CEO of HSUS, promised “a new dawn for animal care” at places like the Tangipahoa Parish Animal Shelter slaughterhouse. That dawn clearly didn’t rise for the 170 dead animals.

The problem is, Pacelle’s pretty words notwithstanding, that “new dawn” had no chance of rising. The grant for facilities like Tangipahoa was little more than a freebie for incompetent and uncaring shelter leaders, with only some of it earmarked for animal care (without the strings which would have given leadership pause before ordering mass killing). Beside minor “facility renovation and program work,” the purpose was two fold:

To conduct social marketing research in Louisiana and Mississippi areas with high shelter deaths in order to identify why people in these areas didn't spay/neuter their pets (and what to do about it). To collect basic statistics from 57 shelters in the region, many of them among the most affected by Hurricane Katrina. One of the agencies receiving funding to collect their statistics was the Tangipahoa Parish Animal Shelter slaughterhouse.

When you have to pay the pound to keep basic statistics, you are in trouble as a movement. Without basic data, these agencies are in no position to know if they are doing a good job, meeting goals, doing all they can to save lives. And therein lies the rub, if they haven’t been doing it before, they are already lost. If they weren’t willing to provide the data willingly, they are telling you they don’t care.

But the most frightening aspect is the social marketing research into spay/neuter. Do we really need to fund another study about why poor people don't spay/neuter? Poor people do not spay/neuter because it is not affordable, and it is not easily available to them; and both of these conditions exist because their local pound is (and by definition, pound leadership) abysmal and uncaring and ineffective.

So rather than do pointless research into why people don't spay/neuter, why didn’t HSUS just earmark the money directly for free spay/neuter in these regions? And why didn’t HSUS add millions more from Hurricane Katrina fundraising to hold shelter leadership accountable, to modernize the shelter system and to provide meaningful programs that save lives?

Perhaps the program allows Pacelle to promise a “new dawn” for animals and raise money for that “new dawn,” but doesn’t require his organization or the shelters to actually do anything substantive to increase lifesaving. Once again Pacelle gives us platitudes, clichés, rhetoric, pretty words, but no solutions. The HSUS post-Katrina “new dawn” campaign appears to give the appearance of doing something about the killing—while doing nothing to address the real cause of it: the uncaring of those running the facilities. The marketing study is asking all the wrong questions and the answers don't really matter because as long as the pounds care so little about animals that they equate their decision to massacre an entire shelter full of them with a flippant "woulda, coulda, shoulda," as the Parish president did in responses to concerns expressed by animal advocates, there is no hope for the animals in that community.

It is NOT the people in the community that are failing the animals and it is not the people in this community that don't care about the animals; they have already expressed their outrage at the killing. It is the pound’s fault. What makes the matter more egregious is that the HSUS program and publicity come off as a vote of confidence and provides these facilities political cover. This, combined with failure to publicly condemn the recent slaughter of an entire shelter full of animals, shows that HSUS is not true to their mission or the animals' best interest.

Pacelle asks for money to fund a study to find out why the public is "bad" by failing to spay/neuter—but when confronted with overwhelming evidence of how bad those running the pounds are, when confronted with a blatant and wholly unnecessary slaughter of animals, there is only deafening silence. HSUS did issue a statement but it does little more than provide Parish leadership political cover for the widespread killing. Ignoring the question of why virtually all animals were killed when only some of them were sick, it blames the mass killing of 170 animals on “pet overpopulation” and says the “problem of pet homelessness is rampant throughout the nation and it is a challenge that shelters in virtually every community face.”

The most criticism it can muster--which stretches reality to the breaking point in order to label it as "criticism"--is its use of the impotent word “unusual” to describe the unnecessary slaughter of almost every single animal in the facility; but HSUS then immediately follows it up by blaming under-funding and under-staffing as if these were the culprits in the decision to kill all the animals, or as if the Parish president has no role in funding and staffing. In fact, former staff members decried a pattern by local leadership of deliberately cutting corners on staffing when it came to animal care and cleaning.

The mass slaughter is not “unusual,” Mr. Pacelle. It is abhorrent, abysmal, intolerable and outrageous.

It should go without saying that all major groups, especially those whose money is in the coffers of the Tangipahoa Parish Animal Shelter slaughterhouse should issue a statement condemning the pound and its leadership, removing the vote of confidence the earlier funding represented; and acknowledge that they gave money to this pound on promises of a more progressive orientation, but now realize there is little hope of improved lifesaving as long as current leadership remains. That would be the ethical and righteous course of action. They must join the growing voices of outraged activists and rescue groups who condemn the heartless, calculated slaughter. Instead, they offer political legitimacy (“pet overpopulation”) and political cover (“the problem is rampant throughout the nation”).

At the end of the day, without large national groups backing the voices of the activists and rescue groups who did issue statements of condemnation, is it any surprise that the Parish president casually dismissed criticism by accusing animal lovers of "Monday morning quarterbacking”? The very notion, however, is absurd.

The phrase—to “Monday morning quarterback”—is meant to convey the idea that hindsight is 20/20—that it is easy to say what should have been done when the outcome of one particular avenue becomes evident but was not obvious before it played out. When you deliberately kill every animal in a shelter, you know the end result is only one thing—that every animal in that shelter will end up dead (including the cats who were not affected by the illness apparently seen in some of the dogs).

In choosing this course of action which had only one certain outcome, local leadership unequivocally demonstrated how little regard they have for animal life and how unfit they are to lead a shelter that is supposed to be their safety net. Rather than follow the latest, most innovative forms of handling, cleaning and sanitizing to control disease, rather than utilize available rescue groups to save most of the animals, rather than treat those with illnesses who were savable, they chose to kill every animal in the shelter. Nothing could have been a more appalling course of action. There is no need for hindsight. Mass killing has no place in modern sheltering. The action was medieval. And if the Parish president is going to claim ignorance of this, he has no business overseeing a shelter that has the power of life and death over animals.

The animals are being failed.

In Tangipahoa Parish.

And in the halls of HSUS.

More evidence is emerging about the mass killing of shelter animals at the Tangipahoa Animal Shelter slaughterhouse. Among the recent revelations:

The killing had nothing to do with illness. It was deliberate and by design with illness being used as an excuse; The pound has a history of mass killing all animals in the shelter; Rescue groups were willing and able to save all the animals; HSUS offers to review the matter despite a conflict-of-interest and legitimizing the massacre by blaming the public. In short, the situation becomes increasingly dark and disturbing as information continues to come out about the mass killing in Hammond, LA.

The killing had nothing to do with illness. While Parish officials are blaming the mass killing as “necessary” because of an epidemic of disease, the facts tell a very different story. Preliminary evidence points to canine coronavirus as the culprit for why some of the dogs were sick. Coronavirus is not only fairly common, mild and highly treatable, it is self-limiting, meaning it will resolve on its own. Coronavirus can also be treated with hydration, is not life-threatening (except in rare circumstances for puppies in severe cases) and is entirely preventable through vaccination and thorough cleaning/sanitizing. More importantly, it also does not affect cats but all the cats were killed, according to Parish officials, because some of the dogs had diarrhea.

So why were all dogs and all cats slaughtered for a non-lethal problem of the shelter's own creation (poor cleaning, lack of vaccinations)? Don't expect the answer from "the powers that be" anytime soon. Long standing complaints against the shelter include poor care, lack of vaccinations, and sloppy handling and cleaning, all of which is by design as Parish leaders seek to cut corners at the expense of the animals.

Killing occurs despite readily available alternatives. But there is something even more disturbing and nefarious at work here. Rather than operate a modern program, the process of allowing animals to get sick through shoddy care and then slaughtering all the animals in the shelter appears intentional and by design despite facile HSUS promises of a “new dawn in animal care” at the Tangipahoa Animal Shelter slaughterhouse. Mass killing of shelter animals is part of the deliberate and ongoing strategy at this HSUS partner shelter. And while it goes without saying that the animals should not have been killed, they literally did not have to be die even if shelter leadership was committed—as they were and despite evidence to the contrary—to emptying the shelter. They could have called rescue groups like MuttShack.

I communicated with MuttShack rescue in Louisiana. This is what they told me:

On March 22, 2006, Tangipahoa had a similar scare. MuttShack responded by sending over 300 vaccines and [medicine]…

About a month later they said they had no alternative but to [kill] everyone anyhow. They needed to clean out the facility [and] disinfect. We worked with [staff] from the shelter who were all trying to save the animals.

We transported the cats to a cat sanctuary and the next day, without—any sleep—we came in with three vans loaded up the dogs, and drove all the dogs and two remaining cats to Atlanta.

We had to beg all over the internet for money for gas, transportation rental vans, vaccines, spay neuter surgeries, and…heartworm treatment.

[But we did it, and t]hey were all adopted…

This gave Tangipahoa a complete opportunity then to disinfect the entire facility, including the grounds and grass areas.

We would happily have done the same had the request been made. I suspect the people we worked with then are no longer employed there.

They did not and the request was not made. As a result, 176 dogs and cats, not under threat, not ill, not suffering, and in no real danger, were needlessly killed in a mass slaughter.

A strategy of mass killing is part of the pound’s overall operations strategy. Even if they had done the right thing and called rescue groups to take the animals (saving animals is always better), it would not be enough to quell much-deserved criticism of this pound facility. A strategy of periodic threats of mass killing unless rescue groups take all the animals is not acceptable. Compassionately and humanely caring for and finding homes for animals entering the facility, including treating sick animals, is their own responsibility. Rescue groups exist to augment their services, not to replace them. And there is no reason to be in this same position in 2010, as they were in 2006, now 2008, and who knows how many times before when effective, humane, and life-affirming sheltering models exist for this and other shelters to emulate.

Instead of spending precious little money for worthless studies about why poor people don’t spay/neuter and instead of fundraising gimmicks like “new dawn” campaigns as HSUS did, the Tangipahoa Animal Shelter slaughterhouse needs to come out of its 19th Century “catch and kill” pound orientation and modernize. That includes vaccination, comprehensive cleaning and disinfection, and programs not just to keep animals healthy, but to find them loving homes. And HSUS is in a unique position to force them to do so.

More self-serving public relations from HSUS. Instead, HSUS continues to provide political cover of this HSUS partner shelter by blaming pet overpopulation for mass slaughter at Tangipahoa and blaming pet owners for the fact that the Parish president ordered animals needlessly killed, a point of view that has outraged pet lovers in the region.

As it scrambles to undo some of the public relations damage, the Humane Society of the United States has offered to do an operational assessment of the slaughterhouse. But this begs the question: why would you want an agency which is a partner, promotes the shelter publicly, has promised the public a “new dawn” for the animals at this shelter, and has provided and continues to provide political cover for the killing by blaming others to do a fact finding review or operational assessment? Despite the conflict of interest in protecting their own sordid involvement at this shelter, Parish officials accepted the offer.

Raising our expectations. I’ve said it before, but it bears revisiting. What would it look like if groups like HSUS were truly committed to ending the needless slaughter of shelter animals like those at Tangipahoa?

First of all, they would recognize that there is an epidemic of uncaring among shelter leaders which is at crisis proportions and therefore, they would stop providing the political cover and legitimacy represented by the fiction that “all stakeholders in the animal welfare community have a passion for and are dedicated to the mutual goal of saving animals’ lives.” (Asilomar Accords signed by HSUS, ASPCA, and AHA.) To do so would recognize the reality that rescuers, grassroots activists, feral cat caretakers and those involved in shelter reform nationwide face daily in their struggle to the save the lives of the animals in their communities: that our nation’s shelters are failing, that they are hostile to calls for reform and innovation, and that in many cases, they are neglecting and abusing the animals in their care.

This recognition would immediately put an end to this and other misleading rhetoric that these groups are fond of: “we all want the same things,” “no one wants to kill,” “collaboration [with these shelters/shelter directors] is key,” “we need to stop fighting each other and focus on our common enemies.” These pronouncements are, first and foremost, a distraction. But, more importantly, they are simply not true. The evidence is overwhelming that many shelter directors find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it. And Tangipahoa—an HSUS partner shelter—certainly showed that. When shelter functionaries kill animals rather than avail themselves of opportunities to save them (e.g., vaccination, cleaning, foster care, working with rescue, keeping cages and kennels full rather than empty), they would rather kill the animals than not kill them. As a result, they become the enemies of those who truly love dogs and cats and find killing them what it is: unethical, outrageous, abhorrent, and intolerable.

In practice, recognition of this fact by the large national groups would mean reporting to the public and shelter administrators that No Kill has been achieved in committed and progressive communities, requires full implementation of the No Kill Equation, and requires the removal of shelter leaders who refuse to do so. It means promoting the communities which have achieved levels of No Kill success that others have not. Instead of functionaries from groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals which kill over 90% of the animals they take in giving workshops at their national conferences as they did this year, they would have representatives from communities which save over 90% of the animals they take in.

At Expo 2009, HSUS’ national conference on sheltering, we should see workshops like: “Charlottesville saved 90% of all impounded animals. Learn how you can too.” And “Reno reduced shelter rates of killing by over 50% in one year, find out how.” We should see seminars like: “Reforming your local shelter” which would include not only a sincere discussion about how shelters currently do not reflect the values of animal lovers and often kill in the face of readily available lifesaving alternatives, but how to force them to change when they refuse to do so willingly, as they often do.

It means arguing in all publications, advocacy efforts, educational materials, media interactions and conferences that No Kill is the only legitimate standard for animal sheltering–-and must be embraced by all shelters with sincere commitment and with all deliberate speed.

This means stating unequivocally that, with the possible exception of those who are irremediably suffering, hopelessly ill or injured, or truly vicious dogs with a poor prognosis for rehabilitation, sheltered animals have a right to live, and that shelters must modernize and innovate by replacing century old ways of doing business with the life-affirming programs and services of the No Kill Equation as outlined in the U.S. No Kill Declaration, in order to give meaning to that right.

It means no longer fighting activists who are trying to reform their shelters but assisting them in doing so–even when doing so means fighting an entrenched shelter director that refuses to change. It means no longer rewarding failing shelter leaders with speaking engagements at their conferences, with features in their magazines, with national awards, or—as in Tangipahoa—with tens of thousands of dollars which are squandered.

And it means that when outdated, uncaring, and regressive shelter leaders such as those in Tangipahoa massacre a shelter full of animals for no legitimate reason (and I can think of no reason that would ever be legitimate), that they express their outage and condemnation rather than provide them the political cover which gives legitimacy to those actions.

It is time for action, not empty words, not meaningless platitudes, not ineffectual campaigns that appear sexy or have vague promises like a “new dawn” which give the illusion of promoting No Kill, but, in reality will do nothing but perpetuate the status quo—or, as in the case of Tangipahoa, actually make things worse for the animals.

That would be a good start. And would truly demonstrate that these groups are “changing” in deeds, as well as words. But it is only a start. That, of course, would be quickly followed with investments of their huge resources in changing communities, in lobbying for change in communities, including a widespread effort to reform shelters, remove entrenched kill-oriented directors, and provide the infrastructure needed to achieve success. That is the kind of approach critically missing from these organizations. And it is critically missing from campaigns like the ASPCA’s “Mission: Orange,” AHA’s “Getting to Zero,” HSUS’s “New Dawn,” and the combined groups’ “Asilomar Accords.”

These programs will do nothing to end the war against shelter killing. Instead, they carpet bomb local activists working for true reform. By using the HSUS brand to provide legitimacy and political cover to shelter bureaucrats who continue to thwart the will of animal lovers, by giving money to groups which know that simply blaming the public will allow them to forestall necessary changes, No Kill can never be achieved. And the sooner we all realize that, the quicker we can move past empty rhetoric and unfulfilled promises and focus our reform efforts where they should be, precisely because that it is where they will have the most impact: on the very shelters and especially the shelter directors actually doing the killing.

As I result, I too join the chorus of voices calling for a recall of elected officials in Tangipahoa responsible for the carnage. But if we are to really reform this broken system from the bottom up, we need to go further. This movement needs housecleaning from the top down. We need to empty our movement of what sickens us with the same zeal that Parish leaders emptied the pound. It is time to give the boot to pretenders like Wayne Pacelle who legitimize killing and/or refuse to put the full power, prestige, and resources of HSUS to force changes at shelters like the Tangipahoa Animal Shelter slaughterhouse and elsewhere, or force changes in shelter leadership across the country.

We need regime change at all levels of this movement. And we need it now.

Posted by Nathan J. Winograd