Responsibility, Transparency, Community Support, and Willingness to Change
Without these from local animal welfare organizations (and I include rescues, open-admission, limited-admission, private and government agencies here) there will be "bright new day" in animal welfare. The euthanasia numbers will not drop. The public will remain ignorant, committing neglect and abuse. Spay and neuter efforts will fail.
As a member of two local task forces, I have seen the intent to embrace the four principles above from a number of organizations. They are brave; they are truly willing to serve. Some may have something to lose by walking the walk here – the limited admission shelters are moving of their own free-will toward a level playing field.
Yet there are those that still refuse to share information about their operations. Some organizations publish their annual reports in a newsletter, or even better on their website - including intake and live release numbers, budget information and program specs. Others chose to keep this information tucked away only for the eyes and minds of their board members.
Trust is an issue.
Does one chose to trust other local organizations or hide information? Do we choose to lay the numbers and the issues on the table, and educate our public or opt for the nanny-state answer that they can’t understand so they shouldn’t have the information?
Integrity is at risk here.
With the Asilomar Accords (www.asilomaraccords.org) common language, at least on a local level, can be reached so that terminology on what is Healthy, Treatable, or Unhealthy within a community will have same usage. To come to these terms is not an easy discussion and cannot be held solely within the animal welfare community. By calling in members from the animal welfare community (shelters and rescues), as well as veterinarian, trainers and behaviorists, owners of pet related businesses, to honestly discus what an average pet owner is likely to do in various situations – these definitions can be classified.
These terms are by no means rubber stamps for disposition. If the resources are available in a community, “unhealthy” pets can be placed. If the resources are not there, not even all “healthy” pets will be placed and euthanasia of these animals will continue. But without at very least common terminology a community cannot work together as a whole to end that tragic practice.
I applaud my local community coalition ASAP (http://www.catadoptionteam.org/cat/adoption/info/408) for the work they are doing and I am proud to be a small part of the process. I can only hope all of them will follow through and not hobble the process with their own fears.
