The War on Cats: Chicago Edition

Cat ID #A125956 at the Chicago pound, kisted as lost, as shown on PetHarbor

Cat ID #A125956 at the Chicago pound, listed under “Lost Pets”, as shown on PetHarbor.

In November 2014, the Chicago city council approved an ordinance which reduced the mandatory holding period for stray animals at Chicago Animal Care and Control. Stray dogs of unknown ownership now only get three days for their owners to find them. Stray cats of unknown ownership now get zero days. Litters of puppies aged four months and younger of unknown ownership (as well as their dams) also get zero days. Here are two relevant snippets from the ordinance, which can be read in full here:

chicago ordinance1

chicago ordinance2

At that time, Brad Powers, the assistant director at CACC, used the word “perfect” in describing the ordinance to local media:

“Based on analysis of best practices, and recommendation from a variety of shelter experts we think this ordinance strikes the perfect balance between giving a pet owner enough time to look for their lost pet, and giving the stray animal a better chance to be rescued or adopted,” Powers said.

To clarify, when it comes to lost cats, he’s saying that zero days is the perfect amount of time to give owners to find their family members. Now you know where you stand, cat owners.

But assurances were reportedly given that despite the language within the ordinance, animals would not be killed before five days:

When the city initially reached out to PAWS Chicago, one of multiple humane groups it consulted, about the change, founder and chair Paula Fasseas said the rescue organization’s first concern was that this move not increase or speed the number of animals being euthanized by the city, a concern that had been echoed in earlier city hearings on the matter. Those rules—that an animal brought into CACC cannot be euthanized for at least five days—Fasseas was assured, would not be changed.

Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

And a final GFY to cat owners from Fasseas:

For pet owners concerned the shorter hold could mean their lost animals would be at risk of being adopted by another family, Fasseas says the ordinance’s passage has the added benefit of encouraging microchipping, a practice she calls “critical.”

“[I]f owners are upset because the cat’s not being held for five days, then they should microchip their cat.”

And if you don’t like being poor, you should get a job as a banking executive you slouch.

In its recent newsletter sent to rescuers, CACC states that stray cats won’t be held:

Portion of the Chicago ACC newsletter that was recently sent to rescue groups.

Portion of the Chicago ACC newsletter that was recently sent to rescue groups.

CACC makes no mention of the promise that cats of unknown ownership won’t be killed before five days.  Slope, so slippery.

Chicago is the latest city to treat cats like second class pets by refusing to grant them equal protections as are provided to dogs.  And by extension, cat owners are treated as second class citizens with so-called animal welfare experts decreeing they must not love their pets as much as dog owners love theirs.  This is an unconscionable view and all those promoting it are diminishing pet owners’ rights.

The city employees at the Chicago pound need to do their jobs and protect lost pets from being harmed while their owners look for them – including the harm caused by breaking up families.  Shame on the city of Chicago for enacting this destructive ordinance and shame on CACC for failing to advocate for the lost pets in their care.

(Thank you Susan and Mary for sending me info on this story.)

Leave a comment

68 Comments

  1. Larry Norman

     /  March 5, 2015

    As the article says, cat owners who care will have their cats microchipped. Free/low-cost clinics abound.

    Reply
    • And the guarantee that they’ll be scanned, Larry? Because MY shelter had no mandatory hold period and they weren’t scanning cats for chips. They said they were, but they were NOT. And cats came in and were killed the same day, bodies incinerated, no evidence. How many of those were owned and wanted pets? We’ll never know because cats are completely disposable as far as they were concerned.

      And what about the old man who has no transportation and his two elderly cats are his only companions? How is he going to get those cats chipped?

      Hey, I’ve got an idea…how about shelters start SHELTERING lost and homeless pets rather than finding new and better ways to kill them? You know, just a thought.

      Reply
      • sarahjaneb

         /  March 5, 2015

        “Hey, I’ve got an idea…how about shelters start SHELTERING lost and homeless pets rather than finding new and better ways to kill them?”

        Nah, it’s easier to just kill them and then shift the blame back onto the owners.

    • sarahjaneb

       /  March 5, 2015

      Chips are not 100% perfect. They don’t always scan on the first try, not every scanner works on every chip, the databases aren’t all connected, etc. A microchip is not a guarantee, even if the shelter does scan every animal that comes in.

      Reply
      • Eucritta

         /  March 5, 2015

        Chips also need to be registered, a process rife with potential for human error. I know of one case in which the shelter which chipped a cat didn’t provide the paperwork on adoption, and the adopters didn’t know to ask for it. My vet’s mentioned she’s not only run into other cases like that, but also into chips that were never activated at all. Registrations can get borked, too. I’ve a cat whose initial chip registration was accidentally swapped with that of a litter-mate. I’ve never been able to fix it – the registry won’t accept a fix without the paperwork for the other chip, and the owners of that kitty ignored all requests – and so that registration has never been updated on the original registry.

        Chips migrate, as well. I’ve three chipped pets, and every one of their chips has moved; in two cases substantially, down to around their arm-pits. Wands passed over their withers – where the chips were inserted – won’t pick them up at all. Wasn’t there a story not too long ago, about a lost cat with three entirely different chips?

        Chips are good things, but they’re not a panacea.

        Oh, and spay/neuter? Is a good thing that prevents pregnancies, but it does absolutely squat – nothing, nada, bupkis – to help lost pets get back home.

  2. Jane

     /  March 5, 2015

    This is the same policies they tried to “suggest” in California. Same crazy thought process, that if people know their pet will be adopted out right away if it doesn’t have ID, then that will somehow give people an incentive to microchip, and if not, too bad, so sad, you lose your pet. I see that same “they shouldn’t have a pet then” mentality prevalent in the sheltering world, and it needs to stop. Fortunately CA, with one of the shortest holding periods in the nation already, did not put these ideas into law, and owners still have a whopping 72 hours to find their animals (since the Hayden Law was suspended). I get that the underlying motivation is to reduce euthanasia in shelters, but this is quite frankly the lazy way, and ignores all the proven ways of achieving low euthanasia, which actually require some caring and some work on the part of shelter staff to make happen. Simply saying most stray cats don’t get claimed, therefore we should just be able to adopt them out right away, takes little thought or effort on the part of shelter staff to come up with innovative ways to actually get those pets back home, or prevent them from coming into the shelter to begin with.

    Reply
    • Cathy

       /  March 10, 2015

      Jane you couldn’t be more right!!! Pure laziness in the shelter system in a lot of cities!

      Reply
  3. I have a lot to say here. I am the Assistant Director of CatNap from the Heart (http://catnapfromtheheart.org), a shelter for cats, birds and small mammals in the Chicago suburbs. We work with Chicago Animal Care and Control and their volunteers on a regular basis. First, the definition of shelter above is inappropriate when referring to an Animal Control facility. Animal Control and private shelters are not the same thing. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Second, the overuse of the terms “kill” and “murder” are more than frustrating from the standpoint of someone that is a licensed euthanasia technician. Luckily, CatNap is not the kind of facility that has to euthanize for space; however, there are instances where we have an ill or fractious animal that does need to be euthanized. I can assure you that no one that goes through the classes and passes the test and takes the time to go get fingerprinted is someone that wants to “kill” more animals. That thought process is absolutely ludicrous.
    Also, I wholeheartedly agree with Paula regarding microchipping. This is precisely what my take away is from this new ordinance. Furthermore, I’d like to add that if you adopt from a reputable rescue, no animal should, by law, be released until the animal is chipped. Since the law passed in 2004, rescues are required to microchip all animals before adoption. I can tell you all that we have received more than one cat from an owner over the years that have come with adoption paperwork from another rescue and yet the cat is not chipped. This means that fellow rescues should make sure they are absolutely following the letter of the law regarding microchipping. I’d like to say also that part of every check-out for any cat that gets adopted from CatNap is to scan for a microchip–microchips can fail and it is imperative that we scan each cat before it goes home to make sure the chip reads.
    As a brick and mortar facility, I can say that the first thing that we do upon arrival of any cat is to scan for a microchip. You will never convince me that there is a shelter or animal control facility that wants animals to be NOT returned to owner. If there is a way to reunite an animal with its owner and not take up a valuable cage, you can be sure we are going above and beyond to try to track down the registered owner or implanter.
    The comments that microchipping is expensive is ridiculous. As someone that regularly orders boxes and boxes of microchips at a time, I can say that to chip and register a cat only costs $25. You can’t tell me that a cost of $25 is expensive–most people have $25 in spare change in their cup holder. And as for the elderly man that can’t drive or get his cats to a veterinary office. I suggest he calls his local rescue and inquires about if they have a volunteer that can make a house call. I can assure you that anyone here at CatNap would gladly travel to someone’s house, on our own time, to chip his beloved pets. I’m willing to bet that CatNap is not the exception in this regard.
    Now the cats as second class citizens comment. There is a clear disparity between the number of stray dogs and stray cats. That said, the simple fact of the matter is that there is more of an overpopulation problem with regard to felines vs canines. Overpopulation means more cats than homes. Overpopulation means, unfortunately, that more cats will be euthanized than dogs. Until some serious headway is made to encourage spay/neuter and offer options to owners such as low cost veterinary care, this is simple math.
    There are obviously changes that need to be made, but the constant banter from people that are not in the trenches of animal rescue need to stop. Be a part of the solution and not the problem.
    If anyone wants to call us here at the shelter for clarification or to discuss, please feel free to do so. 708.352.3914.

    Reply
    • Was the moniker “Catnap from Compassion” already taken?

      Reply
    • KateH

       /  March 5, 2015

      Wow, Tina – you are such a judgmental ….. and you have the nerve to call others judgmental – your blindness and deafness and complete omniscience of ‘everyone’ and their thoughts and feelings regarding how they view animals is beyond astonishing.

      ” I can assure you that no one that goes through the classes and passes the test and takes the time to go get fingerprinted is someone that wants to “kill” more animals. That thought process is absolutely ludicrous.” I can assure you that you are wrong. There are so many people who go through the classes, blahblahblah who DO want to kill animals. A few of them work for PETA, for example, and a lot more work all over this country. You obviously haven’t ever read this blog, or you’d be aware of at least a few dozen – just look up some of the info about Memphis Animal Services, where the biggest service they provide to animals is a one-way drag to a kill room – and that’s the exact right terminology – with a good chance at being tortured a bit before being killed – again, the exact right word – and tossed in a dumpster. There are some places that don’t even have a dumpster – they just throw dead animals in pits, sometimes where the public can see them, showing just how much they care about the community’s animals. And let’s not forget those places where the animals might not even actually be dead before they’re thrown into a freezer or an incinerator, or a dumpster, or a pit, or the town dump. Just because YOU don’t want to accept that these things actually happen doesn’t mean they aren’t true.

      As for your completely, egregiously silly idea of “You will never convince me that there is a shelter or animal control facility that wants animals to be NOT returned to owner.” Again, you must either be the most naive, nice person on the planet, or you’re just an idiot. Any place that takes in domesticated animals, from pocket pets, cats, dogs, birds in the pet trade, on through farm animals, whether the word Animal is followed by Care, Control, Services, (Im)Pound, Shelter, Humane Society, Protective League, Rescue, or Sanctuary or any combination of same, that doesn’t allow the public to see all the animals they are holding, no matter what the reason (those being so numerous and often so ridiculous I don’t have space to list), doesn’t give a crap about returning those animals to their owner and often give even less of a crap about wanting to do the work required to allow anyone else to provide a home either. This blog certainly isn’t the only place you could EASILY find proof of these facts.

      I am particularly impressed with your intense snobbery and utter insensitivity in deciding what ‘expensive’ is across the country. I can assure you that very few people I know have $25 sitting in their cup holder. You do mean a cup holder in their car, right? Mine has less than $1 in it, because, duh, if I had $25 in it, I couldn’t put my brought-from-home-refilled-with-water-from-the-tap-six-month-old-store-brand-water bottle I got when I volunteered at a rescue event last October in it. I am getting so angry in responding to you that my dinner is starting to bother me. It was a can of store-brand soup and crackers. I didn’t want to go out for even an ‘inexpensive $25’ meal at a restaurant, because I need that $25 to add to the $175 set aside in my checking account so I can make my car payment next week. At the end of the month I’ll need two more ‘inexpensive $25’ amounts for my car insurance, along with another $120 or so. During the month, I’ll need to put maybe three ‘inexpensive $25’ fillings into the gas tank, as well as buy food for myself and my dog, which will add up to at least a half dozen ‘inexpensive $25’ amounts of ‘cup holder’ money. (Such a cute term, I hope it catches on and replaces that old-fashioned ‘mad money’ my grandma used to say.) Considering that I’ll be lucky to make $900 this month, it’s marvelous that my part of the rent is only $200, because I also need to apply another $300 towards several other bills. So expenses are about $870 and income is about $900. No, I CAN’T just pull $25 out of my cup holder to buy a microchip! And even if I needed one, trust me, since my dogs didn’t come from the ONE nice rescue I trust – that’s 25 miles away – no one from there can just come over and give me a chip – they can only chip dogs they adopt out.

      Lastly, the vast majority of the readers of this blog, and certainly, Shirley (the owner of the blog) do NOT engage in what you’re calling “…the constant banter from people that are not in the trenches of animal rescue” and they certainly do NOT “… need to stop.” learning about the MANY cases of blatant laziness, and complete lack of care and concern for the lives of animals shown time after time by rotten examples of humans who are supposed to be providing a safe haven for animals but are NOT DOING THAT. For you to insist that ‘no one’ who works in any facility wants to kill animals shows us that you, yourself, are willfully denying there to be a problem in the animal sheltering business. You, yourself, ARE part of the problem.

      Reply
      • Tina

         /  March 5, 2015

        Kate H, of course I don’t have $25 in change in my cup holder. The statement wasn’t meant to be taken literally. I work for a small nonprofit…clearly I’m not in this business for the money and your woes about paying bills is something that I myself experience. Monthly. But you can sure as heck bet that if my cats weren’t microchipped as part of their adoption, I’d have found a way to get them microchipped. Regardless of the cost. I would have saved wherever I could and found the money to make sure I did everything within my power to do what I could to ensure they got returned to me if they slipped out.

        And this article, which I would have never found if it wasn’t referencing a facility I have personally dealt with, is not focusing on other area shelters. I am speaking only to that which I know and experience. Others should take heed. I have no direct knowledge of Memphis so I will not speak on their policies.

        I’m sure you can find flaws in a lot of facilities across the country. I’m not saying that there are not places to improve. The point is that there is a lot of back and forth without a direct dialog between rescues and their followers of exactly HOW to make changes. Simply saying that changes need to happen or pointing out flaws does nothing to affect actual change.

      • “Simply saying that changes need to happen or pointing out flaws does nothing to affect actual change.”

        Actually…I think it’s probably the first step towards change. But hey, what do I know? Oh, wait, I’m the one who got rid of my shelter’s gas chamber and stopped the slaughter of cats there by standing up and saying that change needed to happen and pointing out the system’s flaws.

        I’ll tell you what DOESN’T effect actual change. Ignoring and enabling needless killing.

      • KateH

         /  March 6, 2015

        Tina, if you didn’t want us to take your words literally – by which I’m guessing you mean you didn’t want us to take what you said seriously, although you did actually say that “most people have $25 in spare change in their cup holder” then you shouldn’t have said that. As for your being a better pet owner than someone else because “Regardless of the cost. I would have saved wherever I could and found the money to make sure I did everything within my power to do what I could to ensure they got returned to me if they slipped out.” I hope you don’t dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back. Microchips are NOT a magic pass that will bring every animal with one home. Yes, there are news stories every few days about an animal that gets scanned and an owner is located and yay, various people work together to reunite them, but what about the untold thousands of animals everyday that are NOT scanned, for lots of reasons, ranging from understandable to completely ridiculous, and end up, if they’re lucky, being adopted by someone else, or being killed? What about the thousands who might be scanned, but the only thing that happens ranges from a notation of ‘chip found’ but the process stops there because of reasons ranging from dumb, through lazy, to absolutely shitty, about not going the extra 5 – 10 minutes to use the information to give the animal a chance to be reunited with its owner?

        SInce you are “speaking only to that which I know and experience” and you admit that “[you’re] sure you can find flaws in a lot of facilities across the country” it is rather rude for you to lecture the readers of this blog, and by extension, pet owners in general, how they should be acting in regards to keeping their pets safe. What if you spent more time explaining to workers at other shelters how they could improve what they do, to be doing their jobs as well as you and your shelter does does theirs – in the spirit of being part of the solution. Those who insist that it’s all up to owners and the “irresponsible public” to change their ways, without admitting that it’s the shelters (of whatever kind) that hold most of, if not all the cards in this high-stakes game, and that in lots and lots of places, the odds favor the house over the animals with horrendous outcomes.

      • Susan

         /  March 17, 2015

        Love you, Kate H.

        FYI, Tina, there is an animal control officer in my county who used to recount to all who would listen the many ways by which he has killed cats (dogs too but primarily cats) before he ever got them to the pound. These include but are not limited to asphyxiation by auto exhaust, throwing them from the moving county truck onto the pavement as forcefully as possible, and using them as projectiles aimed at street signs. Think he didn’t enjoy that? Really? Think he didn’t enjoy breaking one cat’s back because it fought him as he was trying to kill it? Think he doesn’t enjoy leaving 50 cats in the County truck overnight, then coming in the next morning to jam them in the chest without sedation and drop them to the concrete floor to watch them writhe in agony until they are allowed the respite of death? Then you, my dear, are full of shit.

        My theory: as with prison guards, three types of people are animal control officers at publicly managed pounds. Number One is those who think they will be helping the animals; they tend to move on relatively quickly. Number Two is those who need a job, any job, and will suck it up for as long as they must. And Number Three is the sadists, those who enjoy their job and the (probably only) opportunity they have to feel superior to another living being. They are entrenched for the duration unless they are caught doing something especially egregious. And there are far too many of them. Shelters love them because they will do with relish and without compunction what others cannot or will not: slaughter the animals.

    • “Second, the overuse of the terms “kill” and “murder” are more than frustrating from the standpoint of someone that is a licensed euthanasia technician.”

      When you take an incurably ill or irredeemably vicious one and make it dead, that’s euthanasia. When you take a healthy, adoptable animal and make it dead, that’s killing. Sorry the distinction frustrates you.

      “I can assure you that no one that goes through the classes and passes the test and takes the time to go get fingerprinted is someone that wants to “kill” more animals. That thought process is absolutely ludicrous.”

      And yet…Memphis. And all the other places that reward (bonuses, promotions) for more killing. I’m sorry, but being certified in euthanasia does not mean you’re not a sociopath. They’re out there, and yes, they like to kill. And they’re certified to do it. Just because you’re not one of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. To suggest otherwise is naive.

      ” You will never convince me that there is a shelter or animal control facility that wants animals to be NOT returned to owner.”

      Ah. And yet, MY shelter was not scanning cats. Nor were they posting strays as found, or adoptable cats as available anywhere (they put dogs on Petfinder, but never cats, so most people figured that they didn’t even have cats there). And yes, they did scan dogs, but when a chip came up as “unregistered”, they didn’t ever take that a step further. So when I found out that they had a dog come in with an unregistered chip, I called the chip company and asked the key question (that my shelter should have asked), “Where was this chip sold?” Turns out, it was sold to a rescue group in a neighboring town. I called them with the chip number and they knew exactly the name of the dog and to whom he was adopted out two years earlier. They also had a policy of taking back any animal at any time if it was in need. By then, my shelter had already killed the dog for “time”. The rescue group told me that if they had been called about this dog, they would have had someone out that day to get him to safety. But they were never called – because my shelter couldn’t be bothered to make a phone call and ask a question. The five minutes it took me to find out who this dog was and who his owner was, well, that was apparently too difficult. Easier to just kill the dog. And my shelter? Has a 90% live release rate for dogs. One of the best in the state. But their stats are because we have an excellent community, not because the shelter is run by excellent people.

      “You can’t tell me that a cost of $25 is expensive–most people have $25 in spare change in their cup holder. ”

      Wow. I’m not sure where you live, but in my world, $25 is the difference between eating and not eating for some folks. To suggest that most people have that much in spare change is a bit callous.

      ” I suggest he calls his local rescue and inquires about if they have a volunteer that can make a house call. I can assure you that anyone here at CatNap would gladly travel to someone’s house, on our own time, to chip his beloved pets. I’m willing to bet that CatNap is not the exception in this regard.”

      Actually, I’m afraid that they are.

      “There are obviously changes that need to be made, but the constant banter from people that are not in the trenches of animal rescue need to stop. Be a part of the solution and not the problem.”

      I think you’ll find that most of us here are “in the trenches”. And some of us think that part of the problem is people who call killing “euthanasia” and make excuses and justifications for it rather than condemning it and working to change it.

      Reply
      • Tina

         /  March 9, 2015

        I work at a “no-kill” shelter. And I don’t even like to use the term “no-kill” because it automatically implies sanctuary to many people looking to surrender pets. And for people not in the sheltering world, your average person equates “no-kill” with “never kill” and that is not accurate nor is it healthy for the shelter staff, other shelter animals or volunteers. I do not know about you, but if I knew of an area rescue that was improperly and unlawfully practicing euthanasia by the state of Illinois, I would surely report them. I’d encourage any of you that know of unlawful practices to contact the proper authorities. Unless you don’t have actual proof and are just speculating.
        And while I’m here, why does Memphis keep popping up in an article about Chicago Animal Care and Control? Stick to the topic at hand.

      • Chris_B

         /  March 10, 2015

        “I do not know about you, but if I knew of an area rescue that was improperly and unlawfully practicing euthanasia by the state of Illinois, I would surely report them. I’d encourage any of you that know of unlawful practices to contact the proper authorities. Unless you don’t have actual proof and are just speculating.”

        Have you scanned this blog? It is about shelter, rescue, government abuse et….. and every fourth article or so is about improper killing. Unless Illinois is not part of the US I imagine you can draw some conclusions that there are plenty of problems there waiting to be brought to light. And who do you contact? The city and state. Time and again if they can hide behind some poor laws they will and if not they try to cover it up and if that doesn’t work they self investigate and find nothing wrong and see how that flies. Every once in a while the abuses are so bad the uncaring public turns out with pitchforks and they call the state for protection or they actually suspend or fire someone.

        I think Memphis pops up because it is the poster child of a bad shelter that says they will do what they want because they don’t have enough citizens with pitchforks.

        Summary, it has to be A LAW ON THE BOOKS first or it will be abused and then you can follow the money.

  4. Tara

     /  March 5, 2015

    Having been brought to this blog because it pertains to the animal control in my area I admittedly have not read previous posts. It is clear that there are problems with animal controls and shelters in some parts of the country, as addressed by several of the comments above, but taken in context, it is clear Tina’s comments were directed at the above posts pertaining to Chicago Animal Care and Control.
    I am also a licensed to euthanize in the state of Illinois. As such, I have met many other licensed individuals and can say that not one has taken the task lightly. This is, however, simply one person’s experience.
    To address the comment of microchipping, which seems to be a sticking point for many; the cost Tina mentioned is likely the cost in Chicago. Likely this is not the same everywhere. Perhaps we are jumping the gun a bit to attack this comment.

    Kate H: One comment you made particularly stuck with me. ” Any place that takes in domesticated animals, from pocket pets, cats, dogs, birds in the pet trade, on through farm animals, whether the word Animal is followed by Care, Control, Services, (Im)Pound, Shelter, Humane Society, Protective League, Rescue, or Sanctuary or any combination of same, that doesn’t allow the public to see all the animals they are holding, no matter what the reason (those being so numerous and often so ridiculous I don’t have space to list), doesn’t give a crap about returning those animals to their owner and often give even less of a crap about wanting to do the work required to allow anyone else to provide a home either. This blog certainly isn’t the only place you could EASILY find proof of these facts.” There are many valid reasons why ALL animals in a shelter. Some animals are new to the facility, ill, in isolation, or scared. These animals must be kept in a separate area from the rest of the animals in the facility. This is both for their emotional and physical health as well as the emotional and physical health of the rest of the animals in the facility. In some areas there are laws overseeing the isolation of ill animals from the public and other animals in the facilities.

    I have read this article and the comments over and over and I can’t seem to find the one thing I am looking for: a suggestion for a solution (which I’m pretty sure is what was meant by Tina when she mentioned constant banter and being a part of the solution, for those of you who missed that).

    Reply
    • KateH

       /  March 6, 2015

      I do understand that isolation wards are vital to doing a good job sheltering animals, and that it would be counterproductive to let everyone in just to browse the stock, so to speak. However, there is no excuse for the staff that is supposed to care for those isolated animals to not take a couple pictures of every animal (even, and especially is they are sick, and/or wounded) and make them available for view by people who come in looking for their lost pet. Germs can’t travel through the ether, so sending pics to a computer won’t compromise anything.

      The is always a way to solve a problem, but if all that the shelter staff does is say “We can’t, because…” and use old excuses instead of trying to find simple solutions, I’ll say it again, they are part of the problem.

      Reply
      • Tina

         /  March 9, 2015

        ” Germs can’t travel through the ether, so sending pics to a computer won’t compromise anything.”
        What about the volunteer that has to go into the isolation ward to take pictures? What if that volunteer has not been trained properly and pets one cat trying to get a better picture and then goes cage by cage doing the same? What then of spreading germs?

      • KateH

         /  March 10, 2015

        Tina, you just make excuses after excuses after excuses. Why the hell would you assume a volunteer would be going into an iso ward just to take pictures? Whoever is tasked with caring for the animals (one would hope they are getting cared for, but maybe that’s another possible excuse – ooo, sick animals, we can’t risk interacting with them at all, let’s just put ’em in a cage and leave them until the next animal needs to go in there, and we’ll put on our hazmat suits and swap out this new one for the other one, which could be dead for all we know, since we can’t risk having anyone go in to actually care for them on a twice a day basis), can damn well take a camera in with them and take the freaking pictures!!!!! Can you even think your way out of a box, for dog’s sake?!

  5. Karen Lewandowski

     /  March 6, 2015

    The city is now in direct violation of federal minimum mandated hold times under the USDA APHIS/AWA. for dogs and cats.

    To clarify according to the USDA APHIS/AWA blue book, (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Animal%20Care%20Blue%20Book%20-%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf) it clearly states:
    “§ 2.101 – Holding period. (a) Any live dog or cat acquired by a dealer or exhibitor shall be held by him or her, under his or her supervision and control, for a period of not less than 5 full days, not including the day of acquisition, after acquiring the animal, excluding time in transit”
    Further: “Federal oversight is necessary to ensure that AWA regulations are consistently applied across all States.”
    The provisions of this paragraph apply to
    1. Each pound or shelter owned and operated by a state, county or city;

    There are ways to force the city to be complaint with federal laws and regulations that protect the animals.

    Reply
    • Susan

       /  March 17, 2015

      Karen you did not read the entire statute. I spent a considerable amount of time recently tracking down a USDA employee to interpret this very thing. It applies only to live animals that are to be sold eg to research facilities. It does not apply to animals that are going to be killed, adopted, rescued or returned to their owners.

      Kinda backassward, no?

      Reply
  6. ares1942

     /  March 6, 2015

    As almost all readers of this blog already know, a perfectly good way of HOW to make changes already exists, and has existed for years. It is called the No Kill Equation, there is a link to it on this page’s Resources list. This Tina person should look it up – she might learn a whole lot. Though whether it will benefit anybody who defends killing and bad, regressive practices by animal controls and shelters, is another question.

    Reply
  7. I currently have 7 pets. I’m gonna need a bigger cupholder.

    As for solutions, how about staff doing their jobs and actually sheltering animals from harm? If they don’t know how to do their jobs, start here: http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/shelter-reform/no-kill-equation/

    Reply
  8. Tara

     /  March 6, 2015

    I have read the ideas surrounding the No-Kill model many times before. It is certainly something that cannot happen overnight. Perhaps you are unaware of the CACC Transfer Team that works with other rescues and shelters to network at getting cats out of animal control quickly, the volunteers that do adoptions on their own time, adoption events at off site locations that are also volunteer run, the many low cost services that CACC offers to the public, or the very low euthanasia rate CACC has for cats considering they are an open-access facility.
    I am not saying this policy is without flaw, but before attacking it with all our energy perhaps we should delve a bit deeper and gather all the information we can. Not all facilities are the same.

    Reply
    • Tara, the point is that if my cat were lost, I would want every opportunity to get him back to me. A chip is helpful, but it’s not a guarantee as we all know. If a shelter takes my cat and holds him for three days, works to match him to their lost listings, posts his photo on their social media, PF, and (hopefully) local lost and found pages, I have a much better chance of getting him back.

      To do less (adopt him out immediately to the first yahoo through the door with the fee, kill him, stick him in a cage without a second thought that he might belong to someone frantically searching for him) is cruel – to both the cat and the owner. EVERY stray animal that comes through the door of ANY shelter must be immediately assumed to be an owned and wanted pet with someone searching for them. And they should be treated as such.

      RTO’s may take a little more work, but they’re worth it.

      Reply
      • Kimberly Sarcinello

         /  March 9, 2015

        mikken: WELL SAID. Especially the parts after “To do anything less…”
        YES, to do anything less than the attempt to RTO is UNACCEPTABLE.
        And to the “shelters” who claim they lack the staff to do everything possible to RTO….
        that’s a total cop-out and a LAME EXCUSE. That’s a job that could be done by VOLUNTEERS. (ie: phone calls or research.) Like many have said, shelters need to start SHELTERING & providing a safe-haven until EVERY EFFORT has been made towards RTO, or rehoming, or transfer to a reputable rescue. THAT is the essence, and a KEY ELEMENT of the no-kill equation. I hate the ones who say it isn’t possible, because IT IS possible. Too many of the people who say it ISN’T possible are the ones who know the least about it. No kill is NOT synonymous with no euthanasia. Suffering animals are euthanized. Adoptable animals are KILLED.

    • sarahjaneb

       /  March 6, 2015

      “I have read the ideas surrounding the No-Kill model many times before. It is certainly something that cannot happen overnight. ”

      Well, according to Nathan Winograd’s account of his first days at Tompkins County SPCA, it is indeed something that can happen overnight. In any case, if you’re aiming for No Kill, then every change you make should be a step in that direction. A zero day stray hold is a step away from No Kill.

      “…before attacking it with all our energy perhaps we should delve a bit deeper and gather all the information we can.”

      There is no information we can possibly gather that can make a zero day stray hold ok.

      Reply
      • Tina

         /  March 9, 2015

        Kimberly, maybe you are speaking of shelters and not animal control facilities. What is animal control going to do if they have 100 cages full of healthy and adoptable animals but they have another 35 walking through the door that they are required to take because they are open access and they are required to take every animal that walks in their door? And what if the shelters and rescues that work tirelessly with the animal control facility to transfer out as many cats as possible so they don’t have to make that difficult choice? What if all the rescues have a slow week for adoptions and they don’t have another foster home or a cage to speak of to add any more cats? What does that mean for the animal control facility? Chicago Animal Care and Control had a live release rate in February of more than 80%. For a municipal facility in a highly populated urban area, this is pretty amazing.

      • sarahjaneb

         /  March 9, 2015

        Why do you keep trying to make this distinction between “shelters” and “animal control facilities”? Any facility that takes in pets should be sheltering them, regardless of whether that facility is public or private. And there are in fact open-admission municipal shelters that have live release rates over 90%. 80% is better than most, but not “amazing,” and all of your “what-ifs” can be answered here. http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/shelter-reform/no-kill-equation/

  9. Wow…..zero days to find your cat? What if you work 12 hour shifts and can’t just walk off your job during the minimal hours that a shelter is open (you know, if you’re a nurse for instance and in the middle of a surgery that lasts 6-7 hours or so….do you really think everyone can just immediately head to the shelter to find the cat that slipped out the door as you were leaving to go to work?) It makes no sense…none at all.

    Reply
  10. “Second, the overuse of the terms “kill” and “murder” are more than frustrating from the standpoint of someone that is a licensed euthanasia technician.”

    If you kill a healthy/treatable individual, you are a MURDERER. Whether you’re a frustrated murderer or not, I dont give a sh*t…all that is relevant is if you’re killing healthy/treatable Souls, that you are a murderous piece of fecal matter. If the poison needle fits……..

    Reply
    • Tina

       /  March 9, 2015

      SiameseCatTwins4Ever, I can only speak to my experiences. Fortunately, I do not work for a municipal shelter that has to take every animal that walks in its doors. CatNap has the ability to say “no” to someone over the phone or someone that walks in our shelter looking to surrender an animal if we don’t have the space or if it isn’t a good fit for our facility. Where will this animal go when we have to say “no”? Because animal control has to make decisions based on space and not on whether it’s a good fit for their facility, they have to make more difficult decisions than a private facility does. The people behind the needle, and please don’t misunderstand me as I’m only speaking on behalf of the people that I know and work with and not other facilities, are doing the job they are paid to do. And let me tell you the outrage over animal control euthanizing (yes, euthanizing) a very ill animal gets just as much if not more heat from “armchair rescuers” that don’t get the distinction between healthy/treatable and unhealthy/untreatable. Maybe change needs to happen with respect for a more general definition of healthy/treatable.

      Reply
  11. “I can assure you that no one that goes through the classes and passes the test and takes the time to go get fingerprinted is someone that wants to “kill” more animals.”

    Actually they ARE someone who wants to kill animals. If they didnt want to kill healthy/treatable animals, THEY WOULDN’T KILL THEM. They dont have a gun to their heads. They have a choice. To kill or not to kill. The “to kill” choice is the wrong choice if the individual is healthy/treatable, and if YOUR booty was about to get a lethal injection, you wouldnt dare apologize for your murderer, like you now are, for the murderers of equally as precious living souls as the rest of us.

    Just because you get desensitized to murder and are brainwashed into believing that it’s a ‘necessary evil’ doesn’t make it true. Wake up, Rip Van Winkle:
    The one test you SHOULD be forced to take, whether you like it or not, is THE MATH test

    http://nokilllearning.blogspot.com/?view=magazine#!/2015/02/pet-overpopulation-myth-meme-and.html

    Reply
    • Why Pet murderers who cowardly hide behind the “we have no choice….we must kill…..there are too many animals” bullsh*t should have to pass a mandatory math test.

      There are too many humans…Seven Billion…we “HAVE” to kill some….anyone want to volunteer their life? I didnt think so. Then dont volunteer anyone else’s life.

      Reply
    • Tina

       /  March 9, 2015

      Please don’t label me as a murderer. You do not know me nor do you know my experiences. I work at a private, “no-kill” facility that does not euthanize for space. Euthanize, not kill. Have there been animals that are unhealthy and despite numerous attempts to treat fail to improve? Of course. Have there been animals that are dangerous to our volunteers and staff that we have had to euthanize? Of course. Have there been animals that are a danger to the rest of the shelter population that we have had to euthanize? Of course. This does in no way, shape or form make me a murderer. Cute poster, too.

      Reply
      • sarahjaneb

         /  March 9, 2015

        Don’t worry, if you personally have never killed a healthy/treatable animal, you’re not a murderer. You just like making excuses for murderers.

  12. Politicians need to realize that getting elected doesn’t make them an expert in every area. They need to reach out to the professional in the field and get their input. Heck, if they want to do something why not an online posting of all strays coming into all the facilities for Cook County where owners can look for their lost animals in one location on line? Digital cameras are dirt cheap and almost all “shelters” take a picture. Just one more mouse click for an upload and I’m certain they could reunite many more animals. A very cost effective way to do business and a service to the taxpayers.

    Let’s take a better look at all the strays that come into CACC and their original locations where found. You will see a very significant “cluster effect”. I know, I run a transport group which has done over 200 cat transports out of CACC in under a year and have reviewed every single rescue post. Over half of these are classified as “strays” who have been the friendliest cats with the sweetest dispositions possible. It’s obvious they were someones companion animals at one time.

    Why not target these areas for a two prong blitz to resolve the problem?

    ONE: A media blitz on the importance of not allowing their cats to roam? Chicago’s ordinance specifically states;
    “7-12-030 Animals shall be restrained.
    Each owner shall keep and maintain his animal under restraint…”
    Not dog, ANIMAL!

    TWO: Most importantly, why not start targeting these same areas for low cost spay and neuter and deal with the problem before it begins? The Illinois Public Health and Safety Animal Population Control Act. (510 ILCS 92/),.commonly referred to as Anna’s Law, provides for low cost spay and neuter for qualifying participants. The “cluster effect” I spoke of predominantly lies in areas where individuals would be deemed as qualifying participants.

    It doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime as it is payed for entirely by the additional fee motorists pay for their pet friendly plates. Let’s start putting these funds to use. The co-pay is ridiculously low, $15. Why not absorb the co-pay fee and provide the service for free A few dollars spent wisely now can save the taxpayers much more down the road but more importantly, thousands of lives a year! A Kill Free Chicago is a possibility. Other large metropolitan areas have achieved it, can’t we?

    Isn’t Chicago supposed to be “The City that Works”?

    Reply
  13. I see Tina lives in the Chicago burbs of Rainbows, denials, and blinders and quite frankly discrimination against anyone not in her socio economic standing….

    Reply
    • Tina

       /  March 9, 2015

      Kittypurr (cute name), I live in a one bedroom apartment with my boyfriend and 2 cats. I’m a contracted employee that has to save every penny I earn above and beyond what I need to survive to pay my taxes. Please don’t pretend like you know my personal situation. Know this though…while I may be lucky to have the experience in sheltering at a private shelter (a pretty darn good one at that), I am by no means in a higher socio economic standing than any of you. I’d love to be living in the world of tulips and roses over here but that couldn’t be further from the truth.

      Reply
  14. Tara

     /  March 9, 2015

    I also live in the suburbs of Chicago. Let’s not generalize here. You must be familiar with our area. There are many suburbs that are not of high socio-economic standing.
    After reading all of the comments above it is clear that those of you who believe this is an evil and wrong thing will never be convinced that there are at least one or two positives to the decision. Those of us working in rescue in the Chicago area understand the positives.
    I am sorry for you that you cannot open your eyes enough to see that not everything is 100% black and white, good or bad.

    Reply
    • sarahjaneb

       /  March 9, 2015

      What exactly are you implying here – that animal rescue in Chicago is somehow different from anywhere else, or that those of us objecting to the zero days policy don’t know anything about animal rescue in general? Not that it matters, just wondering which wrong thing you’re trying to say. The fact is that we’re all aware that there’s no black and white here. At some point you do have to be able to adopt out unclaimed pets, and there is no exactly perfect holding period. However, zero days is nowhere near optimal. You may think that it’ll allow more cats to be moved out the front door faster, but that’s shortsighted. If you want more animals out of the shelters and in homes, you have to get as many animals back to their original owners as possible.

      Reply
    • KateH

       /  March 9, 2015

      “After reading all of the comments above it is clear that those of you who believe this is an evil and wrong thing will never be convinced that there are at least one or two positives to the decision. Those of us working in rescue in the Chicago area understand the positives.”

      So are you saying that those of us who believe giving cats ZERO days of hold time for an owner to find them is wrong, and that whatever positives YOU think there might be, have some special omniscience, that can only be achieved by virtue of ‘working in rescue in the Chicago area’ – such as the wind off the lake clears your sinuses better or something? You seem to have the sniff of derision against those who disagree with you working just fine. It must be those empty nasal passages….

      Reply
      • Tina

         /  March 15, 2015

        KateH, the zero days of hold time is more geared toward the transfer of animals to other Homeward Bound facilities that are trusted partners of Chicago Animal Care and Control. The RTO rate for cats is so incredibly low, that more or less days to make cats available for owners to reclaim will not change the overall RTO rate in any significant matter. Furthermore, all of the cats at CACC right this minute that are strays of unknown ownership have been there an average of 10.63 days each. There is no one at Chicago Animal Care and Control (and please understand that I am not speaking of any other facilities) is waiting behind the front desk for a cat to be turned over so they can immediately turn around and euthanize it. The zero day hold is so animals that have a less than 2% chance of being RTO have an opportunity to make it out of animal control and into an approved rescue group before being exposed to the environment of this facility. If all of you are really in the animal rescue world, you’d understand that eliminating the length of stay for these animals in this environment would ultimately be the best option for them.

  15. Tara

     /  March 9, 2015

    Yes, sarahjaneb, that is what I am saying. I am sure rescue is different in every area.

    At this specific animal control majority of the animals brought in without a microchip are NOT claimed by owners, even when the stray hold was 2 weeks.
    What did happen, however, was many of them contracted URI, Calicivirus, or were exposed to panleuk during this 2 weeks and before they were able to be transferred to another rescue or made available for adoption at CACC. Rescues were often transporting sick cats from animal control which strains resources and brings contaminates in to our foster homes and shelters.
    Without a 2 week hold a cat may be transferred before becoming ill. CACC does track where cats are transferred to and will provide that information to someone if they believe it is their cat. All cats are posted on Petharbor upon intake at CACC. Once transferred to another rescue, cats still need to be vetted as CACCdoes not provide that service for us. We are not placing cats for adoption immediately.

    Reply
    • Ah, apparently cats get sick after 2 weeks in the pound in Chicago, making rescue more difficult than in other areas where cats don’t get sick at the pound.

      Anyway, you seem to be implying that if an owner attempted to reclaim their lost cat, they’d be directed to the appropriate rescue group and that group would give them their cat back. Sounds nice, in theory. I’d like to see it in writing. Because in reality I’m guessing that scenario would get screwed up six ways from Sunday. Rescue groups are not public shelters that taxpayers pay to protect their lost pets.

      Reply
    • sarahjaneb

       /  March 9, 2015

      Low return rates for unchipped cats? Animals getting sick in the shelter when proper procedures aren’t followed? You think those things make Chicago special? That’s how it works pretty much anywhere else in the US.

      Is there a specific hold policy that ALL of the rescues receiving cats from CACC must follow? Because I’m not seeing that specified in the new ordinance, and it says specifically that a cat of unknown ownership may be immediately adopted. I don’t see how this is going to do anything to increase the already low return rate.

      Reply
  16. Tara

     /  March 9, 2015

    What form of writing would you like that in? Would email be sufficient, USPS? I can write a post on my shelter’s blog about our policies.
    I can assure you we are in shortage of cats needing to be in our shelter and would be more than happy to reunite a cat with its owner. I would also be willing to give you a list of other local rescues so you can ask what their policies are.

    Reply
    • And what about the cat adopted out directly from the shelter? Cat comes in, ten minutes later, adopted out (and yes, I’ve done it – I passed the guy who surrendered the cat on his way out while I was on my way in – that cat spent about six minutes in a cage, never scanned for a chip, nothing because we had no stray hold on cats, either). What about the cat’s owner who wants that cat back? Legally, the cat now belongs to the new adopter…who may not WANT to give the cat back.

      Is this acceptable to you?

      Reply
    • “What form of writing would you like that in? Would email be sufficient, USPS? I can write a post on my shelter’s blog about our policies.”

      City of Chicago ordinance would be the only acceptable form of writing in this case. A blog post promising you’ll give me back my lost cat won’t cut it. What if the owner comes to the rescue group and says his lost cat is indoor/outdoor and/or intact and/or the owner is a smoker or in some other way is deemed unacceptable by the rescue’s standards – still giving him his cat back? And will all rescues be charging exactly the same redemption fee as what the pound charges? How many days exactly will rescues be holding the cats? Just a few examples of why this all has to be in writing and in the city code. Otherwise, it will be up to each rescue’s discretion to return lost cats to their owners under whatever terms they deem appropriate. It’s the pound’s JOB to hold lost pets for X number of days, to charge a specific redemption fee, etc. That’s the law. Dogs receive this benefit. Cats should too.

      Reply
  17. Tara

     /  March 9, 2015

    Mikken, this may be hard for you to believe, but CACC has a vetting process for all cats being placed up for adoption that takes longer than 6 minutes, so that would not happen there.
    Perhaps one of the many people involved in the adoption of cats at CACC will be able to shed some light on their processes as I am only a partnering rescue.

    Reply
    • But the plan IS to make them immediately available for adoption. How can you reconcile the idea of a loved and wanted cat being adopted out to a stranger because there was no stray hold time?

      Reply
  18. Nelson's Mama

     /  March 9, 2015

    Haven’t commented in a while, but this makes me feel a bit less bad for all the kitties in my county that are out there on their own.

    We have no facilites or funding for cats at all here my Middle Tennessee County; a small group of in the trenches rescuers are doing TNR, rescue, re-homing and making-do as best we can – it’s often sad, heartbreaking and so frustrating. But, when I read stories like this one I think at least our cats have a fighting chance.

    Our Tennessee kitties don’t need a “shelter” like that.

    Reply
  19. Tina, If you have ever killed a healthy/treatable pet, YOU ARE A MURDERER. If you refuse to murder healthy/treatable pets, you are not a murderer. You and your conscience knows what the truth is, whatever it may be. I say again, if you have never murdered a healthy/treatable pet, you have no reason to take what I said personally, as my words are meant for murderers. Well…it ALSO applies to the cowards who sit idly by watching the murders, and doing nothing to stop them.

    So, let’s clear this up:

    1. If Tina, or anyone else, kills a healthy/treatable pet, they are a MURDERER.

    2. If Tina, or anyone else does NOT kill healthy/treatable pets, they are NOT murderers.

    3. If Tina or anyone else, sits idly by and watches a murder taking place and does/says nothing, while technically, not a murderer, they are aiding and abetting the murderers, and should be ashamed of themselves, since the murderers arent the ones who need your voice, the VICTIMS are the ones who need your voice.

    4. As far as “animals who are a danger to the rest of the shelter population”, I’d have to know the specifics.

    Do you consider a pet with the sniffles “dangerous”? (IF the answer is YES, would it be ok for someone to kill YOU next time YOU get the sniffles? Give me a “Yes” or “No” answer ONLY, please. If you dont murder pets because they have a cold, please disregard the “sniffles question”).

    Or, are you talking about a killer dog, that acts like he/her has rabies every time they see another pet? That is obviously a complicated and extremely different situation. (Though a pet free home (other than themselves) with very responsible owners and a fenced in yard may work nicely for them).

    This is why SHELTER PETS NEED RIGHTS: BECAUSE WITHOUT RIGHTS, A “SHELTER” OPERATOR CAN MURDER AN “ANIMAL WHO POSED A THREAT TO THE OTHER SHELTER ANIMALS”, EVEN IF THAT ANIMAL HAD THE SNIFFLES. In other words, the definition of what is/isn’t a “danger” is solely at the discretion of the shelter operator.

    As we have seen, this is a recipe for disaster, as PETA has used the “suffering” card as a license to kill over 33,000 pets since 2003 alone, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHOM WERE HEALTHY/ADOPTABLE.

    Just like WE wouldnt want someone to hold OUR lives in THEIR hands, we need to stop the hypocritical act of deciding the fate of OTHERS, as if we were God. You said “You dont know me”. No, I dont, and YOU dont know WHY a pet may act out of fear, and IF (not saying you do or dont) in such a situation, you call the pet a “danger” and murder them, you would be doing the opposite of what a SHELTER worker is supposed to do. Get to know the pet, and you may find that there is a “trigger” for their anxiety….if YOU or I were kidnapped off the streets and thrown into a cold cage with strangers walking past us, YOU and I would be AFRAID too, and You and I would act on the same “Fight or Flight” mechanism that exists in all living Souls. Does that mean that YOU or I should be murdered? No. (I’m not saying that YOU personally do this kind of thing, I’m simply making a point.)

    So, can you please tell us all, how you go about defining a pet as “dangerous” or not? I’m sure the many pet lovers here would LOVE to hear how you operate, and for the sake of pets in your shelter, I hope you work in a true shelter, which you indicated that you do, (yet you defended the murderers who “dont want to” murder pets, but do so anyway). Well, Al Qaida doesnt “want to” murder the innocent, so lets give ’em a break. I give not a single sh*t as to what someone “wants”. The bottom line is what they DO. And YOU DEFENDED those who DO MURDER animals.

    I am sick of hearing about shelter workers (especially in kill “shelters”) and their “poor me” pity party. (This doesn’t apply to pet loving shelter workers who merely vent their frustration and anger about how the shelter is run, or how they are treated by their employers. I am talking about the ones who murder pets and talk about their OWN “hardships” rather than the hardships murdered pets suffer.) The ones who get the shaft are the PETS, who’s lives hang in the balance. THEY are the homeless. THEY are the scared. THEY are the tired. THEY are the ones who can actually smell death in kill “shelters”. THEY are the ones in a strange place. THEY will live or die, depending on whether the shelter operator is a true, compassionate animal lover or not. Shelter workers who eek out a living, as many of us do…it’s called the 99%….hey, sorry things are tough…join the club…..could be worse…you could be a pet in a shelter.

    Glad you like the poster….make sure you READ and LEARN from it, as it wasnt posted for the purpose of being a screen saver, it was posted for the purpose of being a life saver.

    Do The Math.

    In closing, what I said in an earlier post still rings true:

    You erroneously said that “I can assure you that shelter workers dont want to kill pets (blah, yadda, blah blah yadda yadda, plus tax)” which in no way speaks on behalf of shelter pets, which is what you should be doing if you “care” so much. Instead you are a pet murderer’s apologist, defending the killer rather than the victim.

    My response: Actually they ARE someone who wants to kill animals. If they didnt want to kill healthy/treatable animals, THEY WOULDN’T KILL THEM. They dont have a gun to their heads. They have a choice. To kill or not to kill. The “to kill” choice is the wrong choice if the individual is healthy/treatable, and if YOUR booty was about to get a lethal injection, you wouldnt dare apologize for your murderer, like you now are, for the murderers of equally as precious living souls as the rest of us.

    Nothing more needs to be said.

    Reply
  20. mary ann maciejewski

     /  March 10, 2015

    Why not just ignore cats on the street. Leave well enough alone and they can a
    ll l live happily ever after and maybe someone will feed it sometime. Or they will eat a leftover from the garbage wh ich Chicago has enormously. Happy go lucky cats. As for killing whole litters of newborn puppies and their mother. Dont even get me started there

    Reply
  21. Tara

     /  March 10, 2015

    Do any of you even work for a shelter or rescue? And in what state? I work for a private shelter in Illinois as an Intake Manager and head of the medical department.

    Reply
    • KateH

       /  March 10, 2015

      Whoop-de-fucking-do concerning where you work. Whether any of us work or volunteer for a shelter or rescue (I volunteer with a shelter and a rescue and will soon be volunteering with a second rescue, and have been working with animals in various paid capacities for 40+ years), it does NOT mean that we can’t THINK and CARE about how animals are treated in shelters and rescues. And because we can and do give a shit about problems concerning animals that need assistance (a SAFE place to go when something bad happens – like getting lost, for whatever reason, their house burns down, their owner dies, whatever reason), we actually have a moral obligation to observe, speak up, and act to get others to think about, speak up, and act to change problems. It seems as if you think that because you work at a shelter, your job is to find excuses and deny problems, or deny problems and find excuses, whichever way you look at it, instead of being willing to listen and understand simple math. More people are interested in how shelters are run than there are paying jobs in shelters, therefore, from what you’re saying, only people who get paid for working in shelters should be allowed to discuss how shelters work. Right there, that shows you’re more concerned with guarding ‘your’ turf than improving how you see your job and how you do your job. That’s not helping animals anywhere near as much as you could be.

      Reply
    • sarahjaneb

       /  March 10, 2015

      I think a lot of the commenters here volunteer at shelters and/or rescues, and there are a few who work for shelters. But so what if we do or don’t? What does that change? Are you still trying to work that “you all just don’t understand” angle? Maybe you should stop assuming that if people disagree with you it’s because you have information that they don’t.

      Reply
    • Susan

       /  March 17, 2015

      I network and place with rescues animals from my County-run shelter. I live in North Carolina. For whatever it’s worth.

      Reply
  22. Tara

     /  March 10, 2015

    Actually, I am asking so I may better see your collective points of view. Perhaps I am not the one with the judgmental and assumptive attitude.

    Unlike every other poster on this page save Tina and John C, I have been attempting to discuss the issue, not call names and attack others. It is clear that no one else here is interested in any point of view but their own and anyone voicing a different one will be berated by closed minded, single point of view posters hiding behind screen names.

    Until you open you eyes and minds, and shut your mouths long enough to listen to the people around you change will never happen. All that will be done is more posts such as this one. Realize, the people you need to reach, the ones that you need to hear you do not have any interest in speaking to someone who insists on calling them a murderer or berating them. Learn the right way to speak to those who need to hear you. Learn to see their side whether you agree with it or not. That is how change happens.

    Reply
    • sarahjaneb

       /  March 10, 2015

      This is utter nonsense. There are people who tried to have a real discussion with you, but you won’t even address the most fundamental question. Mikken asked you at least twice whether or not you’re ok with animals being adopted out with no hold time, and you haven’t answered. You just keep pretending that that’s not going to happen, but the fact is that the way this ordinance is written, CACC and rescues that pull from CACC will be permitted to adopt out certain animals immediately. Do you think that’s ok?

      Reply
  23. Tara

     /  March 10, 2015

    It is not OK to adopt out animals immediately. Having said that, I know CACC’s vetting procedure and it will not happen that way. You do not accept that I know about this facility.

    Reply
    • sarahjaneb

       /  March 10, 2015

      You don’t know that they won’t change their vetting policy, and you’ve already stated that they do NOT provide vetting for animals transferred to a rescue. “Once transferred to another rescue, cats still need to be vetted as CACCdoes not provide that service for us. We are not placing cats for adoption immediately.” You may know that YOUR rescue isn’t adopting them out immediately, but you’ve been unable to provide any information about what other rescues are doing or will be doing. There are no guarantees that they won’t be placing cats for immediate adoption, nor is there any guarantee that cats transferred to rescue will be returned to their rightful owners even if they attempt to claim them before they’re adopted. This ordinance does allow cats to be placed for adoption immediately, and what’s allowed will happen. It may not happen every time, but it will happen.

      Reply
  24. Tara

     /  March 10, 2015

    Perhaps you should reread all my posts. I have tried to address that concern and offer that information.
    You prefer not to see it because you want me to be wrong.

    Reply
    • sarahjaneb

       /  March 10, 2015

      I’ve read all of your posts. You have indeed *tried* to address that concern, but you can’t, because you have no control over what other rescues do, and apparently aren’t even aware of what they do. “I would also be willing to give you a list of other local rescues so you can ask what their policies are.”

      If you think this ordinance won’t result in any animals being adopted out immediately or rescues not returning animals to their rightful owners, you are wrong. I don’t want you to be wrong about that because I don’t want those things to happen, but they will.

      Reply
  25. Nef05

     /  March 11, 2015

    This is sickening. All I see are excuses for a discriminatory practice of holding dogs for three days and holding cats for zero. That’s what it is, plain and simple. People who have cats are not being afforded the same protections, under the law, as people who have dogs. I don’t care what excuses you have for it, it is discrimination.

    For you two who are making every excuse under the sun for why it should be acceptable, stop. Just stop it. People who have cats don’t love their pets any less, or find them any more replaceable than people who have dogs. If dogs get three days, so should cats. Period!

    Reply

Speak!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: