NATHAN WINOGRD


The Butcher Who Cried ?Hoarder?
September 6, 2010



Ingrid Newkirk is the Butcher of Norfolk. The whereabouts of this little dog are unknown. If his fate is anything like 97% of the animals PETA seeks out every year, his lifeless body is in PETA?s freezer.

Attention: Dog and cat killers. Ingrid Newkirk of PETA would like to protect you, shield you, promote you, and defend you. There is only one criterion: call yourself an animal shelter. It doesn?t matter if you kill in the face of readily available lifesaving alternatives. Why should it? They do the same, every single day.

It doesn?t matter if you neglect and abuse them before you kill them. It doesn?t matter if you don?t feed them, it doesn?t matter if you allow puppies to drown in drains, and it doesn?t even matter if you beat them to death. PETA will champion your cause.

They will write letters to the editor for you. They will write Op Ed pieces for you. They will attack anyone who criticizes you. They will threaten lawsuits. Whatever it takes. Because as long as you are needlessly killing animals and as long as you are claiming you have no choice but to do so because of ?pet overpopulation,? you are providing Newkirk a valuable service. You are giving her political cover for her own dark impulses, which results in PETA seeking out and killing thousands of defenseless animals every year.

The latest salvo from the Butcher of Norfolk is an Op Ed piece in The Jersey Journal, in response to protests by animal lovers in that community, where she comes to the defense of the Liberty Humane Society?s (LHS) recent killing of animals. The Butcher cites Niki Dawson, the interim director at LHS, who stated that she arrived to find the shelter ?abysmal, horrendous, shocking, horrifying? It?s difficult to put into words what it?s like to see 99 dogs crammed into a facility built to comfortably house only 50. What it?s like to witness 274 cats in a building meant for only 80. Perhaps the best description is a word we in this field know only so well: HOARDER.?

Dawson should know; she was accused of the same thing when she was forced out of Camden County?s shelter as the director. In fact, her successors used the same tactic in order to justify the killing of hundreds of animals there after she left. Dawson had more than the claimed capacity at Camden County, and the ?excess? were simply executed. But the Dawson who was trying to save animals in Camden knew something that the one who was hired to kill them in Jersey City appears to have conveniently forgotten: it is not the number of animals in the facility per se, but the quality of their care.

The fact that a shelter was built for 50 dogs but has 99 means little if the dogs are kept clean, well-cared for, and socialized. And even if you were to accept her statement at face value, even if it was all true, LHS did not have to resort to the extreme, unethical, and cruel option of killing that the Butcher implies is the only logical recourse. They could have cleaned the cages they claimed were filthy. They could have socialized and fostered the animals they claimed were going crazy. They could have adopted out the ones they claimed were being warehoused. Dawson and I had an e-mail exchange over the numbers of animals at LHS. And in addition to sample flyers and promotions and a guide to increasing adoptions, I sent her the following on August 14:

While I see you have been reaching out to the rescue community, you need to reach out to the public. You are across the river from an adoption market of 8 million people, and Liberty?s surrounding suburbs are a good market for animals, and in that context, [finding homes for] less than 50 dogs and 200 cats is very doable. Keep in mind that in a community of 400,000 people, the [Nevada Humane Society is] adopting out 1,000 animals a month in Reno. The key is to reach out to the public in a positive, engaging way without the hoarder language you?ve been using to get the rescue community?s attention. There is no reason why you could not move the ?excess? animals quickly through a positive marketing and adoption promotion, utilizing adoption venues in the shelter, throughout the community, and even, if need be, across the river. I am enclosing a packet of information which I hope will help. It includes adoption promotion ideas, marketing ideas, and more. It will come in two separate e-mails because of the size and amount of information.

Also, keep in mind that shelters can comfortably exceed capacity of design, as long as they do it smartly. There are over 500 animals on any given day at the NHS though the facility was not ?built? to house that many but even veterinary critics who thought a shelter should not exceed design capacity changed their minds after visiting for themselves. As long as the animals are clean, well cared for, and socialized regularly, it?s not an issue. Most shelters, including all government agencies, have moved away from engineering standards toward performance standards. You can talk to Sue Cosby at the PSPCA how she comfortable housed animals in the garage, which was not built for animal holding, during a flu epidemic in the shelter so she did not have to kill. Again, the key is to use performance standards for animal well being.

You can literally see New York City, the largest City in the U.S. and a prime adoption market, from Liberty Park in Jersey City. That is eight million people on top of the 600,000 in Jersey City and Hudson County to appeal to for the adoption of 250 animals. They could have adopted all of them and more in a single weekend. But that is not what they chose to do. I went on Liberty Humane Society?s website today. They haven?t had an adoption promotion event since June, during the last administration. The next one is not until September 18, over one month after I suggested it. Feeble efforts lead to feeble results. But I guess it is just easier to scream ?hoarder,? blame the past administration, and kill the animals. Just like Dawson?s successors in Camden County did to her.

The irony, of course, is that had anyone been protesting the Camden massacre, the Butcher would have condemned Dawson as a hoarder and come to their defense. But these are just facts. And, like I said, the Butcher is not going to let them get in the way of a sensationalist story. So what does the Butcher do? Lies to the readers of The Jersey Journal by suggesting homes are not available; that there are ?far more dogs and cats than there are homes. Millions more.? To prove this, the Butcher of Norfolk does not offer statistics or data. She doesn?t even offer any analysis. How could she? It is, in fact, not true.

There are about 3,000,000 dogs and cats being killed because shelters do a lousy job at adoptions. In fact, some shelters don?t do any adoptions. Every year, however, over 21 million people are looking to bring home a new companion animal in the U.S., a number which is growing every year. Where will that new dog (or cat) come from? Some are already committed to adopting from shelters and they will do so. Others will go to a pet store, breeder, or other commercial-type source. But roughly 17 million people have not decided where their new pet will come from and studies show they have a positive view of shelters, are open to adopting from shelters, and can be convinced to do so. These are the people shelters need to reach to successfully adopt more animals to them. Even if roughly 80% of those people got a dog or cat from somewhere other than a shelter, we could still zero out the killing.

The problem is not a lack of homes, the problem is that the shelters the Butcher champions find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it. They simply refuse to innovate, modernize, and emulate the state-of-the-art sheltering protocols that progressive shelters have followed in order to revamp their adoption programs. Why? Because doing so takes dedication and effort, when it is so much easier to exploit the boogeyman of ?hoarding? and use it to attack those who want to end the killing.

Never mind that the average length of stay for animals at the open admission animal control shelter I ran in New York was only eight days and that no animal ever celebrated an anniversary there. Never mind that the average length of stay at the open admission No Kill Nevada Humane Society, which adopts out 10,000 a year, is 14 days, or about a vacation-level stay for a dog in a boarding kennel. Are we really going to accept that these animals would be better off dead?

But, once again, don?t worry about the facts. They just get in the way. After all, the Butcher says, ?PETA ran an ad pleading for homes for 28 cats. Three people responded.? First of all, this never happened. It is made up. If PETA is saying that despite $30,000,000 in revenues, millions of animal-loving members (who falsely believe that PETA is an animal rights organization), and a powerhouse media reach, they could not find homes for 28 cats, we have no choice but to dismiss such a claim as an absurdity and a lie. There are countless examples of shelters emptying their facilities by adoption when they reached out for help. And they do not have PETA?s media savvy, millions of supporters, and unlimited resources.

There is no doubt that the facility in Liberty is run down. There is no doubt that it is need of significant capitalization. The animal holding spaces are inadequate and the shelter is in disrepair. That is the byproduct of the ?catch and kill? paradigm that does not value animals. The No Kill movement has redefined not just sheltering, but the actual physical shelters themselves. The No Kill movement has created facilities that eliminate stainless steel cages and chain link kennels. These new shelters are the physical manifestation of the right to life and quality care ethic embodied in the No Kill philosophy.

Who really cares about the animals?

But despite the infrastructure challenges at LHS, they are not responsible for the recent spate of killings. Nor can the dirty shelter be blamed. All of that could have been addressed without the needle. It is a little something I like to call ?cleaning.? And a little something else I like to call ?adoption.? It means marketing your animals, not just once every three months as LHS is doing, but every weekend, every day, to the millions of people who surround you and love animals. You know, those Americans who spend $50 billion a year on their companion animals, who miss work when they get sick, who keep pictures of them in their wallets. The very people the Butcher accuses of being irresponsible and uncaring, even though they send her organization $30,000,000 a year in donations, falsely believing that she will use that money to save animals, not kill them herself and promote their killing by others.

Once again, it is so much easier to lie. To falsely claim, as the Butcher does, that most pounds in this country are good places, where animals receive loving care, and that the No Kill movement is a threat to these wonderful institutions. As the thousands of dedicated activists nationwide working to reform their community?s abusive, medieval shelters can attest, the reality is that ?shelters? across the countries are not just needlessly killing; they are neglecting and abusing animals before they put them to death.

We have inherited a paradigm of neglect and killing, of built in excuses that have allowed governments to underfund their shelters, that have allowed wealthy humane societies to kill animals while hoarding the millions of dollars given by animal lovers to care for the animals, that have allowed cities like Houston, the fourth largest in the U.S., to appoint people who score the lowest on city aptitude tests to the animal shelter and then allow them to keep working even when they beat dogs to death (a shelter PETA has openly defended). And in fact, the so-called ?professionals? who work there are not only lazy and inept, they are ignorant of basic protocols: of how to clean and disinfect, of how to keep animals moving efficiently through the system and into loving, new homes, of how to keep them healthy. Even if they did know, many of them wouldn?t care. But the reality is that they do not know, because teaching them and then holding them accountable to those protocols are not a priority for uncaring government bureaucrats and were never a priority for the large national organizations which are supposed to provide oversight, but do not. Instead, they just legitimize the poor care and killing, by blaming the ?irresponsible public? and ?pet overpopulation.?

And PETA never says a word. Never complains. Doesn?t hold them accountable. In fact, when they do comment, it is to defend these facilities. It is only when someone takes over that kind of shelter and tries to end the killing that the Butcher stands up and says, ?Look, the facility is dirty. No Kill is to blame.? Her conclusion: ?Municipalities need to stand firm.? They need to continue killing in the face of alternatives. They need to keep passing punitive laws that are not funded, that cause poor people to relinquish their animals, that cause killing to increase wherever they are passed. Because, in her warped, deluded, twisted way of thinking, the movement to end killing, to provide better care, to build more humane shelters, is the problem. And it is easy to see why she wants people to think so.

If the No Kill movement succeeds, and the killing of animals is no longer legitimized by blaming the public and overpopulation; if, in fact, it is no longer done, then her own killing of thousands of animals every year loses its political cover. It will be universally regarded as the needless slaughter it really is, and the sickening manifestation of a deeply disturbed individual. And how will she ever get away with it then?

http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index ... olicy_works_all_over.html



'No-kill' policy works all over: letter
Published: Friday, September 10, 2010, 6:01 AM
Letters to the Editor/The Jersey Journal

Journal file photoUtah's Best Friends Animal Society says "no kill" works in animal shelters nationwide.


Ingrid Newkirk's article conflating no-kill with hoarding is a tired recitation of PETA's long-standing opposition to progressive sheltering, as well as community-wide "No More Homeless Pets" movements that have brought municipal shelters and the rescue community together to save lives.


PETA's Orwellian doctrine that killing is kindness merely gives cover to regressive policies and practices that are part of the very forgettable and unfortunate past of animal sheltering. Ending the killing of homeless pets has nothing to do with magic, or hoarding, and everything to do with the systematic reversal of the decades-old acceptance of killing as a "necessary evil" and the complacent practices that it breeds.


In fact, the views of PETA simply are not part of the future of animal sheltering.
Ending the killing of homeless pets is a community undertaking that is not only doable, but is one that already has met with significant success. The entire state of New Hampshire is no-kill. Calgary, Alberta, a city only slightly smaller than Dallas, Texas, is no-kill. Reno, Nev., is no-kill, as are dozens of smaller communities across the country. In the State of Utah, shelter killing has been reduced by more than 40 percent through the implementation of no more homeless pets programs and policies, with about half a dozen individual Utah cities already in the no-kill column.


Even New York City is on a targeted track to become no-kill by 2015.


Rather than stand firm against the tide of the "No More Homeless Pets" movement, municipalities should explore progressive policies that involve the entire community to save lives by ending the needless killing of shelter animals.


FRANCIS BATTISTA
CO-FOUNDER
BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY
KANAB, UTAH




? 2010 NJ.com. All rights reserved.

Quote:

best point made on this entire thread.

If some of the effort that went into keeping this thread going went into keeping the shelter going, the animals would appreciate it.

Running a shelter is hard work. You have to take care of other people's problems. And you do it because it's not the animals' fault if their owner doesn't want them, didn't train them, wasn't able to care for them, etc, etc, etc.

If you care for the animals, show up at the shelter and lend a hand. Or work with the Board to raise some money, run those spay/neuter and adoption programs. Help build the kind of shelter you'd like to see.

I've known LHS volunteers for years, but never went myself until the recent crisis.

I did my first volunteer stint and loved it. I won't be quitting my day job to walk dogs, but I saw good people working hard to take good care of cats and dogs who need it. If you care about the animals, don't blow the smoke on JCList, just go to the Shelter and do the work.

You'll have my personal thanks - but you'll get more than that from the animals you help.

Okay, let's understand something here.

Ingrid Newkirk (PeTA founder) believes we should all be vegans. They kill 1000s of animals a year because they believe they're beyond saving. They do almost nothing for shelters. They to live to save every animal from pain from humans. They are uncompromising ideologues.

Nathan Winograd (vegan, and former prosecutor) thinks that Ingrid is a punk. In his world view, PeTA is just a well funded killing machine. Nathan's books are the driving force behind Pets Alive and all the asshats you've seen here lately. They live to force the idea that every municipal shelter can be No Kill. Many members also have a religious bent. They are uncompromising ideologues.

There's a war going on here, but the real stakeholders have never been here. Support your local shelter. Support your neighbors who volunteer their time and money. Everything else is up for grabs it seems.

Quote:

wow. so happy to read a rational missive from PETA. (I love them, but they often come off as shrill and extreme-even-for-animal-lovers.) if I can get a little anthropomorphic here, wouldn't we all wish for a short comfortable life over a drawn-out miserable one?

Hoarders hurt animals: Op-Ed

Sunday, September 05, 2010
The Jersey Journal
By INGRID E. NEWKIRK

Animal hoarding was a dirty secret until hoarders appeared on our TV screens and showed how they are compelled to collect so many dogs, cats or parrots that the animals end up in cages only inches bigger than their own bodies. For life.

Imagine what it must be like for these animals to be stuck in a see-through box, sitting in their own filth, unable to take a step, never comfortable, being yelled at to "be quiet" or being ignored because their captors are so accustomed to hearing them crying, whining and working away at the cage bars?

Now the cat's out of the bag, and perhaps more cats will be out of hoarders' hands.

But, like scary viruses, hoarders have morphed into something even more insidious. They are trying to take over our shelters.

One hundred years ago, New Yorkers stopped stray dogs from being drowned in the Hudson. Forty years ago, humane societies stopped municipalities from killing unwanted dogs and cats by using hot, unfiltered truck exhaust fumes, causing the animals to choke to death.

Today, while some primitive pounds remain, great strides in humane sheltering standards have been made. There are places where behaviorists work to reduce abandoned animals' separation anxiety, groomers cut away matted hair to make animals comfortable and adoptable and walkers are employed to ensure that no cage paralysis sets in. There are municipal shelters that cope with tens of thousands of animals a year yet still provide a comfortable, caring environment.

But "institutional hoarders" now threaten to turn back the clock on hard-won reforms by bullying authorities into adopting magical sounding "no kill" policies that do animals no favors. Inside such "hoarding facilities," many of which eventually end up in the news, raided by law enforcement, the dogs and cats, sick and healthy, old and young, face overcrowding and neglect that reduces them to withdrawn and pathetic wrecks.

In well-run shelters, managers know that you cannot store animals like oranges. Tough decisions must be made about who remains on the adoption floor and who goes to sleep forever, for, as long as people fail to spay and neuter, acquire and dispose of animals casually, and buy from breeders and pet shops instead of adopting, there will be far more dogs and cats than there are homes. Millions more.

Many hoarding facilities leave the dirty work to others, refusing to accept sick, aged, "unadoptable" animals. They reduce operational hours to prevent drop-offs and adopt animals into bad homes, all so as to avoid euthanasia. Crowding means that diseases flourish, causing misery and, often, ironically, mass destruction of all animals, even those who entered the facility in good health.

In New Jersey recently, a "no kill" group that had taken over one shelter left. Their successors described the conditions as "abysmal, horrendous, shocking, horrifying ?. It's difficult to put into words what it's like to see 99 dogs crammed into a facility built to comfortably house only 50. What it's like to witness 274 cats in a building meant for only 80. Perhaps the best description is a word we in this field know only so well: HOARDER.

"The facility is disgusting ?. Cats come in healthy, get sick and die. Kittens drop dead in their cages every day ?. Dogs live in cramped cages, spend 23 1/2 hours in cages where they can't stand up or turn around, can't stretch their limbs, where they can't get away from their own filth. Their noses are rubbed raw and bloody and many have split pads from getting their feet caught in the wire pop-up cages meant for cats. And this place calls itself a no-kill shelter."

Giving an animal a quiet, painless and peaceful death is a sad indictment of our throwaway society, but life in a cramped, filthy cage is not a "rescue."

Last month in Virginia, PETA ran an ad pleading for homes for 28 cats. Three people responded. In the same area, PETA has spayed or neutered more than 63,000 dogs and cats. Birth prevention never completely staunches the flow of unwanted animals, but "fix" one dog or cat and you save countless more animals from needing homes.

Municipalities need to stand firm. Time and money must go into mandatory spaying/neutering and guardianship education, not into warehousing animals. The "no kill" movement is harmful to humane sheltering.


Ingrid E. Newkirk is the president and founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 501 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510; www.PETA.org.

I'm glad that LHS filed the suit. Folks using threats, violence, and harrassment lose all creditability.

Jersey City animal shelter files harassment, defamation suit against Facebook critics

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... y_animal_shelter_fil.html

Death threats against LHS workers reported to police
Sep 07, 2010 The Hudson Reporter

JERSEY CITY ? Liberty Humane Society Board member John Hanussak has filed a report with the Jersey City Police Department after a person posting to the ?Liberty Humane Society Uncensored? fan page on Facebook urged opponents of the shelter?s euthanasia policy to take the fight over killing animals to the board members? homes and offices, NJ.com reported.

?Wherever you go we will find you!! You are the hunted now. We played nice and you wanted to play hard. Now We Will Hunt You!,? the post said.

The item has since been removed and replaced with a comment in which the author says he does not condone violence.

The matter is under investigation, Police Lt. Edgar Martinez said.

Now that is funny danpulis, a message attacking people for not knowing the facts that then offers none. It amazes me how many like you seem to think bullying, insulting, and lying are going to get you what you want when you can't even articulate what it is.

My favorite shift in logic is how all of you LHSU people went from screaming that LHS wasn't allowing rescues to you were the ones who brought the rescues in once their absence was proven a lie. So they were coming in all that time AND you all arranged them BUT you never saw them? Seriously, do they teach basic debate and critical thinking skills in school anymore?

LHSUncensored -

When you freely provide as much false and misleading information as you can, ignore questions that you can't answer, and run a site that has supported the most abusive bullying I have seen since grade school, why should I, or anyone for that matter, feel obliged to answer your questions? Doing so would imply that I assume the question to be based on fact when so much of what you have said, done and supported is not.

You cried "wolf" too many times.

Actually the volunteers that were banned accounted for many of the rescued animals. in fact one guy paid to have dogs rescued this i know to be a fact. they took like 10 dogs already maybe more. i personally will not give anything to lhs ever again in fact ive made a donation to a rescue that helped take some of the animals instead. if lhs cannot even provide basic information that the public asked for then why would I ever think that my money has been appropriated to the right place.

as for many of the posts on this site regarding lhs i think its safe to say that the people who are posting in support of lhs have no facts. not a single person has come forward with any hard evidence as far as disputing facts. i just see people here and there trying to sound like they know something.

Quote:

All I will address is the notion that some of the dogs on the list that were given credit to Niki and I were actually arranged by volunteers and staff - your assertion has no merit especially when at least TWO of the dogs noted as such went to a personal friend of mine. Not sure where you got your information from, but it's incorrect.

And I have thanked and will continue to thank all of the volunteers who have contributed to the effort. Some of them have really stepped up.

Quote:


david, why don't you talk to the gentleman who was fighting for justice, the black lab that was killed after disregarding his request for taking the dog. this man has taken dogs from LHS in the past to train and/or rehabilitate them...why wasn't he allowed to take this one?

you can also talk to the couple who was fighting for fuller, the dog that was deemed 'food aggressive' due to several repeated re-evaluations in one day. they witnessed his eval, and still wanted to adopt fuller and were more than willing to put time and training into him. this couple, in fact, did NOT back down the way LHS says. rather, they contacted LHS repeatedly about taking the dog until LHS basically told them "sorry, we will not be adopting him out, we killed him last night".

foxy also had an adopter willing to take her. what are your excuses for these dogs?

the above post was in response to the earlier post by itsaurora.

actually, the LHS facebook page wrote the following:

"Liberty Humane Society Thank you to Niki and Aurora who have worked so hard at finding rescues to take bully breeds, especially those with behavioral issues. This has been a tremendous undertaking and they've worked really hard night and day pitching to various groups to get help. Most rescues won't take bully breeds at all - and yet they've gotten 60 dogs out in the past few weeks. Great job!
August 20 at 11:21am ? "

the list that they posted, however, only listed 43 dogs.

but, only 41 dogs went to out to rescue, and the list provided by LHS included dogs that were previously rescued (not during this crisis), dogs that went to different rescues than were written on the list, and a dog with the wrong name.

to top it off, 15 (16 counting the latest) of the rescues were reached out to and coordinated by volunteers and staff members. not by niki and aurora, although all credit was given to them.

volunteers and staff were never thanked...instead some were banned and fired.

please read the following article:

The Butcher Who Cried "Hoarder"
by Nathan Winograd

Diana,

Yes, but the HCDSPCA standards for adopt-ability were miles below the LHS standard. At HCDSPCA they poked dogs in a cage with a stick, and if the dog reacted aggressively it was not considered adoptable. No such thing is happening at LHS. You are comparing apples and oranges.

And I am sorry if "passionate" and "diligent" become "too long" when someone disagrees with you.

David

David,
The abridged version would have been nice. In any case I still believe it was not justified especially in the case of Beaumont who was a special needs dog and as I stated before in the case of the HCSPCA many of those dogs were deemed unadoptable but we were successful in finding homes for all of them with no incidents. The End.
Diana

Diana -

I understand that you see my views as one-sided, but I do not. I have been aware going back for almost a year now of the problems at LHS and have fought to change them. The fact is that under the last administration MORE animals died of avoidable illness and disease in any same given period of time as animals have been euthanized since the new board took over, and nowhere near as many animals were adopted, fostered, or sent to reputable rescues in the same time period as under the new management.

I have been called a "moral relativist" for taking a position that saving some lives is better than saving no lives, and that would be true if the goal wasn't to save all lives - but it is. The last administration proved beyond a doubt that the cries from LHSU and PA that "the way you become no kill is to just stop killing" is untrue.

If one were to believe the things that these organizations have said then yes, what was happening at LHS would be inhuman - but I have seen with my own eyes that they are simply not true. No animals have been euthanized unless they were both vicious AND had no one capable of taking them. Even then, every effort was made. All of this has been done under a great challenge, namely that the previous administration severely damaged the shelter's relationships with advocacy groups and rescue groups and that trust had to be rebuilt all while keeping the shelter from being taken over by a government entity and turned into a pound. Attempts to portray the current administration as the bad guys are contradicted by the very fact that the out-of-state group most loudly making that claim became involved under the new administration's watch. If the previous shelter administration was No Kill, and PA is the No Kill leader it claims to be, where was it during the eight months that LHS was claiming no kill and becoming horribly overcrowded? They were nowhere because that administration did nothing to send out a call for help from rescues and sanctuaries, the NEW ONE did. The previous ED may have meant well (I for one am not convinced of that, but many people whose opinions I respect are), but she made an unholy mess and hid it from those who could best help with it.

Pets Alive is a sanctuary, it has no contracts that require it to take whatever comes to their door from a municipality and they don't. For all their talk of how easy it is, remember that they refused to take animals unless LHS, without having even met with them or seen that they could keep their word on anything, go no kill immediately. If LHS were really, as PA has claimed, "looking for excuses to kill dogs for space" then wouldn't they have then killed those aggressive dogs and blamed PA? What actually happened to all three dogs is that they went to 11th Hour over a week later. Yes, over a week. That is because NO animal is being euthanised unless it is necessary. The fact that the numbers were so high at the beginning were a testament to the number of violently vicious animals that the previous Administration had kept hidden, and the number that had become vicious from being put in containers way too small for them because the larger runs were being used to hide dangerous animals.

LHS is a shelter with municipal contracts. With the help of the interim Board, the new Board members are moving the shelter rapidly in the direction of being able to function as a municipal shelter while following no kill protocols. I know that PA has a lot of people hopped up that this is easy to do, but it is not. The reality is much more complex, and the actions that the current Board have taken is why LHS will not become another HCDSPCA. Without the actions that they have taken, starting from the moment the previous Board resigned until now, it already would be. Preventing that is the side that HAA took - the same side that it has always taken.

I really wish I could convince people of the degree to which some are out-and-out lying to them, and encouraging others towards violence, but it is clear to me now that the work HAA did to shut down the HCDSPCA has not earned it any trust with those who don't know us, or even with some who do. That people are so willing to believe a stranger from another state and staff and volunteers brought in by the very same people who made this mess over me simply because they label themselves "no kill" is beyond my control. Labels are just that, labels. The reality is the live release rate being accomplished at the shelter today is significantly better than the live release rate accomplished under the previous administration's supposed "No Kill" policies. THAT should be EVERYONE'S primary concern. If each of the people who showed up for the candlelight vigil yesterday had spent the last five weeks finding ONE expert in aggression towards humans to take ONE animal each, NO animals would have been euthanised due to aggression. I just would hope that none of them would turn to the out of state organization that has fomented so much of this, since I have the email they sent to an HAA Board Member WEEKS AGO that they would NOT take any Pit Bulls that were human aggressive.

To be perfectly clear, from the viewpoint of how many animals are surviving the shelter and being placed, LHS is more of a No Kill shelter now than it was when the previous administration ran things under the claim of being no kill. Just look at the numbers. You can get them from the city and from the shelter.

If you are concerned about the programs and procedures you have mentioned, I suggest taking a look on the LHS Website page that lists what animals have been sent where, then CALL those organizations, ask them what they think of the effort being put forth by LHS and how it compares to their experience dealing with LHS when it claimed to be no kill. Then ask yourself one more question - if LHS's current behavior is so egregious than why was an organization with a national pulpit not able to get one single rescue group in New Jersey to endorse their actions?

Two groups have come together to tell lies and viciously attack anyone who tries to calm things down, move things in the right direction, or just express a different opinion on the difficulty of the task - be it HAA, the new LHS Full Board Members, or anyone who dares to ask questions of them. Even without my number being published I have received threats and hate mail through my FB page and on the LHSU page. In that environment, anyone is going to appear to be "one sided" by those who accept these false portrayals.

The truth is much more complicated. Some of the people whom I have been accused of being "mouthpieces" for or "pimping" for I have had strong, often unpleasant arguments with over what LHS needs to do - arguements that so far, I am glad to say, have been resolved in the animal's favor. People need to stop blindly believing what they hear from LHSU, PA, or what was HAA for that matter. LHS has been good enough to publish the names of the rescues they have been working with. ASK THE RESCUE GROUPS. I think you will find that the truth, from those who are actually coming in from the outside to help do the work, is much better than what has been painted by LHSU and PA.

- David

David,
Although I was grateful for your passionate and diligent efforts in the closing of the SPCA I was disappointed in your one sided views in regards to LHS. Yes there was an overcrowding situation there that desperately needed to be addressed but the outcome of that should not have been to euthanize.
I for one as an SPCA volunteer was fearful of some of the dogs there and had doubts if they could be rehabilitated and adopted. But I found that the dogs that I deemed questionable (Vinny a.k.a. Iceberg, Cassey a.k.a. Sasha, Dodger, Tank, Stella a.k.a. Misty, Nigel a.k.a. Max...etc) were all adopted in forever homes and have not had any issues with aggression.
I do not condone death threats of any kind and I was shocked and disgusted to hear that the board members had been threatened. It's awful that this is happening because it diverts the attention of the issues that need to be addressed and labels all No Kill individuals as mentally deranged.
My only hope is that LHS will begin to endorse and embrace programs and procedures to become a no kill shelter and in by doing so they can regain the public's trust.
Diana

Death threats from 'no-kill' animal activists are keeping Liberty Humane Society's board members on edge and fearful

Friday, September 03, 2010
By MELISSA HAYES
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Things are getting uglier at the Liberty Humane Society animal shelter in Jersey City.

First, there was the mass resignation of the former board in July. Then a director who championed a no-kill policy was dismissed.

Now current board members, who say they have no choice but to euthanize some animals, are receiving death threats.

A week ago, board members of the animal shelter say they started receiving alarming phone calls and spotting threats posted on Facebook, the social networking site.

Board member John Hanussak filed a report with the Jersey City Police Department Tuesday after a person posting to the "Liberty Humane Society Uncensored" fan page on Facebook urged others to take the fight over killing animals to board members' homes and offices.

"Wherever you go we will find you!! You are the hunted now. We played nice and you wanted to play hard. Now We Will Hunt You!," the post said.

The item has since been removed and the author posted a new comment saying he does not condone violence.

The matter is under investigation, Police Lt. Edgar Martinez said.

Hanussak said his phone has been ringing in the middle of the night since a New York-based animal sanctuary, Pets Alive, posted his home number on its website.

"This is really out of hand. This is way above and beyond 'What are you doing with the animals?'" he said. "They're putting our lives at risk and I'm really afraid for my family."

Matt DeAngelis, president of Pets Alive, doesn't apologize for publishing the phone numbers.

"It's unfortunate that people are allegedly making threats, but this is a very emotional issue," he said. "They (board members) do condone violence against the dogs and cats we're trying to protect. (But) I don't think fighting violence with violence is the answer."

Some shelter volunteers and others have accused the board and new management that took over in mid-July of killing too many animals.

The current board claims that the former director, Joanna Hopkinson, had allowed the shelter to become grossly overpopulated.

Since they took over, the shelter has euthanized 26 dogs the staff classified as too dangerous to adopt, Interim Executive Director Niki Dawson said yesterday.

In addition, 110 animals were sent to 31 rescue groups, including 48 dogs; 40 dogs and 84 cats have been adopted, and 140 dogs and cats have been placed in foster homes since July 15, she said.

Board member Althea Bernheim said even if the people who posted the threats aren't serious, others have responded that they are willing to protest outside board members' homes and harm them.

"They've called for the board members' euthanization," she said. "It's death threats andwe're really upset."

Up for adoption



Kiedes, a female grey tabby cat, has been at Liberty Humane Society in Jersey City since July 23.

more here....
http://photos.nj.com/jersey-journal/2010/09/rescue_dogjpg_1.html

Vigil outside Jersey City animal shelter is led by 'no kill' activist from New York demanding it end all euthanasia

Friday, September 03, 2010
Jersey Journal

A gathering of concerned citizens and activists populated the sidewalks in front of the Liberty Humane Society shelter last night to protest its use of euthanasia and later held a candlelight vigil for the animals that have been put down.

"If there is another alternative to killing them, do it, period. It's about right and wrong," said Matt DeAngelis, the leader of last night's protest and president of Pets Alive, a nonprofit and no-kill shelter in Middletown, N.Y. "This is wrong.

"We have no stake in the Liberty Humane Center," DeAngelis added. "All we want to do is sit down with them and see a plan of action."

About 30 protesters held signs with pictures of dogs from the shelter that have been recently euthanized.

Pets Alive alleges that the Liberty Humane Society would rather kill animals than go through the effort to have them adopted.

Liberty Humane is not allowing other shelters to take their dogs, activist Joe Paladino said while holding a sign aloft to passing traffic.

Board member Althea Bernheim defended the shelter's record in getting animals adopted in a phone interview last night.

"The idea that we kill them (the animals) for fun is ludicrous. Matt DeAngelis is obviously not interested in the facts," Bernheim said.

DeAngelis said last night he may file a lawsuit against Liberty Humane if the shelter doesn't change its direction.

BRETT WILSHE

Alan -

To my knowledge LHS is not engaging with LHS Uncensored or Pets Alive at all, other than a very early attempt to work with Pets Alive.

HAA no longer exists (watch now for the celebratory posts from these jackasses who have no idea what HAA even was). We are now working sometimes together and as individuals on our own animal advocacy projects. If you know how I can change my user name without losing my history please let me know. I do not want to create a new account that makes me appear as either a newbie or a sock puppet.

As for the terroristic question, you need to look at the history of stirring the pot, which is tricky since they have started deleting some of the most egregious "LHS Uncensored" posts. At one point an apparent sock puppet who had made no mention of the shelter was called a "murderer" by one of P.A.'s Co-Executive Directors, immediately after which the other Co-ED intimated (incorrectly) that it was me. My first and I had hoped only post to LHSU was to say it was not. In turn I got an FB message stating that they knew that but would continue to say so anyway. The FB page and the P.A. Blog have repeatedly called people I know and care for "murderers" and "sociopaths.", they have posted the same people's home phone numbers while commenting that they will "RIP". Children cannot answer the phone anymore because of what is screamed at them about their parents.

Intentionally or not, an atmosphere where an unbalanced person could easily believe that violence is called for has been created, with a National Organization by its own admittance distributing this info to 3.5 million people. Just yesterday they called out myself, my sister and our other ex Board member by name, knowing we had dissolved the organization, to say we could be "On the Bus or UNDER IT." I have received harassing "Friend Request" notes at my personal FB Wall and been called horrible things on the LHSU Page by people hiding behind fake names. And I am far from alone in this treatment.

When these people try to cross over onto JC List after making both veiled and direct threats against my friends and a family member you can be sure that I will respond strongly. It is important to people's safety that the horrific and false claims they are making in their own circle not spread wider than it has, as people are being directly threatened as a result. Ignoring them does not work. I did that for nearly two days when the national group posted the "under the bus" comment as a wall post calling us out, not as a comment on something someone else had said. These are not rational people.

Oh, and to Sledgehammers question it was a typo - one that I have made in a few places. Subconscious result of being a dog owner I suppose. I meant animals.

Quote: I've seen some of the Liberty Humane Uncensored Facebook comments you're referring to... but, I think "terroristic in nature" is overstating it. They are, however, devout if not delusional in the sincerity of their cause. (I.e., "Change comes hard. This is a revolution. A movement. A philisophical disagreement that costs the lives of 5 million shelter animals a year. They need to get on the bus or get out of the way.") Honestly, David, I know I've been a bit tough on you because I thought you were being too pushy or prickly on JC List and/ or Facebook... but, this discussion has risen to a whole new level of absurdity. You, I, and others had honest disagreements, etc., but we tried to preserve a level of decorum but did not always succeed. Now... both sides (LHS & HAA v. LHS Uncensored & Pets Alive) seem to be fighting a scorched-earth war of attrition. It's so ugly, it's disgusting. As an institution, don't LHS and HAA see that they're making this worse by engaging in this discussion? It is not difficult to turn off Facebook comments and stay away from JCList. I simply do not understand why this fight continues from the institution's side. Are you able to explain this with any greater detail? I simply do not understand why LHS and HAA continue bickering with their critics.

Simple error I'd assume. Good news though, another rescue just commited to taking two more dogs from LHS!

Quote:

According to HAA in their post they stated that 60 dogs has been placed with rescues, etc. So why did HAA make such a claim in their post if it is not true?

Quote:

stupidseven -

The agenda of PA and LHS Uncensored is precisely that. They believe a philosophy trumps reality in all circumstances. There standard answer to "how do you become no kill" is "simple. you stop killing animals." Well, it is not that simple. That is exactly what the previous administration did, but they did it without any shelter or foster outreach, zero fund-raising, no administrative plan, and no preparation of the space DESPITE having held a conference with several organizations, HAA included, that offered to provide precisely that help. That is why the current Board has referred to the problems at the shelter as the result of a "botched attempt at no kill." Despite LHSU's attempts to spin that as an attack on the No Kill philosophy it is clear to anyone with basic reading capabilities that it is no such thing. They did not claim that No Kill was a failure, they claimed, in very clear words, that the ATTEMPT was botched.

However, botched or not, the previous management refused to euthanize, so they are OK in LHSU's book, while the current admin does, so they are "pure evil" (from the PA website). That the number of animals dropping dead from treatable illnesses was exponentially higher than the current euthanasia rate, and that the cause of these illnesses was the direct result of instituting no kill without a plan is completely beside the point to these people.