First off I would like to again acknowledge the Blade's role in pushing for the many changes we have seen at the Lucas County Dog Pound over the past few years. Certainly without your willingness to bring the problems to the public's attention, it could very well be business as usual at our pound. I also appreciate the ongoing updates on dogs available for adoption, euthanized, and transferred to the TAHS. I'm certain that feature helps get dogs adopted.
That said I cannot understand the point of or the need for the negatively slanted front page story on April 24, 2011. From the very headline it is clear what the writer is going for: "EUTHANIZATIONS UP 30%!" Since adoptions are also up 40% that could have just as easily been the headline but that wouldn't have set the tone that continues throughout the entire article.
Not only do I believe you have misrepresented the facts, there is also one huge error or omission that skews the entire story. You are including pitbulls as "adoptable" dogs. To quote:
"Many adoptable dogs were killed simply because the pound didn’t have enough room to keep them alive until homes were found for them." At this time, and presumably until Ohio "vicious dog" laws are changed, pitbulls are NOT offered for direct adoption by the dog pound. At no time is that fact mentioned in this story at all. If anyone could wade through what is said, one might wonder why these dogs are being put down because of space limits when at the same time, John Dinon of Toledo Area Humane Society is saying he has and will take any "adoptable dogs" that are offered. He does not and cannot take all "adoptable" pitbulls because he too is limited by his board's policies and can also only take the dogs he has space for. Whether we like it or not, there are too many pitbulls and so too many pitbulls are being put down.
When it comes to the numbers being tossed out, I really don't know how anyone short of a statistician could even figure out whether the "30%" means anything at all. It looks to me like the comparisons being made are apples to oranges with bananas thrown in too. I count roughly 20 different numbers or percentages in first 12 or so paragraphs. Do you really believe anyone sorts through all of that? I doubt I can even summarize it concisely enough that most people won't zone out and lose focus partway through but I'll try.
Between Jan 1 and April 18, 408 dogs were put down. Of those 67 failed or were too aggressive to be given behavioral evaluations. 160 were pitbulls that were put down because pound was over capacity for pitbull type dogs. In spite of the fact there is also a big emphasis on the dogs failing these tests, no comparison numbers are even given for how many dogs failed evaluations last year.
During first 3 months of 2011, 361 dogs were put down which is 94 more than during first 3 months of 2010 (267). However, there is also an increase of 156 dogs coming INTO the pound and guess what? 119 of those dogs were pitbulls. So, do you see now why the little lapse in mentioning the facts about pitbull adoptions plays a pretty big part in how these numbers play out? In reality that "30%" are dogs the pound has said all along they will not hold and can only be transferred in limited numbers. Do I think it's wrong that one particular breed is singled out for a separate place in the pound and nearly certain death if there's no space available? Yes I do but those are the facts at this time. If the Blade wants to do a story about Breed Specific Legislation by all means go for it, but do not blame Julie Lyle, the dog pound, the Toledo Area Humane Society, other area rescues, or anyone else aside from Ohio legislators who wrote and voted for these laws for simply doing their best with a breed that where supply is way higher than responsible demand and the laws are against them as well.
Going back to the behavioral evaluations, these are not new. SAFER is the same set of tests they have used all along and in fact are used by many other shelters and rescues. Do I personally like these assessments? No, I do not. That is not the point though. Even disliking them, I recognize the need for some sort of tool to determine which dogs are most likely safe to be placed in homes. And anyone who works with rescue or shelter dogs knows Julie Lyle is right when she says most people will pass over dogs with "issues," whether it's a need to be an "only" dog or for more training with food or would do best without young children or whatever else. Yes if you can get that dog into a foster home or adopted by an experienced owner then they will most likely work out but how do you do that at the pound? Because another fact here is for all the discussion about whether or not these dogs should be put down for doing poorly on aspects like food aggression, no one in this article offers a single solution or suggestion as to how or who will work with these dogs towards adoption. All this part of the article does is once again paint the dog warden as the bad guy when she honestly says we do not have the resources to work with these dogs. Without any solutions to this issue it comes across as more needless attacks.
I also find it interesting your writer picked April 13 for his "snapshot" of dog numbers at the pound (105 at pound, "just" 13 available for adoption) but then skips to April 14 to tell us that no dogs were adopted, none were transferred and 5 were put down. If he'd chosen his stats from April 12-13 (available on toledoblade.com), 3 dogs were killed, 3 were adopted and 5 were transferred to TAHS. Or from April 8-11, 1 dog was killed and 6 were adopted. Not nearly as much fun that way is it?
In between all the hype there is good news. The adoption area will make a big difference and be a more comfortable place for the dogs and potential adopters. Of course we see at least 2 references to "too small" cages and another reference to a couple of dogs that have been put down because they couldn't handle being caged all the time. At this time though they can only work with what they have and that pound was not designed to comfortably house dogs at all. Even as far as the pitbull problem, the pound has a Petsmart grant to spay and neuter 500! Toledo pitbulls and mixes for $5!! a dog. A fact that didn't warrant even a sentence in this article. Yes that was published in the Blade earlier but the Dog Warden Commission's recommendations have been published multiple times and they still were added again to this article, too.
What's my interest in all of this? I've been going to dog pounds for quite a few years, as a dog rescue volunteer. I care about dogs and I don't want any of them put down needlessly. The fact is though the dog wardens and other people who work at these pounds don't create the problems. It's one thing to shine a light on corrupt or callous people who aren't doing their jobs. It's another to continually hound someone who is making improvements, simply to sell a few more papers. Do I think there's room for improvement? Certainly, same way I think there's room for improvement in just about any place or any of us. You're not helping the problem when you publish articles that are so biased most people never get beyond thinking "See! Nothing has changed there at all!"
Thanks for your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment