Regardless of whether a shelter’s mission specifies “open admission” (accepts all animals) or “no kill” — and the two are not mutually exclusive — animal welfare organizations around the U.S. will be dramatically affected by the upcoming Shelter Pet Project campaign. The Ad Council is teaming up with HSUS and Maddie’s Fund with the objective of increasing shelter pet adoptions to the point that upwards of 3 million healthy, adoptable animals no longer lose their lives. Take a look…
To which I reply, yes, HSUS does adopt some very questionable policies, to say the least. HSUS also adopts some very progressive policies, at least on the outset. So do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Or do we work from inside to try to change the system?
For those of us who believe HSUS does have at least some merit, I say it’s up to us to help other folks understand what programs they do and do not undertake. If you want to support animal welfare directly rather than through advocacy, put your nonprofit dollars into local or small, struggling organizations with a valiant mission, where every penny makes a legitimate difference in animal lives. These organizations still are able to draw on the HSUS knowledge base, which is considerable in spite of some of the criticism from those with an opposite political philosophy. And HSUS’s advocacy efforts are still effective in many ways at saving animal lives on a macro level.
There’s room in my playbook for some of what HSUS is all about, and also some of what Nathan Winograd is all about. I’m for picking the best practices each has to offer rather than pitting one against the other. The latter more closely resembles a dog fight. I thought that’s what we’re all against, folks!
Does Michael Vick really mean it when he says he’s sorry? He hasn’t apologized to the dogs. Is he just claiming remorse so he can get on the good side of a new football team and get his game back? Or will he demonstrate that he’s changed not only his attitude but his behavior as well?
The latter is certainly to be preferred. I’ve thought from the beginning that a constructive approach would be more effective for helping him change direction than a rigidly punitive approach — see my Web of Life blog right around the time of his sentencing hearing for a bit of historical context.
Think about it: If you accept the logical premise that any animal can be trained to be either calm or vicious, or deliberately provoked to the point of becoming aggressive, then you may be receptive to the main idea behind positive training. In essence, this kind of training rewards the desired behavior. When an animal performs an undesirable behavior, that is simply not rewarded.
There are plenty of variations on that theme — counter-conditioning, desensitization, negative reinforcement, and others. You can teach an animal what you want by trading an undesirable behavior (aggression) for an acceptable behavior (sit politely, the equivalent of saying please before granting something of higher value, also known as “no free lunch”).
And I suggest that you can use these same principles on people, to direct their behavior as well. Works with kids, works with college students. Perhaps even with tough guys, too. It’s not for counselors or rehabbers who want a quick fix for their clients, but rather, for those who are willing to invest in the long haul. With dogs, the difference between positive training (think Victoria Stilwell) and dominance (think Cesar Milan) is that with positive, the dog learns to give the behavior because he wants to. In contrast, with dominance, the dog gives the behavior out of fear of what will happen if she doesn’t. Make the reward for good behavior so attractive that it effectively becomes the only choice.
So yes, maybe getting to play football again is such an attractive reward for Michael Vick that doing good with The Humane Society of the United States becomes a behavior he would actually be eager to demonstrate. If that comes to pass, the practical result would make him an ambassador for both humane education, reform, and sport.
I love this. What a great concept, well executed, and just plain fun for a good cause. Be sure to visit LuLu and Lolly’s website shown at the end, too!
I am deliberately writing “no kill” in lower case letters because that’s largely what I heard at last weekend’s conference in DC, organized by Nathan Winograd and the Animal Law Project at George Washington University. Perhaps some of the sessions I didn’t make it to were more “political,” but the ones I did hear would have been useful in a fairly wide variety of settings.
Controversial or not, there’s no denying a bunch of techniques and strategies animal welfare folks can implement that will change from outcomes that create or sustain suffering for animals to outcomes that improve their quality of life. These strategies ultimately end up saving their lives. In a nutshell, that’s what shelters are supposed to do in the first place.
Some people are adamantly opposed to no-kill. Not all of the techniques presented and discussed during this conference are right or adaptable for all shelters. But that doesn’t mean the movement is all wrong.
My sweet, adorable sweet potato of a beagle has feasted on bunny tartare twice this week. That’s as many in one week as she’s had in the past two years — at least that I’m aware of. Not exactly my cup of tea, suburbanized human that I am. But on the positive side, I’m actually a bit reassured that if she ever escaped, at least when it comes to food for survival, she could fend for herself.
“Bunnies! It’s what’s for dinner!” And breakfast, lunch and probably teatime, too, if she’s given the chance.
What’s worse (or better, depending on yr POV) than one bunny in two days?
“I has a bunny?” Uh-huh!
What’s your hound’s name? “Dines on Bunnies.”
Guess that makes me “Sleeps with Dines on Bunnies.”
Cori at about age 2 or so. Who knew that sweet face would belong to Killer Beagle?!
Cori at about age 2 or so. Who knew that sweet face would belong to Killer Beagle?!
Bookmark/share a post
dogwordz 