Do you intend to read JSF’s Eating Animals?

I made the post, largely, to avoid letting these snide comments slip into my lecture notes!

Thanks for posting.

Criticizing Pollan for his often mind-bogglingly off-base positions is not unlike falling off a log.

The problem is, most readers of Pollan have trouble even seeing the log.

Pollan is also known for discounting vegetarianism by virtue of the fact that “our” mouths still water when we see meat. …

Pollan is doing more harm than good in so far as his work “is” animal studies.

Kevin

Let’s not talk about either the THS or the OHS, but a small to medium sized rural affiliate of the OSPCA (around 100 cats and 10 dogs on average at any given time). Employees are paid minimum wage. Employees do not receive training upon beginning their employment. Employees do not have any sort of background in animal care. Management has no background in animal care, but has worked in “the customer service industry.” Employees and management are easily swayed by charlatans on TV like Cesare Milan or Brad Pattison. (Indeed, at this particular shelter, the board of directors even voted to institute choke collars and physical punishment training as the officially endorsed approach at the shelter. Needless to say, my involvement with this shelter was short-term!) Employees who are not swayed by physical-punishment techniques (which are, by the way, not recommended by the OSCPA) and who are actually skilled animal handlers are fired for minor offenses, such as bringing incorrect medication information to the manager’s attention or for refusing to watch (and “learn”) “proper” handling techniques (i.e., choke-chain) as the manager chokes, pushes, and drags a confused and scared Rottweiler around the parking lot. But, despite all this, the shelter also managed to have a low euthanasia rate, putting it in line with the THS rather than the OHS or OSPCA branches. Keeping animals alive isn’t just a matter of money, it is also a matter of will–if you don’t think that it is a harm to kill an animal (this is standard animal welfare), then killing an animal isn’t bad regardless of reason (space, health, temperament, species, breed). Consider that most shelters have contracts with major food providers to receive their food for free, agreements with local veterinarians for reduced or at-cost services (of course, getting a few hundred cats sterilized at or near costs is still going to cost a lot of money), a large cadre of volunteers doing unpaid labour, and a public that is more often than not willing to donate small items when needed (paper towel, sheets, bleach, newsprint, etc) the amount of money actually needed to run a shelter is not that much.

Part of the problem is that the larger shelters are increasingly becoming fundraising organizations. What I mean by this is that they are oriented towards large, flashy and extremely expansive fundraising campaigns organized by full-time fundraising staff and professional consultants. This leads to gigantic overhead such that most of the money raised goes into paying for that money that was just raised. Now, shelters are not to blame. This has been the case for a number of years in the human health related charities: giant lotteries, thousand dollar a plate dinners, and the like. There is no shortage of people wanting to “help the animals” but the means of acquiring this help results in most of that money not going to the animals–most people who want to “help the animals” don’t have the resources or desire to buy a thousand dollar meal ticket despite the promise that you might catch a glimpse of Stephen Harper’s wife.

At the most basic, what a shelter needs, is (1) adequate facilities, (2) trained staff, (3) staff who want to work with animals even though it only pays minimum wage, (4) proper cleaning procedures, (5) and a network of volunteers, especially fosterers, to help when there is an outbreak of URI or otherwise sick and injured animals.

What isn’t discussed in the newspaper is that shelters routinely trade animals with one-another. We only see this in the news with high-profile seizures from hoarders or mills. But, on a day to day basis, animals are routinely transferred regionally when space is tight at one shelter but available at another. Of course, once animals leave your shelter, you lose control over them as they become the property of the shelter taking them in. There might be a reason why, say, OHS, is able to be a regional hero taking in animals from rural shelters…

To return to your question: was the THS achieving success? I don’t think, from what I’ve read in the papers, that THS is any worse than any other shelter in Ontario, with the exception that it kills far fewer animals. I am acquainted with numerous cases of animals being given the wrong medicine, of animals being denied medical treatment, of understaffing, of untrained employees and, yes, of dysfunctional management. Should the THS case go forward, the only benefit will be is that the rest of the shelters in Ontario will have to clean up their act as well. Based upon accusations by the “Help the THS” group as well as the strange things coming out of Inspector Strooband’s office, most, if not all, shelters should be shut down.

As for a model of an ideal shelter, I’d point to Best Friends. And if only people cared as much about the animals they mindlessly eat as they about the sensational accusations and media stunts coming from the OSPCA.