Richmond SPCA Blog: CEO Perspectives

Posts categorized "CEO Perspectives"

July 17, 2015

Behind the talk at TEDx with Robin Starr

TED talks are fascinating and informative. I have long enjoyed them and appreciate the mission of TED to provide a forum for the spreading of fresh and progressive ideas and easy access to the thoughts of many bright and inspirational people. If you have never watched one of the many TED talks on an enormous range of subjects that live on YouTube, you should really take a look at them sometime. It is quite a repository of ideas and information.

Thus, when an old friend of mine called me about a year ago asking if I would like to give a TED talk about the Richmond SPCA’s role in the no-kill movement at the 2014 TEDx event in New Hampshire, I was honored and quickly said yes. Then, I thought as I hung up the phone “Oh gee, what have I committed myself to?!” A lot, as it turns out.

TEDx events occur all around the world and must meet a long list of requirements that bring consistency and quality to the events. There is a prescribed look to the dais, length and format for the talks and a process for ensuring that the talks and the videos meet TED’s standards. The talks are about 18 minutes in length, and as a TED speaker (talker?), you are told that the snipers will take up their positions if you go much past that time limit. You want your talk to be both consequential and also comprehensible to people who are not familiar with your field of work. It can be a real challenge to accomplish those goals in just 18 minutes or so.

So once I accepted, I was in the soup, and for months, I thought about the coming TEDx talk I had to give and got a chill when I did so. I speak fairly often to groups and to the news media so you might think that the TEDx talk prospect would not concern me too much. But, this seemed different from other things I had done in terms of public speaking. This had to fit a precise period of time, could not be done with notes, and would be put up for all the world to see on YouTube. Not only that, I had to go to New Hampshire to do it.

It took me a long time to distill what I wanted to say down to 18 minutes and then an even longer time to get it into my head well enough that I could deliver it smoothly without forgetting big and important parts of it. Sarah Babcock, our Chief of Education and Training, helped me to rehearse and gave me great advice to make it flow smoothly and convey the essential points with clarity. I could never thank Sarah enough for the time she generously put into helping me improve my talk. I also was connected by the TEDx organizers with Michelle Hamilton, who is a public speaking consultant, to give me some help with polishing my talk. Her advice was truly valuable.

By the time November rolled around, I felt pretty good about it but also nervous, which I suppose is natural. I was one of 12 speakers at that TEDxAmoskeagMillyard event, and at the dinner we had together the night before it, I was impressed with what a very smart and accomplished group of people it was. The next day seemed very long since my talk was not until the afternoon. I spent the morning watching the other speakers all do great jobs. My nervousness increased. However, once I was actually up there delivering the talk, it all felt fine and comfortable (well, except for the little microphone over my ear which was not comfortable at all). I really focused on the topic of the no-kill movement which means so much to me and remembered all of my points. I was so comfortable that I somehow went a little over the allotted 18 minutes even though I had hit that time length pretty consistently in rehearsals. No one shot me down, however, and the whole 19 minutes of it are now up on You Tube. Here is the link to it and I hope you enjoy it:

Robin Robertson Starr is the chief executive officer of the Richmond SPCA. To read her biography or that of our other bloggers, please click here. Before posting a comment, please review our comment guidelines. Please note that our comment policy requires both your first and last name to be used as your screen name.

Posted by RichmondSPCA on July 17, 2015 at 07:49 AM in CEO Perspectives, Video | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 15, 2015

What on earth is going on at the Roanoke Times?

What on earth is going on at the Roanoke Times? They have published yet another nasty and misleadingly inaccurate opinion piece urging people to hate and fear all pit bulls and continuing the pattern of an earlier and equally irrational opinion piece in the Roanoke paper suggesting that all “rescue dogs” are pit bulls. Accompanying the piece was an irresponsibly inflammatory photo of a muzzled pit bull looking for all the world like Hannibal Lector.

This most recent op/ed piece is by Nancy Harrison, who is an American Kennel Club judge (of course she is) and who shows pure bred dogs (of course she does). It takes the position that pit bulls have been exclusively and intentionally bred for fighting and are genetically obliged to “attack and kill.” The op/ed makes reference to a piece I wrote earlier which explains the reasonable and humane truth about pit bull type dogs but the link to what I wrote is faulty and does not take you to what I wrote. It is difficult to imagine that this is an honest error on the Times part since the paper is clearly promoting her fear-mongering viewpoint by repeatedly publishing these dangerously wacky pieces. Or, maybe, the Roanoke Times has just discovered how many hits it gets to its website when it keeps on poking this topic.

Ms. Harrison focuses in the piece the Roanoke Times published on the breeding issues and would have us believe that all pit bull type dogs are the progeny of dogs bred for fighting and therefore they are all killers at heart because of their genetics. This reminds me of Donald Trump’s statement that all Mexican immigrants are rapists. Both reflect the nasty and unreasonable bigotry of racism that does not give people or animals credit for being individuals. And both are intended to promote the personal interests of the person making the statement by playing to the most base of human motives.

Large groups of individuals do not all share the same traits. It is unreasonable to believe that every one of any group behaves in the same way. Having headed a humane organization for 18 years that has saved the lives of thousands of pit bull type dogs (along with tens of thousands of rescue dogs in general), I believe I have a great deal more direct experience with these dogs than does Ms. Harrison from her AKC perch. I know from direct contact that there are many gentle and loving pit bull type dogs (it is not a breed) who will make wonderful family pets if given the chance. Ms. Harrison’s bigotry would deny them that chance and, if shared by the rest of our society, would result in innocent dogs being killed.

She also seems to be totally ignorant of the law. She says that “dogfighting is technically illegal, but rarely prosecuted.”

“Technically” illegal? What does that mean? Animal fighting in Virginia is a felony and is aggressively investigated and prosecuted across our state. She ends her piece with this bizarre statement: “Laws need to be changed. How about seizing the property of any person found to have a dogfight on his or her property? How about charging any person who attends a dogfight with aiding and abetting a felony? How about prosecuting people who are not rich and famous?” Laws do not need to be changed for any of those things to occur.

Signing of the 2008 omnibus animal fighting bill

In 2008 Governor Tim Kaine signed into law landmark animal fighting legislation. The ceremonial signing was held at the Richmond SPCA.

I would know that since I have spent more hours than I could count in the halls and meeting rooms of the General Assembly working for the strengthening of our animal fighting statute which we achieved a couple of years ago. As a result, each of the things she claims should become the law in fact are the law. These things have been the law since 2008. Ms. Harrison was not a part of that effort and her suggestion that what she really wants is a change in the laws is disingenuous. She does not even know what the law is.

So, what is all this about – this series of opinion pieces that are meant to inspire fear of pit bull type dogs and that seek to blur the lines by using the generalized term “rescue dogs” to refer to them? It is most assuredly not about a concern for our laws. It is intended to instill fear in the general public about the nature of dogs in animal shelters so that they will be hesitant about going to a shelter to adopt their next pet. Why do that? Quite simple. Folks like Ms. Harrison want to protect the economic self interests of breeders who are becoming increasingly fearful of the growing public understanding that the best source for wonderful pets is your local animal shelter, and that, when you adopt a pet, you not only gain a great new companion but you also save lives. If they can make you think that all pit bulls are scary and mean and that all rescue dogs are pit bulls then they can prevent you from adopting a shelter dog and thereby push you toward a breeder or a pet store.

Don’t fall for it. Bigotry is always wrong. There are great dogs of all types in shelters. They need you so much. When you adopt a dog, whether from the Richmond SPCA or any other reputable shelter, you help a wonderful animal who has done nothing wrong but be homeless to have a happy life in a home with love and care. You open up a space for us to go out and save another dog in need. It fills your heart and your home with love.

Posted by Robin Starr on July 15, 2015 at 04:49 PM in Animal Welfare Philosophy, CEO Perspectives, Dogs | Permalink | Comments (8)

June 29, 2015

Kitten's tiny voice disrupted a walk and a law career: our CEO's Big Break

Editor's note: A few months ago, our CEO Robin Robertson Starr wrote the essay below in response to a call for stories issued following an installment of "My Big Break," a special series for which NPR's All Things Considered is collecting "stories of triumph, big and small." This June marked Robin's 18th anniversary as our chief executive. In honor of that milestone, we're sharing this piece, a story which may be familiar to longtime readers, of Robin's Big Break.

Photo of Robin Robertson Starr and her beloved Snap by Karen Gammon

Almost 18 years ago, I left the law firm in which I was a partner and went to work at the Richmond SPCA for the well being of our magnificent companion animals because of the influence of one cat, our beloved Snap. It goes back to a beastly hot July day in 1991, that happened to be my birthday, when my husband and I took a walk near our home. We passed a construction site and heard noises coming from a cardboard box that was on the ground and taped shut. Inside, we found three kittens near death from the intense heat and dehydration. We took them home, cooled them down, fed and watered them and named them Snap, Crackle and Pop (three kids in a cardboard box). The next day, I took them to the Richmond SPCA, an organization I had never had any relationship with previously. I was told that they had zillions of kittens and that I could leave these three adorable creatures but they would likely be “euthanized.” I was shocked and dismayed. I took the three of them back home with me. I did not know at that moment what I would do with them but I knew I would not allow them to be killed. Ultimately, I found good homes for Crackle and Pop. Snap became our beloved family member and the queen of our home.

Snap grew to be both elegant and adorable – the Audrey Hepburn of the feline world. While she was just a brown tabby with no particularly distinguishing appearance, she had such grace and gentility that she seemed exquisitely beautiful. She was always loving but also reserved and very refined. I came to realize that, because of humans and their shocking irresponsibility and brutality, Snap nearly died. I began to read more and understand the factors causing the enormous loss of life of dogs and cats in shelters. I was horrified to recognize that I myself had grown up in a family that bought puppies from breeders while magnificent animals like Snap began life with little or no chance for survival. My family had loved animals but we had had no comprehension of their plight.

With a raised consciousness, I sought election to the Board of Directors of the Richmond SPCA. After joining that Board, I became more deeply committed to animal welfare and more concerned about the sluggishness and inadequacy of the animal welfare field’s response to what I saw to be a true crisis. Millions of animals, just like my precious Snap, were dying every year for no better reason than they lacked a home. When my predecessor announced her retirement, I decided that I wanted to devote the remaining years of my professional life full time to this cause and I became the Chief Executive Officer of the Richmond SPCA.

In the years since then, the Richmond SPCA has become a no-kill humane organization and a national leader of the no-kill movement. We now save the lives of about 3,700 homeless animals each year with a save rate of more than 97%. The only animals that are euthanized in our humane center are those who truly meet the standard for the word “euthanasia;” that is, they are untreatably sick or injured with no prospect for any life of quality, even with veterinary intervention, and are suffering. We treat and rehabilitate every treatably sick or injured animal in our care. We stand up with courage for legislation and policies that treat animals’ lives with the respect they deserve and we take on causes in our field that intimidate many others. We have had great successes in our advocacy. I am deeply proud of our organization, dedicated to our mission and have never regretted for a moment leaving the practice of law. I have come to understand the complex reasons that cause homeless animals to die in great numbers unnecessarily in so many communities across this country and have put in many years trying to change that outcome. I will continue to do so.

Several years ago, on another hot July day, our beautiful and precious Snap died of cancer at home at age 15 with our family all around her. I cannot even type those words without tears welling up in my eyes. She transformed my life. Because of her, I came to understand the suffering that we humans have selfishly inflicted on our wonderful companion animals who are our best friends. Because of her, I will continue to struggle against the people who disparage our mission for animals because they only care about people and do not appreciate all that animals do for us or believe that animals deserve our support and defense. Because of her, I will continue to pressure the people in the field of animal welfare who are content with the status quo and make no effort to change old behaviors that have produced nothing but more and more needless killing of animals in shelters.

Snap had a good, long and full life with a family who adored her and, in that, she was very lucky. But, I was the truly lucky one on that hot July day when we found her. Snap was a birthday present that set my life on a totally different course, a course that has been and continues to be immensely fulfilling. She transformed both my life and the prospects for life of thousands of other wonderful but homeless animals. She will always be alive, young and beautiful in my heart and my memory and I will never stop hearing her message.

Posted by RichmondSPCA on June 29, 2015 at 06:35 PM in Animal Welfare Philosophy, CEO Perspectives | Permalink | Comments (2)

May 28, 2015

Shockingly bad op/ed in The Roanoke Times damaging to rescue dogs with irresponsible use of statistics

On Wednesday, May 26, the Roanoke Times ran a deeply irresponsible opinion piece entitled “Beware of Rescue Dogs.” According to the Roanoke Times, it was written by a “semi-retired registered nurse who has never been without a family dog.” That is a bit like allowing me a platform to pontificate on brain surgery because I have had a brain all my life.

Ms. Lee’s ignorance with regard to shelter dogs, pit bull type dogs and the responsible use of statistics is shocking. She provides dubiously sourced statistics on the numbers of human deaths from dog attacks in terms like “13 and counting” in 2015 – counting what exactly? Even more troubling is that she leaves the reader with the suggestion that all of these deaths were caused by a breed of dog that she appears to be afraid to actually mention but it is apparent that she is talking about pit bulls, which of course are not even an actual “breed.” She keeps referring to “rescue dogs” throughout the piece, as does the headline, when not all rescue dogs, not even most rescue dogs, are pit bull type dogs. In saying this, I am in no way suggesting that pit bull type dogs should be considered dangerous, just that shelters provide a vast array of wonderful dogs of all sorts including pit bull type dogs.

dogs available for adoption at the Richmond SPCA

These are just a few of the dogs available for adoption today at our Robins-Starr Humane Center, highlighting the array of wonderful dogs that can be adopted from shelters. See more at www.richmondspca.org/dogs.

Then come some appallingly reckless statements from Ms. Lee. “A parent considering adoption of any ‘rescue’ dog should see the online data.” This statement is followed by a citation that does not yield any visible page but it indicates it was about the “dangers of pit bulls.” So, we are actually not able to see any data and the data that may or may not have been there in the past related only to one type of dog – pit bulls. And then she says, “Busting at the seams with these breeds and still euthanizing 600,000 to 800,000 a year, no other breed has this much advocacy.” It is challenging to parse such miserably poor writing. Who exactly is she saying is busting at the seams? It is not at all clear due to the misplaced modifying clause, but I suppose she means shelters. And, those killing statistics for the breed that shall not be named by Ms. Lee but that, according to her, has such advocacy – where were they sourced and what locations or facilities are being referenced? Public shelters, private shelters, all shelters across the nation? None of this is clear.

A responsible news paper such as the Roanoke Times should not have published such a crudely written, irrational and unsubstantiated piece. Animal welfare professionals like me work every day to help the public to understand that shelters are the only responsible place for them to acquire a new four-legged family member. “Rescue dogs” come in all varieties, temperaments and sizes and they may be pure bred or mixed breed. Most of them will make wonderful family pets. Similarly, not all families are alike. There are without doubt some dogs, of all types not just pit bull type or bully breed dogs, who are not well suited for a home with small children. That certainly does not mean that these dogs should be killed, only that a responsible shelter will place them in an appropriate home where they and the human occupants will understand each other and be happy.

Pieces such as this one damage so much of our good work and progress on behalf of animals that are sweet, loving, and well behaved in a shelter somewhere. Through inaccuracies and lack of proof, they mislead the public and hurt the enormous progress we have made to encourage people’s commitment to shelter adoption. Shelter dogs are waiting for a loving home and they have the potential to make their adopters very happy for years to come. There is no more chance that a dog bought from a breeder or a pet store will be any better behaved or safer than a shelter dog, whether or not that dog is a pit bull type dog, but patronizing breeders and pet stores inarguably contributes to the needless deaths of wonderful animals in shelters all over this country who could have been saved through an adoption rather than a purchase. Rescue dogs, like people, come in all sorts of sizes shapes and personalities. Yes, Ms. Lee, assuming that all rescue dogs or all pit bulls are dangerous is canine racism.

Posted by Robin Starr on May 28, 2015 at 11:52 AM in Adoption, Animal Welfare Philosophy, CEO Perspectives, Dogs | Permalink | Comments (18)

May 20, 2015

Understanding dog communication is the key to preventing dog bites

I often see people allowing their children to do things with and to their dogs that just make me cringe. Pulling on them, yanking things away from them, yelling at them, holding and tugging the leash when the child lacks the physical strength and the mature judgment to manage that responsibility, and on and on. And, I also can’t count the times that I have heard someone say with pride “Our dog is so great he will let our kids ride him and pull his ears and just do anything to him.” And, I cringe. Why do I cringe? Because I know the number of dogs that get relinquished at animal shelters for having bitten a child when the dogs had provided so many notices that things were being done to them that made them miserable before they finally reacted. These poor dogs have sent out so many warnings and so many pleas for help that went unheeded. Then, when they react to protect themselves from continued harassment in the only way they know how, by biting, their family is horrified and angry. The ultimate penalty for the dog so often is relinquishment to a shelter and the dog becomes homeless. Such a tragedy and such a needless one.

In honor of Dog Bite Prevention Week, I strongly encourage you to watch this great video. It should be watched by every parent of a small child who has a dog in the family. And by every aunt, uncle and grandparent too. It is very well done. The first part of the video has pictures that many people may find heart-warming but that I, and other animal welfare professionals, find very disturbing. It gives the kid’s side of the story of the dog that her family adopted and that she loved. The dogs in the pictures all look pained, frightened, miserable and like they are crying for help. The kids, and only the kids, look like they are having fun. The second part tells the same story through the voice of the dog. The dog was being, unintentionally, innocently but constantly, mistreated by the child. The dog suffered through it for so long and then reacted.

At the Richmond SPCA, we want to see fewer dog bites and more people, including children, living happily and safely with their dogs. We want that because that will result in more dogs having long good lives with the families that love them and fewer being relinquished at shelters for bites that were predictable and preventable. It is important for me to be clear - the answer is not for families with small children to not have dogs or to get rid of their dogs. The answer is for parents to understand how a dog should be treated and to responsibly and clearly teach their children to treat their dog with gentleness and respect. Dogs, like you, do not want to be prodded, poked and pulled. Like you, they do not want to have their food taken away while they are eating it nor their own toys or chews taken away from them. They do not want to be subjected to things that are painful, frightening or uncomfortable. These are lessons that can be taught, and should be taught, to older kids. Kids should know how to read the warning signs and so should their parents and they both should have the good judgment to stop what they are doing to that dog when he is letting them know he is uncomfortable. A child who is too young yet to learn that lesson should be very carefully monitored with the family pet to ensure that the pet is not treated this way.

Dogs are wonderful creatures and we always talk about their unconditional love. But, we must also be reasonable in our expectations of them. And, everyone, parents especially, must know how to recognize the signs in their dog’s behavior that he or she is being pushed before it goes too far. That is why we are offering a great opportunity to learn about the signs in your dog’s look and behavior from Sarah Babcock, our Chief of Education and Training and our community’s foremost authority on dog behavior, and Kari Hosack, our manager of humane education.

On June 10, we are offering two separate family-friendly “Reading Rover” classes, one from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and the second from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Children are welcome to attend. Those 12 and over will be encouraged to join the adult class. Those 11 and under will have their own age-appropriate class and activities in the Children’s Exploratorium.

If you wish to attend, please email Kari Hosack at [email protected] and include the names and ages of attendees and a phone number.

For more information on dog bite prevention, visit http://stopthe77.com/.

Posted by Robin Starr on May 20, 2015 at 02:28 PM in CEO Perspectives, Dogs, Humane Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 08, 2015

Attorney General’s office sets the record straight on legality of TNR programs

Thanks to Attorney General Mark Herring and his office’s Opinions Counsel Timothy Oksman, it is now clear that private people and organizations like ours can engage in trap-neuter-return programs ("TNR") in Virginia without fear of legal reprisals. A letter sent out from the Attorney General's Office during the previous administration in 2013 has been found by Attorney General Herring’s Office to have been inaccurate and therefore it has been wholly retracted. This is important and welcome news for everyone in Virginia who wants to help feral cats by providing them with spaying and neutering and rabies vaccinations through trap-neuter-return programs ("TNR").

The letter at issue, dated November, 2013, was sent to me, and also to Rob Blizard at the Norfolk SPCA, by Norman Thomas who was Opinions Counsel in the Attorney General’s Office at the time. The letter threatened us with criminal prosecution if we continued to provide spaying and neutering services to kind people helping feral cats by engaging in TNR. The City Attorney for Richmond was copied on the letter, apparently in hopes that he would take action to force us to stop providing such services. Yes, that is right, in hopes that our City Attorney would force a non-profit to stop providing free spaying and neutering services to the community. The basis for the irresponsible threats in Thomas' letter was an opinion letter dated July 13, 2013 that had been issued by Attorney General Cuccinelli to the Town of Front Royal. That opinion letter had said only that an agency of a local government may not itself engage in the “return” portion of TNR programs.

Mr. Thomas, who indicated that he was writing the letter because he had been asked to do so but never specified who had done the asking, wildly misinterpreted the July 13, 2013 Cuccinelli opinion. First, he sought to apply it to us, a private non-profit organization that provides the veterinary medical services for feral cats for free, when the Cuccinelli opinion had explicitly limited itself to local governments. Secondly, the Cuccinelli opinion made clear that private people could engage in the trapping and the returning parts of TNR without being seen under the law as owners. The Richmond SPCA itself does not do the trapping or the returning; we just provide the veterinary medical services. The trapping and returning are done by caring individuals acting on their own who clearly under the Cuccinelli opinion are not violating the law either since they cannot be considered to be abandoning an animal they do not own.

When I got the threatening letter from Thomas, I discussed the letter with our Executive Committee and Board leaders and we agreed that it was obviously not based on an accurate reading of the Cuccinelli opinion. We knew, and still know, how very crucial our free sterilization and rabies vaccination services for feral cats are and we were not going to be intimidated into ceasing to provide them with no reasonable legal basis. I am deeply grateful for having Board leaders who are cool-headed and courageous because Thomas’ letter would probably have intimidated many organizations into stopping these crucial services. I replied to Thomas’ boss, Attorney General Cuccinelli, saying that we were confident that the interpretation of his opinion in Thomas’ letter was incorrect and so it would not affect our continuing to provide free spaying and neutering and rabies vaccinations for ferals in connection with TNR efforts. I never received any further communication from Thomas or his office whatsoever.

We are aware that the Thomas letter has been used by people and organizations in our state who oppose TNR programs, such as the Virginia Alliance for Animal Shelters, as the basis for inaccurate claims that TNR engaged in by private people utilizing the veterinary services of a private organization such as ours is not legal in Virginia. It is important that they stop spreading this false information now that our Attorney General's office has made clear that the letter Thomas wrote was wrong and has retracted it.

I am very grateful to Attorney General Herring and to Mr. Oksman for have set the record straight on this issue and, thereby, ensuring that caring people and organizations like the Richmond SPCA do not need to fear prosecution for continuing their good and charitable works to help and protect feral cats.

Posted by Robin Starr on May 08, 2015 at 09:47 AM in Animal Welfare Philosophy, Cats, CEO Perspectives, Current Affairs, Local Government, Veterinary Care | Permalink | Comments (5)

April 10, 2015

CEO Perspectives: The choices we make

The work we do caring for homeless animals and placing them in lasting and loving homes provides us with some insights into human nature that can be shockingly disparate. We see wonderful people who dedicate their time and/or their financial resources to give so generously to animals in our care. We have volunteers who do such remarkable and tireless work and donors who give with such amazing dedication and generosity to provide the essential resources to treat and rehabilitate sick and injured homeless animals. On the other hand, we can be exposed to people whose behavior toward animals is horrifying. There are people who seem to feel little or no tenderness or caring for pets they have had in their families for many years and people who will disparage and diminish the importance of the work we do caring for animals. We even must respond to organizations in the field of animal welfare that do not prioritize the value of animals’ lives and do not use their resources to provide the care for them that a sense of integrity would demand.

One of the greatest challenges we face is to set aside our reactions to these disappointing and distasteful people in determining how we should act to look out for the best interests of the animals. For example, we can be faced with people who want to relinquish a pet to us for whom they have not provided up to date inoculations even though they have the financial means to do so. Or, we can visit a shelter where the employees are cold and hostile to our staff members when they have come to take dogs and cats out of that shelter and into our care. When this happens in a shelter where the euthanasia rate is high and we would be transferring those animals into safety, you would think that the staff members would welcome that help. But it is not always the case.

There is a quote that hung on the wall in Mother Teresa’s home for orphaned children in Calcutta that I have always loved. It says:

People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.

What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.

Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway.

In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.

The last line is the powerful one. And, in this home that we run to care for another group of orphans, something similar must guide us. In the final analysis, the decisions we make and the care that we provide are a matter between us and the animals, a matter of our conscience and our integrity about how we live up to the trust that those animals, as well as our wonderful donors and volunteers, have placed in us. It was never about us and the people who devalue animals’ lives or act selfishly with regard to their needs. Those people may be frustrating, anxiety producing, time-sucking and disappointing but, in the final analysis, they are and they must be irrelevant to our decisions. Only one thing matters – how do we use our resources and make our choices so as to save the most animals from death and suffering that we possibly can. Because, in the end, it is only between us and the animals we love.

Posted by Robin Starr on April 10, 2015 at 02:57 PM in Animal Welfare Philosophy, CEO Perspectives | Permalink | Comments (1)

March 27, 2015

SB1381: Governor's signature establishes private animal shelters must have purpose of finding adoptive homes

When Napoleon entered our care he was nearly blind and suffering complications from untreated diabetes. After surgery for cataracts and 7 months of rehabilitation, he was adopted and became a beloved member of the Butler family.

I, along with many other deeply committed Virginia animal welfare professionals, worked very hard to persuade the General Assembly to pass Senate Bill 1381, patronned by Senator Bill Stanley, and we were thrilled when it did pass by a large margin. Recently, Governor McAuliffe signed that bill into law, thereby ensuring that private animal shelters in Virginia will have to be “operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes.” This is a standard that I believe almost all private shelters in Virginia meet and that the public expects all of them to meet. However, the outlier is the facility in Norfolk operated by the ironically named People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). That facility is licensed in Virginia as a private shelter but has for many years killed about 90% of the unfortunate dogs and cats that enter it. Recently, PETA workers also stole Maya, a young healthy Chihuahua, from the porch of her own home after many efforts to lure her off the porch had failed (all this is captured on video the veracity of which has never been challenged by PETA). They killed her that very day along with several other apparently young and healthy dogs and cats they took from the same housing area.

Despite the fact that PETA spent a great deal of time, money and effort fighting Senate Bill 1381 tooth and nail, the votes were not even close: 95 to 2 in the House and 35 to 1 in the Senate. PETA continued, after the bill’s passage in the General Assembly, to try to get the Governor to veto the bill but failed at that effort as well. Considering their vast financial resources and extensive connections in this state, it is quite a statement that they lost their efforts by such enormous margins.

The Richmond SPCA took Scarlet into its care when her guardian passed away. After stabilizing her insulin levels to manage diabetes, we found her a wonderful home with the Evangel familly.

So, now it gets interesting. PETA, which saw the bill as a big enough threat that they fought it desperately, now is saying that it makes no difference as a law. They and many of their advocates are arrogantly claiming that they will do nothing differently. The new PETA party line is that they have always tried to get animals adopted but, as they are quoted in the Huffington Post, “PETA will also continue to serve those most in need in our community—the old, sick, and injured animals, who comprise most of those PETA takes in when no one else will.” Note the telling use of the word “also” which makes clear that they see old, sick and injured animals as not being among those that they will get adopted. It would appear that what PETA believes that these groups of animals “in need” are actually in need of is death.

I find this appalling. One of the richest animal organizations in the world is saying that old, sick and injured animals cannot be adopted and must be killed. That certainly is not our philosophy here at the Richmond SPCA and is not a philosophy that is acceptable today given the enormous progress that we have made in saving homeless animals from death.

Stark (formerly Maestro) was adopted by the Roberts family after the Richmond SPCA brought his seizure condition under control and performed lifesaving surgery to remove his spleen.

The PETA statement that no one else takes in old, sick and injured animals is simply a lie. The Richmond SPCA accepts into our care many senior pets and we see age as no impediment to their being adopted. We also take in thousands of sick and injured animals annually and provide veterinary treatment and rehabilitation to every one of them whose condition is treatable (which is almost all). If PETA’s statement is suggesting that they do not and will not provide such veterinary care and rehabilitation, then they need to make that position clear to the public and own it. They need to explain publicly why an organization operating on annual budget in excess of $35 million is not willing to treat and rehabilitate the sick and injured animals in its care but rather has killed and intends to continue to kill all of them.

When PETA spokespersons are asked by reporters and others to clarify what are their health and behavioral standards for determining that an animal should be killed and who exactly is making that determination, they never will give an answer. If, as it would appear, they are killing all of the elderly, sick and injured animals that come into their care and spending none of their many millions of dollars in assets to treat those that are treatable and save their lives, there is just one word for that. Reprehensible.

Posted by Robin Starr on March 27, 2015 at 03:49 PM in Animal Welfare Philosophy, Cats, CEO Perspectives, Community relations, Current Affairs, Dogs, Local Government | Permalink | Comments (18)

March 02, 2015

Virginian-Pilot steers readers wrong with latest editorial

Maya, whose life was taken by PETA workers, was the beloved dog of the Zarate family and the companion of their young daughter.

PETA’s hometown newspaper came out with two pieces last week in an effort to protect and defend that organization. The Virginian Pilot ran a so-called news piece that allowed PETA, after months of radio silence about their theft and killing of a family’s beloved dog, Maya, to proclaim how contrite and sad they are about the whole thing and how they fired an employee as a scapegoat. The article portrayed PETA as being “devastated” (well, actually “pretty devastated”) and did not afford anyone who might have a differing perspective, who might think that PETA is crying crocodile tears, to have a single word.

Even more amazing was the made-to-order editorial that appeared in the paper on the same day. It said that Senate Bill 1381, which I worked very hard to urge legislators to pass, was intended to do something about PETA’s massive rate of killing dogs and cats at its facility in Norfolk but that it may have done nothing – this is the new PETA party line since they failed in their fight against the bill’s passage – because it does not say anything about euthanasia. The editors of the paper’s editorial page are either unaware of Virginia animal laws or intend to mislead their readers because, while the bill does not contain the word “euthanasia,” it most definitely affects PETA’s continued ability to euthanize. In Virginia, private animal shelters are permitted to have people who are not licensed veterinarians take the lives of the animals in their care, assuming the animal has passed any applicable hold period, using controlled drugs so long as the non-vet was trained by a licensed vet.

As we all know, PETA sends personnel out far and wide (witness the forays to Accomack) to scoop up dogs and cats that are stray or, as was the case with Maya, owned pets and end their lives. They also have non-veterinarians killing dogs and cats by the thousands at their Norfolk facility. If PETA were to no longer meet the now revised definition of “private animal shelter” because they make no meaningful effort to adopt pets to homes, then they would not be able to rely on non-veterinarians to do this killing for them. So, for the paper to say that the bill does nothing to about euthanasia is simply untrue.

Pictured are pets treated and rehabilitated at the Richmond SPCA in the last month (top to bottom): Napoleon, who is available for adoption (diabetes and cataracts); and recently adopted pets Lexington (chronic respiratory infection), Nadia (cerebellar hypoplasia) and Sid (parvo virus).

Worse is the endorsement the editorial provides of PETA’s conduct. The editorial says that PETA takes in sick and injured animals that no-kill organizations turn away and provides services that have been abandoned by no-kill organizations. Then, it proceeds to list services, every one of which the no-kill Richmond SPCA provides. We provide spaying and neutering services, we provide free and low cost veterinary care, we take in thousands of sick and injured animals annually. In fact, here is the most important point that they are missing: we take in many more animals annually than does PETA, more than half of them are sick or injured when we receive them and WE SAVE THEIR LIVES. We provide veterinary care and rehabilitation for every single treatably sick and injured pet that we take in. And, from my long experience in animal sheltering, I can tell you that the vast majority of sick and injured animals you take in can be treated and restored to reasonable health – they do not need to be killed.

PETA with its massive budget, many times that of our organization, kills nearly all of the animals they take in. Our euthanasia rate last year was less than 1% with an intake of about 3,700 while PETA killed nearly 90% of about 2,600 dogs and cats. It is true that we do not take in feral cats, and no ethical shelter should, but we provide them with free spaying and neutering and rabies vaccinations so that they may be returned to the location where they were trapped by volunteers to live out their lives.

PETA’s apologists need to stop pretending that what PETA does is necessary – it is not necessary, and it is not ethical. In fact, no other community in this state has animals dying in the numbers that die at PETA’s hands in Norfolk. The average euthanasia rate of dogs and cats for private animal shelters statewide is 13 percent (for the 2013 calendar year, as not all 2014 reports are publicly available). If PETA wants to be in the sheltering business, then it needs to do so ethically by using its vast resources to save the lives of every treatably sick and injured animal in its care. No newspaper editor is ever going to be able to responsibly make the case that an organization as massive and rich as PETA is doing the right thing by killing animals that it could well afford to save. And they need to stop broadcasting the untrue information that no-kill shelters like the Richmond SPCA are not taking in sick and injured animals. We take in thousands of them year after year. And we put the money, love and care into rehabilitating them and finding them adoptive homes. Maybe the editors of the Virginian-Pilot should explain why PETA does not do the same.

Posted by Robin Starr on March 02, 2015 at 04:40 PM in Animal Welfare Philosophy, CEO Perspectives, Current Affairs, Legislation | Permalink | Comments (9)

February 19, 2015

SB1381: David and Goliath scenario to protect Virginia's dogs and cats

It is a David and Goliath scenario if there ever was one. We and other folks in Virginia who are sick and tired of PETA's massive slaughter of innocent animals in Norfolk are trying to get the General Assembly to pass a very simple bill, Senate Bill 1381. It would simply say that private animals shelters in our state should have a purpose of trying to get the homeless animals in their care adopted. This would seem to be self evident to most people and certainly to most donors. In fact it would seem to be the ethical thing for shelters to be doing. But to PETA it is anathema. And PETA is a huge, rich, mean bully.

Wilbur Zarate holds a photo of his family's dog, Maya, on Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2014, on the porch of his home, where he says PETA workers stole her. He says the workers returned days later with a basket of fruit and told him the pet had been euthanized.
(Jay Diem | Eastern Shore News)
Full story from the Virginian Pilot

They are unwilling to have to make even the most minimal effort to get animals adopted. They take them into their facility in Norfolk by the thousands annually and kill about 90% of them. They make no effort to get them adopted, and they are wild now at the suggestion that maybe they should even try. They want no impediment to their killing.

So wild in fact that, once they got the hint that we might be succeeding a bit with our little bill, they hired a very expensive and very influential lobbyist. His name is Steve Haner and he is a very well connected Republican. In fact, he is the kind of Republican who would dislike and disparage PETA if it were not for the fact that they are now paying him a lot of money. Money, I might mention that comes from the donations that people make to them.

Mr. Haner has been convincing his friends in state agencies and with local governments to write and call Delegates asking them to oppose SB 1381. These government officials, both state and local, are, at his behest, spreading utter falsehoods by claiming that this bill, which only relates to private shelters, will put great burdens on public shelters because it will cause the private shelters to start turning away more animals. This claim has absolutely no basis in reality. Nothing about this bill would push private shelters to take in fewer animals. In fact, nothing about this bill would even make private shelters other than PETA do anything differently than they are doing right now. That is because all of them, except for PETA, actually try to get animals adopted. They actually want to save animals' lives and make a sincere effort to get animals adopted. PETA does not. And to insure that they never have to try to get animals adopted, they are fighting this bill with everything, and very dollar, they possibly can. And Haner is getting lots of government officials to do their bidding because they are rich and powerful.

We on the other hand are small. We cannot hire lobbyists. We cannot get our paid shill to pressure his buddies in state and local governments to pressure Delegates. The question is who will succeed. Many of these Delegates in the General Assembly are conservatives. They are elected by conservative voters. Their constituents to a very large extent do not like PETA and are appalled by PETA's behaviors in many ways Are these Delegates going to stand by the feelings and wishes of their constituents? Or are they going to knuckle under to PETA's and Mr. Haner's pressure tactics. Are they going to believe the lies being spread at PETA's behest or are they going to listen to the very people who actually run private shelters. We shall see if David has a chance these days before our House of Delegates. Please help us by contacting your Delegate and asking that he or she not knuckle under to PETA, the Goliath, but rather vote to save the lives of our precious and defenseless animals by supporting SB 1381.

Find your representative in the Virginia House of Delegates at whosmy.virginiageneralassembly.gov.

Posted by Robin Starr on February 19, 2015 at 08:20 AM in Adoption, Animal Welfare Philosophy, CEO Perspectives, Current Affairs, Legislation | Permalink | Comments (11)

Richmond SPCA Blog

Search

Commenting Guidelines

Recent Comments