I AGREE!!' The small groups are terrific, in terms of motivation, what they are doing and how their hearts and actions behave after, to find loving homes. One CANNOT put the fox in charge of the hen house!!! That means No, No , No to the biggest Corruption agencies Humane World for Animals, Kitty Block, Animal Wellness Action, Wayne Pacelle, Marty Irby, ASPCA and more who have anti-anmal agendas , based on my 30 yesrs of evidence. The pro-slaughter organizaions are American Wild Horse ___(they keep chaging the last word due to corruption) Conservation, PETA, Humane World for Animals, Return to Freedom, San Diego Humane Society. These organizations also encourage the druging of horses with Class A drugs that cripple horses for the rest of their lives. My personal opinions are based on one on one experiences, in person conversations, Observations, quotations and more.
Thanks for this article, Nathan, it is a real eye-opener. I have been so ignorantly gung-ho about oversight and regulation of these so-called shelters and rescues; I thought it would be the answer to these horrendous outcomes for animals.
I am so strongly incensed about the activities of PETA that I feel there should be some very public exposure
(as in a TV documentary) to really shake people up and get the ball rolling towards reform. And how could law enforcement not squirm when faced with everything they have not done to contain these criminals?
I wish there was a shortcut here to better regulate everyone who has the power over life and death for animals, but these agencies almost always get captured.
Dear Nathan, If is so sad that there are such evil and insensitive people who are in charge of animal shelters and governmental agencies and such organizationss as Miranda’s Rescue and PETA who allow the killing of the voiceless animals like Bruce and Maya. Animals are Sentient Beings who deserve the same respect and rights as Human Beings. Thusly, the people responsible for these murders should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as if they had murdered human beings. We need to enforce the Hayden Act and Bruce’s Law (a proposed federal version of the Hayden Act), and a federal version of Kentucky’s HB258 (Ethan’s Law ) which makes such animal abuse a felony rather than a misdemeanor. As l have stated before, creating Animal Study Programs would allow children to interact with dogs and other animals and to learn Compassion and that EACH AND EVERY LIFE MATTERS, leading to a kinder and more loving world for this and future generations. Nathan, please continue your fight against the hypocritical and insensitive and inhumane people and practices. Save our beloved animals.❤️🙏🐶😸
There are legitimate questions about Colorado's PACFA program. I've raised plenty myself. But criticism should be based on what PACFA actually does, not on misleading statements.
PACFA does not operate shelters, decide which animals are euthanized, or promote a sheltering philosophy. It regulates both shelters and rescues, establishes minimum standards of care, conducts inspections, and requires public reporting of outcomes. Read that again, PACFA does not operate shelters, decide which animals are euthanized, or promote a sheltering philosophy. Period.
Calling Colorado's shelters “kill shelters” is particularly misleading. Euthanasia is an outcome, not a type of shelter. And by the commonly used 90% benchmark of the no-kill movement, Colorado's statewide sheltering system qualifies as no-kill. That doesn't mean every facility performs well. It means portraying Colorado as a system of “kill shelters” is rhetoric, not analysis. Again, euthanasia is an outcome, not a type of shelter.
I've worked on animal-welfare legislation and regulation in Colorado for nearly a decade, including work on PACFA regulations. I have plenty of my own criticisms of the program. But the characterization of these regulations is simply not accurate.
The article suggests that pacing or defecating during social interaction can now be a “death sentence.” The regulation actually says routine defecation during social engagement “may be cause for concern.”
Cause for concern is not authorization to euthanize.
More importantly, when animals exhibit stereotypic behavior or other signs of unacceptable quality of life, PACFA REQUIRES shelters AND rescues to develop individualized enrichment plans to address those animals' individual needs. I was directly involved in developing that enrichment-plan requirement. Its purpose was to improve the care of animals struggling in a shelter environment — not provide a justification for killing them. This is squarely in line with the legislation.
And consider this, the author cannot give an example like Miranda's or PETA in Colorado because there isn't one.
As to "largely self-funding" being a dishonest characterization, PACFA is 81% self-funded - is that not "largely"?
PACFA isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There are legitimate questions about its effectiveness, enforcement and transparency, all of which I and other advocates fight for every single day. But those shortcomings don't justify misrepresenting what its regulations say.
Whether California should create a regulatory body is a separate policy question. Whatever position one takes on that question, it should be based on an accurate representation of the system being used as the comparison.
I AGREE!!' The small groups are terrific, in terms of motivation, what they are doing and how their hearts and actions behave after, to find loving homes. One CANNOT put the fox in charge of the hen house!!! That means No, No , No to the biggest Corruption agencies Humane World for Animals, Kitty Block, Animal Wellness Action, Wayne Pacelle, Marty Irby, ASPCA and more who have anti-anmal agendas , based on my 30 yesrs of evidence. The pro-slaughter organizaions are American Wild Horse ___(they keep chaging the last word due to corruption) Conservation, PETA, Humane World for Animals, Return to Freedom, San Diego Humane Society. These organizations also encourage the druging of horses with Class A drugs that cripple horses for the rest of their lives. My personal opinions are based on one on one experiences, in person conversations, Observations, quotations and more.
Thanks for this article, Nathan, it is a real eye-opener. I have been so ignorantly gung-ho about oversight and regulation of these so-called shelters and rescues; I thought it would be the answer to these horrendous outcomes for animals.
I am so strongly incensed about the activities of PETA that I feel there should be some very public exposure
(as in a TV documentary) to really shake people up and get the ball rolling towards reform. And how could law enforcement not squirm when faced with everything they have not done to contain these criminals?
I wish there was a shortcut here to better regulate everyone who has the power over life and death for animals, but these agencies almost always get captured.
You're probably right -- their ethos has not changed and it just follows they're still the same killers -- their changes are merely cosmetic.
Dear Nathan, If is so sad that there are such evil and insensitive people who are in charge of animal shelters and governmental agencies and such organizationss as Miranda’s Rescue and PETA who allow the killing of the voiceless animals like Bruce and Maya. Animals are Sentient Beings who deserve the same respect and rights as Human Beings. Thusly, the people responsible for these murders should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as if they had murdered human beings. We need to enforce the Hayden Act and Bruce’s Law (a proposed federal version of the Hayden Act), and a federal version of Kentucky’s HB258 (Ethan’s Law ) which makes such animal abuse a felony rather than a misdemeanor. As l have stated before, creating Animal Study Programs would allow children to interact with dogs and other animals and to learn Compassion and that EACH AND EVERY LIFE MATTERS, leading to a kinder and more loving world for this and future generations. Nathan, please continue your fight against the hypocritical and insensitive and inhumane people and practices. Save our beloved animals.❤️🙏🐶😸
There are legitimate questions about Colorado's PACFA program. I've raised plenty myself. But criticism should be based on what PACFA actually does, not on misleading statements.
PACFA does not operate shelters, decide which animals are euthanized, or promote a sheltering philosophy. It regulates both shelters and rescues, establishes minimum standards of care, conducts inspections, and requires public reporting of outcomes. Read that again, PACFA does not operate shelters, decide which animals are euthanized, or promote a sheltering philosophy. Period.
Calling Colorado's shelters “kill shelters” is particularly misleading. Euthanasia is an outcome, not a type of shelter. And by the commonly used 90% benchmark of the no-kill movement, Colorado's statewide sheltering system qualifies as no-kill. That doesn't mean every facility performs well. It means portraying Colorado as a system of “kill shelters” is rhetoric, not analysis. Again, euthanasia is an outcome, not a type of shelter.
I've worked on animal-welfare legislation and regulation in Colorado for nearly a decade, including work on PACFA regulations. I have plenty of my own criticisms of the program. But the characterization of these regulations is simply not accurate.
The article suggests that pacing or defecating during social interaction can now be a “death sentence.” The regulation actually says routine defecation during social engagement “may be cause for concern.”
Cause for concern is not authorization to euthanize.
More importantly, when animals exhibit stereotypic behavior or other signs of unacceptable quality of life, PACFA REQUIRES shelters AND rescues to develop individualized enrichment plans to address those animals' individual needs. I was directly involved in developing that enrichment-plan requirement. Its purpose was to improve the care of animals struggling in a shelter environment — not provide a justification for killing them. This is squarely in line with the legislation.
And consider this, the author cannot give an example like Miranda's or PETA in Colorado because there isn't one.
As to "largely self-funding" being a dishonest characterization, PACFA is 81% self-funded - is that not "largely"?
PACFA isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There are legitimate questions about its effectiveness, enforcement and transparency, all of which I and other advocates fight for every single day. But those shortcomings don't justify misrepresenting what its regulations say.
Whether California should create a regulatory body is a separate policy question. Whatever position one takes on that question, it should be based on an accurate representation of the system being used as the comparison.