National Animal Interest Alliance

Grab Bag Monday: Pet Ownership Statistics, Titanium Teeth, and Animal Rights Death Threats!

Pet Ownership at Highest Level in Two Decades

The new American Pet Product Association survey reveals some fascinating news about pet ownership. Of particular interest to us:

• Pet ownership is at its highest level in two decades, with 72.9 million households owning at least one pet (40% of these homes have multiple pets).
• Dog owners spent $364 on average to buy their pet, more than three times what they spent in 2008. This increase is mostly laid at the paws of the "rising cost of pure breed dogs." Strangely, there is no mention of skyrocketing "adoption fees," but maybe they didn't count these as purchases?
• The good news is that we can keep pets alive and well much, much longer than before, the bad news is that it's pretty easy to break the bank at the vet: the cost of caring for our animals rose by another $1.2 billion last year.
• Not surprisingly, more people are starting to get health insurance for their pets. 
• We've got fewer fatties among our pet ranks. This is great news: your dog or cat's joints and cardiovascular system thank you!
• More people are treating their pets like family members: this means more people bringing their pets to family visits and even buying gifts for their pets.
• More people (dog owners, anyway) are buying training devices or services for their pets, too ("devices" includes treats, by the way)!

 

---

For the Last Time: Military Dogs Don't Have Titanium Grills

An article last week in The Daily starting with the line:

Their razor-sharp teeth are made from titanium...

Really caught fire in people's imaginations. Suddenly, it seemed like everybody I knew was talking about dogs with mouths like this...

^{Jaws appeared in the only good Moore-era James Bond film}

Frankly, setting the record straight for people who should know better is getting rather exhausting, so I'll just let these guys do it for me:

Indeed, the command’s requirements for dog teeth don’t seem to account for the circumstances that would lead to grille enhancements. “All four canine teeth must be present and must not be weakened by notching, enamel hyperplasia or abnormal, excessive wear,” it reads.

In other words, if for some reason you see a SEAL dog with light glistening from its titanium teeth, your proper reaction is pity for the creature. “It’s a detriment, not a help,” Franklin says. On the other hand, if you’re coming into close contact with the jaws of a SEAL’s dog, you’re in for a lot of trouble from his very deadly master.

And there you have it!

---

Kill a bovine-tuberculosis spreading badger, and we'll burn your family!

What's the natural reaction from animal rights fanatics when presented with a complicated, emotionally-charged livestock issue? If you guessed "Threaten the reporter's family with death by combustion," you win the door prize!

The issue in question is the culling of badgers, critters that carry bovine tuberculosis, a nasty disease that can be spread to cattle and humans, and cost farmers the lives of tens of thousands of cattle each year.

Farmers generally support a cull, while conservationists and animal rightists do not (though they may support vaccination programs for badgers); studies on the effectiveness of a badger cull vary wildly, each side trumpeting the research that supports their view. See: complicated issues -- not that that's stopping the animal extremists from viewing it in pristine 16th-century black-and-white.

Now, this sort of mindset is not uncommon from animal rightists; it is to be expected, in fact. But in this case, it is also sadly ironic, as the man presenting this story was bound by the BBC to report it in an unbiased manner that didn't even promote culling badgers! But hey, don't let that get in your way -- apparently, merely uttering the words "badger cull" is now a capital crime in the world of animal rights extremism!

^{Badger... Badger!}

From Dog Watch: PETA Didn't Do It!

OK, just can't help myself here. But this is our last necropost. Promise!

At the time the following article was written, there were a lot of claims circulating about dogs being released from crates and x-pens at dog shows by animal rights activists. Ingrid Newkirk herself made phone calls to various dog fanciers*, in hopes of smoothing the waters (it's a sad truth that the organized dog world was at one time a major source of funding for many of the most radical animal rights groups). She even went so far as to offer a carefully-worded "$500 reward for information leading to the conviction of any person or persons engaging in any such act (releases, attempted or actual poisoning) calculated to cause harm to or the death of any dog or cat at a show."

You see, she was simply misunderstood -- PETA just wanted to be our friends.

Given past behavior and statements made by PETA, it was more than a little insulting to everybody's intelligence, and who knows... this may have even been the straw that finally broke the camel's back: NAIA was formed just a few months after this article was published in Dog Watch**.

---

PETA DIDN’T DO IT!

By Patti Strand, NAIA National Director
^{(Originally published in Dog Watch, February 1991)}

Nowadays, in practically every dog publication you pick up you’re likely to find letters to the editor from Ingrid Newkirk, National Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, [PETA]. These letters press the same point, that PETA and Ingrid are distressed that rumors continue to circulate about dogs being released from crates and x-pens at dog shows by PETA and other ARAs, and ask that "common sense be restored to the debate over our differences." Some of these pieces state that letting dogs loose to potentially harm themselves runs counter to everything they believe. These pieces also contain thinly-veiled threats of lawsuits if the rumors don’t stop. Others dangle a ... "$500 reward for information leading to the conviction of any person or persons engaging in any such act (releases, attempted or actual poisoning) calculated to cause harm to or the death of any dog or cat at a show."

From all I’ve seen of these letters, one thing seems certain to me: that Ingrid has never shown dogs. Her dream that it might be possible to stop rumors in the world of dogs brings belly laughs, guffaws and tears to the eyes of the anointed! Anyone who has ever tried to stop a rumor in the dog world can certainly relate to her frustration – no matter how strongly they might also believe that these particular rumors are true. Sorry but an offer of $500 from a corporation that rakes in more than $10 million a year is not exactly what most people would call “putting it all on the line.” And the most hilarious part of Ingrid's plea “to restore common sense” is that in order to collect the $500 bonanza, a contender must first prove that the release was “calculated to cause harm.” I’m no attorney but it seems to me that believing in the animal rights doctrine offers a basis for a first amendment defense if, for instance, the liberationist testified that – according to his/her belief system – freeing a crated dog is beneficial rather than harmful.

Ingrid, Ingrid, Ingrid …you’re so clever!!

Cunning as these letters are, though, if Ms. Newkirk really wants to clear PETA’s name of these charges once and for all, she simply needs to advise the purebred dog world of the following fact: Unless you have personally witnessed Ingrid Newkirk, Alex Pacheco and/or Susan Brebner skulking about the dog show set-up area, whoever you imagined you saw, they most definitely were not members of PETA!!!

The reason this would vindicate PETA is because PETA, the organization which claims to have about 350,000 members, instead, has only three members! According to PETA’s certificate of incorporation in Delaware, these members are Alex, Ingrid, and Sue, as mentioned above and they were made, by certificate of amendment on March 12, 1987, to be PETA’s only members. The Amendment certificate lists their three names and addresses following a statement that reads … “The names and addresses of the members of the corporation are as follows …” Further, it says, “The members of the corporation shall also be the exclusive directors thereof …” Additionally … “the direction and management of the affairs of the Corporation, and the control and disposition of its property and funds shall be vested exclusively in the Corporation’s Board of Directors.”

So, to eliminate confusion over who belongs to PETA and who does not, and to prevent backsliding by the dog fancy over issues of mistaken identity, we suggest that PETA conspicuously post 8 X 10 glossy photos (with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one) of these three members in public places such as supermarkets, government buildings, fairgrounds, and in post offices. This would serve notice to the fancy that whoever wears a PETA T-shirt, or screams loudly, “We are with PETA!” and is not in fact one of the three people pictured in the photographs, is an impostor and PETA is not responsible!

It is interesting to note that PETA defends the entire animal rights movement from the charge of crate release, but does not condemn violence when it is committed on behalf of animals. A cynic might surmise from their different levels of concern over crate release vs. violence that some actions damage their fundraising ability more than others. One also might surmise from their actions that PETA views the entire AR movement as one big dummy corporation: their own!

 

---

^{*I know this because she called me!}

^{**Unaffiliated with the current newsletter from the Cornell School of Veterinary Medicine.}

From the NAIA Archives: Where Do Values About Animals Lie for Fourth Graders?

And finally, a little social experiment conducted by our old friend, Phil Clifford...

 

---

Where Do Values About Animals Lie for Fourth Graders?

By Phil Clifford

From the beginning, NAIA has been about values.

NAIA supporters value human life, human health, and the development of uplifting human potential. And while they claim subservience of other animal species to humankind, they value the well-being of animals, the preservation of animal species, and the active protection of animals from inhumane treatment.

NAIA supporters value the rule of law and the active resistance against all who attempt to destroy others through illegal and unethical means.

Against this backdrop of values, I'd like to share with you my experience in challenging fourth and fifth grade students to explore their own values about people and animals. The experiences were eye-opening and point to a great deal of work that must be done to shape the values of the rising generation.

During the 1980s, I served as community information director for Multnomah County Animal Control in Oregon. Frequently I was invited to speak to students in school classrooms. I found that by the time most students were into fourth grade, they were intellectually mature to sort out some fairly abstract concepts from purely emotional responses. I used the excellent values chart present in an issue of Community Animal Control as a discussion format.

The chart is a continuum line. At the far left, statements that reflect values that place humans as absolute masters over all animal species with no responsibility toward any animal and the right to subject animals to any degree of suffering and wanton killing depending on the human's pleasure and will.

At the far right, statements reflect values that place animals on a par with humans. That is, any animal has rights equal to any human's life. Any animal life is as valuable and worthwhile as human life. Humans have no right to exploit animals in any way. Pet ownership, animal husbandry, hunting, fishing, etc. are all immoral. All humans must be vegans.

All other values fall somewhere along the continuum between these opposing absolute points.

After making sure the students understood the concept of a continuum. I would describe a variety of human-animal relationships and than ask students to indicate where their values lie on each relationship.

First, I described the Draize testing of rabbits for cosmetic purposes. I than asked whether a person's vanity justified subjecting rabbits to the testing protocol. Almost without exception, the students saw no justification when vanity squared off against an animal's suffering.

Next I described the testing of various substances on laboratory animals that eventually led to the virtual elimination of formerly widespread crippling and fatal diseases. For most students, the benefits to humans - especially children- from such testing seemed to justify laboratory animals' suffering, but the students felt uncomfortable about the need for animal testing to achieve those benefits.

Clearly we had moved from something that was pretty black-and-white to the students to something that was at least light gray.

To refine where their values on animal testing were, I personalized the testing on laboratory animals.

"What if your mother (or father or a sibling) became very ill and would die in six months unless a surgeon mastered a new delicate technique on dogs so he could save her life, and some of the dogs would suffer and die in the process?"

Well, under this scenario, their values shifted to strongly favoring animal testing.

It was then time to help the students more precisely pinpoint where their values fell on the continuum. I next asked, "Do you know what AIDS is?" They assured me that they did.

"What if a new medicine held great promise for a cure of AIDS but it needed to be tested on laboratory animals and some of the animals would most likely suffer and die. Would testing to cure people of AIDS be justified?"

I wasn't prepared for the overwhelming response of these fourth and fifth graders.

"No," they said. "People with AIDS brought it on themselves, so let them suffer."

I pursued their response. "Are you saying that testing animals for the effectiveness of a new drug to cure the AIDS of, let's say, a drug addict who borrowed a used needle contaminated with the AIDS virus is not justified?"

There was an emphatic "Yes!"

"Did the drug addict do a stupid thing?"

Again, "Yes!"

"So he should suffer and die because of doing a stupid thing?"

Still, "Yes!"

"Hmmm. Let's see. Everyone who has never done a stupid thing, please raise your hand."

No hands went up.

"So each of you should always suffer for the stupid things you do, no matter how severe the suffering might be - even if it ends in death?"

Silence.

They were struggling to sort out the relationship between "black and white" and "stupid things." Slowly they verbalized their thinking, which went something like, "Well, no one gets really hurt much by the stupid things we do, but the addicts know they're doing something dangerous."

"But," I countered, "no matter the degree of danger it causes, stupid is stupid. When you do something stupid, wouldn't you like a second chance to change things"

They agreed they would.

"What about drug addicts? Should they get a second chance?"

Mixed response. One popular view that emerged was that animal testing should not be used in this case and maybe drug addicts would volunteer to be tested.

One bright student observed that "Drug addicts don't really change. They'll go back to drugs and eventually kill themselves. So why cause animals to suffer for them?"

The classroom sessions lasted two consecutive periods. Room parents and teachers were enthusiastic about the experiences the students had just gone through. They had never seen children in a group struggle within themselves and with each other over values.

We never resolved the values issue about drug addicts, but that wasn't the purpose. The purpose was to get students to look at their own values critically.

Each student was given a handout sheet to take home. The sheet covered the main issues the students had considered in the classroom and then encouraged family members to explore their own values regarding animals and our relationship to them.

---

 

One thing I can't get over while reading this old article is how uptight so many schools are with even mildly "controversial" topics nowadays. A friend who teaches fifth grade just shook her head after reading this: she'd love to conduct a mental exercise like this, but no way you bring up drug use outside of the context of D.A.R.E. presentation. And issues like animal experimentation, morality, or even AIDS? Perish the thought that children ever be exposed to anything uncomfortable that might stimulate some critical thinking. Phil would never be allowed to do something like this in today's climate -- it'd take far too much valuable time away from standardized test preparation.

OK, I'm sensing a major non-animal related digression coming on. Better step off the soapbox.

Hope you enjoyed Archive Week! We've got one more repost left, then we'll see you next Monday with some new material!

From the NAIA Archives: The Importance of Structure and Function in Dogs

Last, but not least for "archive week," are two articles by Pat Hastings and Phil Clifford, dealing with structure and function in dogs and children's attitudes toward animals respectively. Both entries date back to the early 1990s.

We'll start with Pat's.

Pat Hastings is a long-renowned canine expert who puts on seminars on canine health, structure, and evaluation all around the world (she's currently putting on a seminar in Australia, in case you were wondering). She's also a writer, her most recent book titled Structure in Action: The Makings of a Durable Dog.

Hey, it's only $19.77 on Amazon!

One of the great things about Pat is that no matter how much she learns about dogs, she remembers to keep the discussion simple enough to be useful not only to her fellow experts, but people new to the world of dogs, as well. Newbies need not be afraid -- which is as it should be: being smart about caring for your dogs is, after all, something even first-time owners should be able to aspire to.

But enough gushing. Let's get to the article -- something that might be more aptly subtitled "The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same."

 

---

Knowledge is Power... and More! The Importance of Structure and Function in Dogs

By Pat Hastings

One of the most significant pearls of wisdom I was fortunate to receive over the years was in these words: A sound dog will age more gracefully, be less likely to break down from stress or injury, experience less fatigue and greater efficiency in work, and stay healthier and more attractive throughout its life. The originator of this most eloquent of reasons to breed carefully and thoughtfully has my deepest respects. It is an essential axiom not only in a conscientious breeding program but also in the commitment to structurally evaluate - as knowledgeably and objectively as possible - each litter bred. I do not mean to take anything away from type, however. Type is undeniably at the center of the dog show world - and it should be. After all, breed conformation is founded on type. However type without a sound, functional structure is rather like breeding balloon animals - producing a recognizable form lacking in substance. Even dogs bred as companion animals need good health in order to be companionable. Function is as important as type.

Certainly we've all heard this before. But what does it take to develop both function and type in a breeding program? Engineers can relate to the essential design of the dog. The dog's structure serves a purpose; if that structure is too weak or improper to live up to its purpose, it is more likely to break down. It is cruel to ask any dog to perform any task for which its structure is poorly equipped. The reason is simple: because the human-animal bond is strong, most dogs will do all we ask for as long as they can - they'll jump, herd, hunt, run, walk the neighborhood, jog the track, or take to the agility course until they can no longer do so. They will keep going until their physical structure is incapable of one more step. How soon they will reach that point depends largely on our awareness of and respect for their inherent strengths and weaknesses.

What happens when dogs reach the point of breakdown? The average owner's initial tendency is to get frustrated with the dog. More times than I can count, my husband and I have been approached by owners wanting to know why their dogs suddenly won't take the jumps after so many good performances. These people want to know why their dogs are suddenly being disobedient or just plain lazy. In almost every case we have encountered, the dog's structure has broken down. Most people are genuinely unaware of their dogs' physical condition when such behavior patterns begin to emerge. They don't realize the body is simply telling the dog it cannot do another jump.

I firmly believe that if more breeders had a working knowledge of canine structure, we would see far fewer structural weaknesses in the show ring. Structural weaknesses are not limited to mediocre show dogs - they can be found in top-winning dogs. A judge is compelled to judge a dog on its qualities, but weaknesses must be taken into consideration at some point. After all, conformation is intended to advance quality in breeding. If structural weaknesses are overlooked because type is everything, both breeder and judge are helping to perpetuate these weaknesses and are potentially creating serious problems within an entire breed.

It doesn't stop with the show ring or the obedience ring or the field trial. We all cry out against puppy mills, yet some of the most crippled pet dogs I have come in contact with were purchased from reputable breeders who were completely unaware of the structural weaknesses in the puppies they were selling. The owner bears the financial and emotional burden of surgeries or pain killers and of deciding at which point the dog would be best served by euthanasia. Puppy mills are interested in profits. A breeder's first priority is to the breed. The distinction is vast and the responsibility enormous. No breeder or breed is best served by relying entirely on conformation wins. Breed to a winning stud dog with structural weaknesses and your breeding program goes the way of trouble. And if those weaknesses are not recognized as such, does that make it OK? What do you think?

One of the worst tragedies in the dog world is when a structural problem becomes so pervasive in a breed that it is gradually accepted as a normal aspect of the breed. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves!

The answer lies in education, in making an effort to learn correct structure and the consequences of incorrect structure. For example, a dog acquired for jumping in obedience or agility should have no looseness in the elbows or lack in prosternum, both of which can cause stretched and damaged tissue in the front assembly.

A dog with slipped hocks should never be expected to perform coursing, herding, or repetitive jumping because the lack of stability in the hock joint damages the tissue integrity and eventually causes bone or joint deterioration. A sporting dog with a ewe neck will eventually be incapable of carrying a bird. And high shoulders are one of the most destructive weaknesses that a dog in harness can have.

A dog bred to go-to-ground is fairly useless if its loin is too short or nonexistent. A herring gut or high hocks diminish stamina. A weak underjaw prevents a strong grasp. An over-angulated rear, which creates sickle hocks, causes a poorly synchronized gait, which destroys its efficiency. Shoulders set too close together make it difficult for a dog to eat out of a pan on the floor and impede the ability of a tracking dog to keep its nose to the ground. A tail set too low interferes with an effortless gait. A tail set too high can prevent a dog from pulling a cart.

All dogs have imperfections, as do we all. However, it is important to view those imperfections in relation to what the dog will be asked to do. If we cannot recognize structural weaknesses or faults in our dogs, we risk the quality of their lives, not to mention the quality of our breeding programs. Thus knowledge is more than power - it is a substantial component to the future well-being of our breeds.

From the NAIA Archives: Li'l Pardners

Ever look back in an old scrapbook and find a picture of something so neat you just want to kick yourself for ever forgetting about it? That's certainly how I felt when I came across this page during today's cleanup of naiaonline.org!

Because really, have you ever seen a dog square dance? Probably not, unless you were lucky enough to catch NAIA's Li'l Pardner's team in action! The idea behind this program was to use humor and spectacle to introduce pet owners to the world of training and obedience; basically to show that having a well-trained dog is so much more than just sit and stay, but something that can be positive and engaging (and sometimes ridiculous) for both dog and owner.

Each dog would be introduced and come to his handler’s side before the dance, followed by a tightly choreographed square dance, concluding with a group bow -- dogs included. But of course that short description doesn't do it any justice at all. It's a crying shame we didn't have YouTube back then!

There is no date on the article, but in speaking with the lead trainer Ann Austin today, she was able to place these activities in the mid to late 1990s.

---

NAIA's Li'l Pardners

The ancient bond between people and dogs is a wondrous marvel to behold. From the simple joys of companionship, to the most complex working partnerships between people and service dogs, working dogs, and dogs in sports and entertainment, this bond has a way of connecting us to timeless values.

Socialization and basic training are the foundations for this connection. A well-socialized dog with good manners is a treasured family pet and a significant community asset. Best of all, good socialization and training programs are stepping-stones to fun and life-long companionship. The elements that produce wonderful family companions and good canine citizens also lay the groundwork for advanced work in pet-assisted therapy, obedience and agility competition, search and rescue, law enforcement, and other human-canine partnerships.

Anyone who is willing to give a dog the attention, training and love he deserves will be rewarded with a devoted friend for life. To demonstrate this bond in action and show that well-trained dogs will give us all we ask and more, NAIA and renowned dog trainer Ann Austin have launched NAIA's Li'l Pardners. These are teams of dogs and owners who demonstrate everything from basic obedience to square dancing routines in a lively entertaining format. Li'l Pardners also sends the more serious message that pet training and socialization are essential for good community attitudes toward dogs and dog ownership.

Trained by Ann Austin of Austin Animal Actors, Li'l Pardners confirms the potential of canine socialization and good citizenship through performances guaranteed to bring a smile to the sternest countenance. Their work also underlines the importance of training as the key to joyful and successful dog ownership.

^{NAIA's original Li'l Pardners team members (left to right): Elsa Brett and her dog Riley, Tony Sansone and Wrigley, Gwendy Kem and Einstein, Toni Drugmand and Stetson, Ann Austin and Buddy. Ann calls the dances, but sometimes she and Buddy even join in dance. Li'l Pardners wishes to thank Vicki Hearne, the acclaimed dog advocate and poet for her assistance and consultancy in developing this wonderful program.}

---

 

Speaking with Ann about this program today and hearing her warm reminiscence of Buddy, it was a bittersweet reminder of how precious our time with our dogs can be: every one of those wonderful dogs pictured has passed on.

Ann, however, is very much alive and well, and still busy training animals today -- anything from lessons in rattlesnake avoidance to service dog training and everything in between. She is one of those rare individuals for whom the word "dynamo" is truly apt. Her website is Animal Actors of Arizona.

Now go and give your dog a hug.

From the NAIA Archives: Pooch Patrol!

Time for another trip down memory lane as we continue with our massive update and restructuring of naiaonline.org!

This short essay was written waaaaaaaay back in the early 1990s by NAIA contributor, rescue coordinator, and all-around good person Patti Webb. What's so cool about coming across this story is the fact that since then, Pooch Patrol has gone on to become so much more than an "unusual program," but a full-on institution (called Project Pooch since 1993) that has saved the lives of countless homeless dogs while teaching valuable lessons and life-skills to young people...

---

Unusual program helps dogs and kids

By Patti Webb

As a Boxer rescue representative, I've seen many wonderful dogs that are simply misunderstood. I have found that families often do not know that dogs, like children, need patience and guidance to reach their full potential.

Love, by itself, is not enough. One of the biggest challenges of rescue is to make potential adoptees see each dog's character and possibilities, not just what's on the surface. It takes time and effort to make canines and humans into useful citizens who can live together. I don't have enough time to completely train the rescue dogs, so I always suggest an obedience class to the adoptive families and make myself available for information and advice.

When Joan Dalton of the Maclaren School, Oregon's juvenile detention center, told me that a boy had asked for a Boxer to train in the "Pooch Patrol," I was both nervous and hopeful. Joan asked if I would be willing to place a rescued Boxer in the obedience program. As a mother of three boys, my maternal instincts and my curiosity got the best of me, so I went to Maclaren to learn more.

Pooch Patrol has been part of the school's curriculum for four years. The dogs come from shelters and rescue programs; the boys are chosen to participate and are closely supervised. I spent time talking to these young men and was impressed with their attitudes towards the dogs and their questions about health care, training, and breed-specific characteristics.

Most dogs in shelters are surrendered because they have behavior problems. The lessons learned in the Maclaren classes benefit the dogs and the boys. With proper care and training, the dogs can become useful members of society as therapy dogs and companions and the boys will become productive employees and citizens and responsible parents.

All dogs in the program are spayed or neutered. Great care is taken to match the dog to the appropriate adoptive family. Prospective homes are carefully screened and visited.

Pooch Patrol relies on donations to operate. They need training tools, learning materials, health supplies, food, money for veterinary bills, and grooming supplies. Adoptive families pay $75 for each dog, but this does not cover the cost of food and care for the dogs during the eight-to-12 weeks they spend in the program.

Please consider donating to Maclaren or other similar programs. Obedience training makes every dog more placeable; programs such as the Pooch Patrol assure that the training benefits the boys during the process. This program proves there are many opportunities for dogs and people to enrich each others' lives and grow together. It just takes some creative thinking and the willingness to follow through.

Patti Webb rescues Boxers for the Oregon Boxer Club

 

---

From the Project Pooch Website:

Project POOCH, Inc,^® is a non-profit, 501c(3) organization that has successfully paired youths incarcerated at the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility in Woodburn, Oregon, with homeless shelter dogs since 1993.

Youths (guided by professionals) learn to train the dogs, groom them, and find them new adoptive "forever homes." The dogs leave the program ready to be great pets, while their trainers re-enter the community with new job and personal skills and increased compassion and respect for all life.

From the NAIA Archives: The Monster in the Rescue Closet

It's been a decidedly manic Monday -- and Tuesday -- and already this week, we're starting to feel a little burned out. Training facility switcheroos, egg wars, dog population studies, speech preparations, and more! There are so many things to do, and it's all far too important to say "No" to, after all.

The Crazy World of Animal Advocacy just never stops turning, does it?

So as we look through the archives of our old website in preparation for the Big Redesign of 2011, it seems particularly apt to run this wonderful (and wondrously helpful) entry by NAIA contributor Vicki DeGruy. Work got you down? Feeling like your plate is a little too full? Well, why not add "find permanent homes for 10-15 abandoned Chow Chows each year" to your to-do list and see where that gets you!

BURNOUT: THE MONSTER IN THE RESCUE CLOSET

By Vicki DeGruy

"I'm so tired and discouraged all the time. I feel like I'm on duty 24/7 and never get a day off. The harder I work, the harder they want me to work. Nothing ever gets better, it seems like it only gets worse. The dogs don't stop coming no matter what I do."

"I have days where my hands shake just thinking about picking up the phone to call another owner who wants to dump their dog. I can hardly bring myself to do it anymore. When I do, I just want to scream at them."

"My bills are all past due, I owe a fortune to the vet, there's no food in the fridge, I'm using the charge card to make ends meet and I'm over my credit limit again. I don't know how I'm going to buy dog food this week."

"Sometimes I grieve for the life I had before rescue. It's been so long, I hardly remember the fun I used to have, hobbies, trips, friends. I miss them so much!"

"I want to quit so badly but I can't. The dogs are depending on me to save them. Thinking about quitting makes me feel guilty and ashamed of myself. But I can't go on this way much longer. I really wish someone would rescue me!"

Do any of these sound familiar? If you've been a rescue volunteer for any length of time, I know they do! They're some of the innermost thoughts of overextended rescuers, rarely expressed out loud even to each other. How do I know? Because I've been there myself. All of those thoughts have been my own at one time or another throughout my rescue career.

Rescue is an extremely stressful activity with a high rate of burnout. The same applies to people who work in animal shelters. Burnout is a common problem that eventually affects almost everyone. It's hard to prepare new volunteers for this because their enthusiasm blocks out the warnings of the more experienced. You can tell them about it but it goes in one ear and out the other. They don't understand until they've arrived there themselves, and then they don't know how to cope with it.

Oddly, for as common as it is, burnout is seldom discussed. It's hard to get people to talk about it. The subject makes people uncomfortable, especially those who are suffering from it. I'm not a psychologist but I imagine there must be reasons for this reluctance: maybe we're afraid we'll be seen as weak, unable to measure up to saintly expectations; maybe we think we've failed somehow. Whatever the reason, this silence has created a gaping chasm that many rescuers fall into, never to be seen again. Burnout is probably the most dangerous problem that rescuers face. We need to talk about it and help each other through it.

To cope with burnout, you have to take back control of your life! We get into rescue to help animals in our spare time but it quickly takes over all our time and resources, becoming the only thing in our lives. To put rescue back in perspective:

• Take care of yourself first. You're no good to anyone or anything if you're tired, miserable, broke, or angry all the time. Neglecting your own needs makes you less effective, not more. You deserve to eat and sleep well, to be healthy, to have fun and be happy as much as anyone else.
• Look at your situation and compare it to where you want to be. What are your true personal priorities in life? Make a list of them beginning with those most important to you. Are the ones at the top of your list getting the largest amount of your time and resources? If not, rearrange your time so they are.
• What activities besides rescue do you enjoy most? Do you (or did you) have a hobby? Make another list. Do something from that list every day. It doesn't have to be a big thing, it can be as small as reading a few pages of a novel or taking a walk with your dog. The important thing is to make time every day to do something that makes you happy. Don't put this off until you have time - make time! This little daily break will do wonders for your attitude and well being.
• Take at least one day a week off from rescue. Do whatever you want or need to do on that day as long as it doesn't involve rescue. Even shelter employees have days off and so should you!
• Stay connected to the 'real' world. Some volunteers get so deeply involved with rescue, they isolate themselves and develop a very narrow negative mindset. Read books and newspapers, visit with non-rescue friends, go places, meet new people.
• Set a SMART goal for yourself and do something every day toward reaching it. A SMART goal is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, and Realistic, and has a Timetable. An example of a SMART goal is "I am going to teach my foster dog to sit and stay on command within two weeks." Goals like "I'm going to end all pet abuse in the US" or "someday I'm going to move to the country and build a sanctuary" are noble thoughts but too big and vague to keep you focused on them. They usually produce discouragement. SMART goals automatically steer you toward progress and achievement that provide personal satisfaction and the enthusiasm to set and reach your next SMART goal.
• Keep a record of your successes and look at them often. In rescue, the negative can seem to overwhelm the positive. Our efforts can feel insignificant and we forget how much good we've done. Keep a photo album of all your placements, all your happy endings, and review them regularly, not just when you're feeling low. You'll be amazed to see how much you have actually accomplished. Be proud of them! They'll charge your batteries for another go.
• Ask for help. None of us are in this alone although many of us seem to think we are. When you're discouraged, depressed, overwhelmed, or just need to vent, tell somebody! We all need support at times. When we support each other, we all feel better.
• Evaluate your rescue activities and make adjustments that allow you to have a life as well as a rescue program. If you've been in rescue long enough to feel burned out, you've been in long enough to know what you're best at, what you can afford, and how many dogs you can care for properly. Use this information to set new priorities and limits for your program - and then stick to them.

This last is probably the hardest for rescuers to put into practice because it means saying "No" sometimes. We're not very good at that, are we? The emotional aspects of rescue weigh heavy on us. We're constantly pressured to say yes. It's very very hard to say no and it's usually attached to a guilt trip. It's amazing how many burdens we'll take upon ourselves to avoid feeling guilty, but they'll bring you to only one place: burnout. You have to say no to survive for long in rescue because the animals never stop coming and people will never stop making demands of you. Saying no is the only thing that gives you any real control over what happens to you in rescue. It's the most powerful thing you can do to get your life back on track and make yourself happy and fully effective once again.