Story by Ruth Steinberger
“Learning to work smarter, not harder,” is a central theme of the 2008 fall spay/neuter conference in Chicago.
As a scheduled speaker at the nationwide conference, I’ve reflected on what “Smarter, not harder,” can mean to each of us in animal activism.
To me, this catchy slogan means maximizing our effectiveness with the resources we have.
If our goal is to prevent as great a number of animals from suffering as possible, and in our region we see a lot of animals whose lives fall far below the norm, we need to find ways to be as effective as possible with our precious resources. We must work smarter; most people in animal welfare cannot possibly work much harder than they now do.
Working smarter means unifying to change some of the fundamental problems affecting dogs and cats in Oklahoma each day, specifically we face some archaic laws, unresponsive or antagonistic elected officials, and chronic, rural poverty.
Working smarter means getting to the root of these problems, assessing how animals are affected, and working to develop the infrastructure that supports humane and logical progress on animal welfare issues.
We cannot stretch the minutes in the day, money, mileage, nor space in order to respond to each crisis that comes our way without asking why tragedy often seems to be the norm and not an aberration. As State Outreach Coordinator for Oklahoma Alliance for Animals, in the last month I have gotten e-mails or calls from people trying to find out how to report substandard breeders, a fraudulent rescue, two hoarder cases and more.
Oklahoma has the largest network for helping low-income homes get pets spayed or neutered in the Midwest, thanks directly to a caring network of veterinarians, leadership from our participating animal welfare groups and the Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association, an organization which deserves immense credit. There are dozens of great rescue organizations. But in our capitol, Oklahoma based animal welfare organizations are virtually silent.
How many of us have communicated directly with our state legislators about our passion about animal welfare, or our opposition or support for a certain bill, or even to thank an official? Indeed, many people do not even know who their representatives are.
We have all called for enforcement of the existing anti-cruelty and neglect laws, most of us support regulations to address puppy mills and fraudulent rescue organizations and we all wonder out loud why animal abandonment is so prevalent. We pick up the pieces, but we are not addressing why there are so many crises to respond to.
A seemingly disconnected hodge-podge of tragedies are no accident; they are predictable outcomes of a few outdated state laws, some elected officials who apparently presume that animal welfare advocates either do not exist or do not vote, and poverty that affects services throughout our state, with a less-than-minimal trickle down for the animals.
The good news is that we can start to address this each time we go to the polls.
Working smarter means getting to the root of the problems, and unifying to change them.
A little known Oklahoma law under Title 21 states that only counties with populations exceeding 200,000 may establish county-run animal shelters or pass county- wide animal welfare codes. (This law pertains only to counties; cities and towns may establish such shelters. Only four counties meet this population base in the state).
Several attempts have been made to change this law, only to be shot down through lobbying on behalf of county governments.
In the 2008 general session, HB 3279 was introduced to eliminate the 200,000 population restriction. The bill was defeated in the Oklahoma senate. If you are involved in rural humane activities, ask your representatives how they voted on this matter. Then ask the other candidate how they feel about it. If an official voted against this law, maybe they pleased a lobbyist; let them know if they didn’t please you.
Additionally, due to an exemption from Oklahoma’s humane euthanization laws, and a 1990 court decision in Garvin County, it is considered lawful for municipalities with a population fewer than 10,000 to euthanize dogs and cats by shooting.
Responding to animal welfare complaints is difficult for many agencies because according to the US Department of Justice our level of certified rural law enforcement is just over half the national average level of staffing; predictably animal welfare takes a back seat.
Why are we in a mess? This all combines to mean that an Oklahoma county with a population under 200,000 may not establish a county animal shelter, is not required to pass a spay/neuter ordinance, nor enact a tag law. At the same time, the small towns and cities within that county may shoot the unfortunate animals that enter its shelter. Few rural shelters adhere to the 1986 Dog and Cat Sterilization Act which mandates that animals originating from shelters be spayed or neutered. And finally, due to staffing it is difficult for law enforcement to respond to animal welfare complaints.
We cannot collect each abandoned animal as it hits the dirt. Without comprehensive solutions, we will face the same problems a decade from now.
The mess we are in is glaring.
With the exception of Mary Fallin (R-Distinct 5), Oklahoma’s congressmen voted against the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act, which was signed into law on May 3, 2007. Dan Boren (D-2nd District), Tom Cole (R-4th District), Frank Lucas (R-3rd District), and John Sullivan (R-1st District), sided with dog fighters at the expense of companion animals and the communities they live in. Our vote, our opinion and common decency meant nothing to them.
Citing the ridiculous fear that addressing animal fighting would ultimately abridge gun rights, Dan Boren equated strengthening the law with a threat to Oklahoma’s sporting traditions; he sided with criminals rather than be seen as soft on animals.
Surely the dog fighters, drug dealers and gang bangers did not call to ask for their support, our representatives simply thought our vote did not matter and didn’t give the animals a second thought.
Fortunately, our legislators did not prevail; shortly after passage of that bill, that law alone closed down Michael Vicks’ Bad Newz Kennel.
We may drive a hundred miles to pick up a rescue dog, but we will not change things until we’re willing to drive those same miles to meet with our legislators. That official’s vote affects significantly more animals than we will ever come to know.
Can we succeed? Over three decades ago, a group of angry mothers recognized that while they got sympathy cards when they lost loved ones to drunk drivers, the law enforcement response was dismissive at best. Through demanding appropriate response by public officials, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has turned drunk driving into the most serious driving offense one can commit.
Animals should not have to suffer until someone intervenes individually on their behalf. If we set our sights on prevention through organizing, rather than continued intervention after the fact, we will help a lot more animals and use a lot less resources.
Working smarter means electing officials that heed the call to do the right thing. Oklahoma lawmakers cannot continue to presume that we don’t matter, or even worse, that we don’t care. We care a lot. Our vote can turn the tide around.
King Charles I was another passionate lover of black cats. Charles I was King of England, Scotland and Ireland from 1625 until his execution in 1649. During his reign, many of his actions, particularly the levying of taxes without Parliament’s consent, caused widespread opposition. Eventually, he was executed due to conflicts with Parliament. Interestingly, though, before his conflict with Parliament, Charles I owned a black cat that he loved so much that he had guards protect it 24 hours a day. According to history, upon the cat’s death, he proclaimed, “Alas my luck is gone.” The king was right. Going back to ancient times, black cats were regarded as having miraculous powers that could protect ships from dangerous weather. Cats of all types also protected the ship’s equipment as they helped prevent mice and rats from chewing through ropes and woodwork. Spouses of fisherman also had a fond affection for black cats as they would keep them in their homes as a safeguard to protect their husbands at sea.
By Ruth Steinberger
By Mary Green
By Marilyn King
