This group means to collect the discussions about controverse issues in one single point in order not to pollute the whole net with the same topic over and over and allow the hosts to put them here and delete them from opther dispersive threads
Code of Conduct Visibility: open Membership: open Group Email: Fear_all_perils@groups.care2.com
Pandering to fears about bird flu infecting cats, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is recommending that animal lovers:
Avoid contact with stray cats and do not let them in the house. Instead, notify your local animal shelter or animal control rather than take them in yourself.
Recently, HSUS claimed to endorse Trap-Neuter-Return for feral cats. But this latest example of their continuing vilification of cats contradicts that assertion.
It is utterly contradictory to endorse TNR and then tell citizens to "avoid contact" with stray cats. It is impossible to trap for purposes of spay/neuter and post-surgery recovery if one should avoid contact or not "let them in the house." And to notify animal control of stray cats is tantamount to a death sentence in most areas, especially if the stray cats turn out to be feral.
What does Alley Cat Allies say?
"Scientists worldwide report that humans have nothing to fear from cats that may contract avian flu from eating an infected bird."
What does the World Health Organization say?
"There is no present evidence that domestic cats play a role in the transmission cycle of H5N1 [bird flu] viruses. To date, no human case has been linked to exposure to a diseased cat."
More... Continuing their campaign of feline vilification, HSUS also has a video on their website where they accuse outdoor cats of being "a threat to other animals."
Friend or Foe?
It should go without saying that such denigration of cats is not the role of an organization purportedly founded to protect animals, enforce their rights, and increase their social status.
Unfortunately, HSUS has a long history-to this day-of vilifying cats. HSUS currently publishes a "Guide to Cat Law," "Cat Care Basics," and a pamphlet on cats, which it recently provided to shelters from across the country at its national conference. In those documents, HSUS accuses cats of:
• being a public rabies threat: "cats are now the most common domestic vectors of rabies;" • decimating wildlife: "free-roaming cats kill millions of wild animals each year;" • being invasive, non-native intruders: "Cats are not a part of natural ecosystems, and their predation causes unnecessary suffering and death;" • causing neighborhood strife: "They also cause conflicts among neighbors."
Cat lovers and TNR advocates need to embrace the truth: HSUS is not part of our movement.
No Kill Solutions. P.O. Box 74926, San Clemente, CA 92673. To Unsubscribe, click: Unsubscribe
A No Kill Perspective on the HSUS Position Statement: Trap-Neuter-Return
On March 20, 2006, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) issued a new feral cat statement that purports to endorse Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) for feral cats. At first glance, it appears to be a significant deviation from their previous points of view that TNR is “subsidized abandonment” and that feral cat caretakers should be jailed and prosecuted for violation of state anti-cruelty (abandonment) laws. A TNR group in New York City claims that “With its strong endorsement of TNR and emphasis on community-wide, coalition-based TNR programs, The HSUS offers a powerful and positive vision of the future for the care of feral cats.” But is the new HSUS position all its proponents claim? Or can it be more rightly characterized as yet another misstep in a long line of them, all of which result in the wholly unnecessary killing of homeless animals? To truly be a “powerful and positive vision” for feral cats, it must answer two questions affirmatively: 1. Does HSUS now believe that feral cats have a right to live?; and, 2. Does HSUS now agree that all shelters must immediately endorse and implement TNR as an alternative to catch and kill? Unfortunately, they do not.
Under intense and increasing pressure from the feral cat community, HSUS could no longer ignore the growing wave of discontent about its policies toward feral cats and other animal sheltering issues. It is in this context that their most recent policy has emerged. Following anger at HSUS from feral cat advocates nationwide, at a time when rescue groups were set to protest HSUS at their annual national awards ceremony in Los Angeles, under attack for what many in the No Kill community saw as failed responses to abandoned animals from Hurricane Katrina, and under investigation from the Louisiana Attorney General for fundraising issues related to the post-Katrina response, HSUS issued their long awaited feral cat position statement on March 20, 2006.
In the statement, HSUS acknowledges that TNR is “the most viable, long-term approach available at this time to reduce feral cat populations.” They also urge communities to work together toward non-lethal “approaches to feral cat management.” These statements are significant improvements from prior policies. But in light of other contradictory language in the statement, as well as against the backdrop of other equally contradictory HSUS policies, it is far—very far—from “a powerful and positive vision of the future.” Indeed, it is less than one page in length, vaguely worded, and again, replete with a myriad of limitations.
In fact, the endorsement of TNR continues to come with at least three major restrictions:
that TNR efforts be limited if someone says that they are a threat to wildlife;
that feral cat caretakers respect the “limitations” of other groups in the area, including those who may not share their views about feral cats; and,
that killing of feral cats continue for an undefined “interim period.”
At the very least, these are loopholes potentially large enough for animal control trucks to drive through. At its most restrictive, these “limitations” are inherently contradictory to the point of nullifying the support of TNR.
There is no feral cat colony, anywhere in theUnited States, for example, where wildlife is not also present. HSUS asks us to make the decision “about whether to maintain a particular colony” after a determination of “the potential negative impact on local wildlife.” To make this determination, HSUS asks feral cat caretakers to “respect” the views of all interested parties—which potentially includes animal control and native wildlife/plant proponents who do not support TNR. Consistent with the decision about whether to maintain a colony is the concomitant decision about whether these colonies should be eradicated. That is the choice presented—providing a powerful tool to the enemies of TNR and, taken to its logical conclusion, potentially means that feral cats could be excluded from locations whenever someone says wildlife is impacted, which could potentially happen everywhere. In fact, these are exactly the types of claims being made all over the U.S.today.* And while HSUS will say they no longer favor eradication, what is the alternative to TNR? Since it is near impossible to relocate colonies en masse, the only conceivable alternative is to trap and kill the cats.
Moreover, what does HSUS mean when it says that feral cat advocates must “respect” the “limitations” of other “interest groups”? Animal control and the American Bird Conservancy are interested groups on the issue of feral cats. When it comes to accepting the “limitations” of these other groups, should TNR advocates accept the demand that they release their colony locations to animal control? Should TNR be permitted only when arbitrary criteria is agreed to—such as licensing, a neighborhood referendum, proximity to businesses, or some other factor that may lead to round up and killing? Should we accept the “limitations” that the cats be away from wildlife including birds if other groups say they are a threat? And are we prepared to “respect” the view—held by many nativist, wildlife, and animal control agencies—that if cats kill birds, we must kill the cats in return? This is something we would never do. Indeed, it is our ethical duty as No Kill advocates to utterly reject and rally against all these points of views.
And, finally, how long will killing be allowed? According to HSUS, killing is acceptable in places where TNR cannot be implemented, at least for an “interim period.” But if TNR cannot be implemented, it is only because animal control has put in place laws and roadblocks to prevent it. The limitation is imposed by animal control—whose “limitations” HSUS is asking us to respect. Arbitrary intransigence aside, there is no place where TNR cannot be implemented immediately. Therefore, there is no need for killing to continue for any period—much less like the one HSUS proposes, an interim period which in some locations conceivably have no end.
In short, the limitations to TNR proposed by HSUS (someone says they are a threat to wildlife, respect for other groups who do not respect each feral cat’s right to live, and interim killing for an undefined period) appear to contradict the statements preceding them expressing support of TNR.
But not only is the 2006 TNR Statement inherently contradictory, it is also contradicted by other current HSUS literature. HSUS currently publishes a “Guide to Cat Law,” “Cat Care Basics,” and a pamphlet on cats, which it recently provided to shelters from across the country at its national conference, the same month their feral cat statement was released. In those documents, HSUS accuses cats of:
being a public rabies threat: “cats are now the most common domestic vectors of rabies;”
decimating wildlife: “free-roaming cats kill millions of wild animals each year;”
being invasive, non-native intruders: “Cats are not a part of natural ecosystems, and their predation causes unnecessary suffering and death;”
causing neighborhood strife: “They also cause conflicts among neighbors.”**
As a result, HSUS argues to this very day—in spite of a wave of public sentiment moving in the opposite direction—for cat confinement laws, mandatory cat licensing, mandatory cat registration, pet limit laws, and requiring the release of colony locations to animal control. All of these positions threaten the lives of feral cats in localities nationwide.
Are these further “limitations” we must accept as feral cat caretakers and pro-TNR advocates? If, as HSUS claims, cats kill wildlife, are a rabies threat, are invasive non-native species and cause neighborhood strife, does this mean that TNR is acceptable so long as the cats are away from neighborhoods, people, and birds or wildlife of any kind? Because these conditions exist everywhere, it would appear to mean in short, that TNR is acceptable so long as the cats are not allowed outside—a logical absurdity.
Or does HSUS now reject these points of view? If they reject them, why are they still publishing and providing them to shelters nationwide? Nowhere in the current feral cat statement, for example, does HSUS explicitly reject the Asilomar Accords determination that feral cats are “unhealthy” and “untreatable” and therefore candidates for killing. Nowhere in the document does it reject other HSUS statements which continue to blame feral cats for everything from wildlife decimation to rabies contagion.***
If history is any guide, it is enticing to consider the point of view that the less HSUS says about feral cats, the better. But from the largest and wealthiest group that not only claims to be committed to a respect for life and compassion for all animals, but which also wields tremendous national influence, we must demand more. We must have clarity as to what those limitations are and what they would have feral cat caretakers agree to. These are all questions that HSUS’ 2006 TNR statement does not answer. But their other current literature does.
In the final analysis, unless HSUS explicitly rejects the Asilomar Accords, as well as its other current feral cat literature, removes them from their website, ends their distribution, and ceases encouraging shelters to promote these laws and positions, we must conclude that the HSUS position is a carefully worded, vague expression of support of TNR, with significant exceptions that threaten once again to swallow the rule—certainly not enough from the nation’s largest and best funded self-proclaimed animal advocacy organization. Certainly no where near “a powerful and positive vision of the future.”
Unfortunately, some feral cat groups have come to expect less than they should. They have become so desperate for some crumbs of recognition from large, national organizations and so desperate for the national limelight that they ignore reality of what it means for feral cats when HSUS simply says TNR is acceptable, or even preferred, but only under the conditions they deem appropriate—conditions potentially so restrictive that they could well be used to prohibit TNR in virtually every circumstance where someone claims that “cats kill birds” or that “public safety is being compromised.”
For the sake of feral cats everywhere, we must demand more. Indeed, we already have a powerful and positive vision of the future, and it is vision HSUS has adamantly refused to adopt.
A Powerful and Positive Vision of the Future There are three basic principles of TNR which are now well settled among truly progressive feral cat caretakers and No Kill advocacy organizations. They have been endorsed by groups from California to New York , from the smallest to the largest agencies, from individuals caring for one or two feral cats in their own backyards, to large rescue groups providing for hundreds of them. In all, over 6,000 individuals and groups who have signed the U.S. No Kill Declaration have declared that:
“Feral cats have a right to their lives and their habitats;”
“Shelters and humane groups [must] end the killing of healthy and treatable animals, including feral cats;” and,
All publicly funded or subsidized animal shelters must begin the “immediate implementation of Trap-Neuter-Return or Release (TNR) programs.”
Nowhere do we as feral cat advocates hold onto the view that “euthanasia might be an interim solution” as HSUS continues to do so in its current statement—an interim period that conceivably has no end. Nowhere should we accept the premise that if cats kill birds, we must kill cats. And nowhere should we be forced to accept limitations such as those that they continue to provide—either in their March 2006 feral cat statement, the anti-feral cat Asilomar Accords they continue to endorse, or the cat care books they continue to print and publish which vilify cats.
To be “a powerful and positive vision of feral cats for the future,” HSUS must issue a statement endorsing the view, unequivocally, that:
Feral cats have a right to their lives and their habitat;
All shelters must immediately endorse and implement TNR; or—at the very least—do so without undue delay.
Despite being asked repeatedly to issue such a statement, HSUS continues to refuse to do just that. And despite being asked to endorse those provisions as identified in the U.S. No Kill Declaration, they have not.
Instead, they continue to hide behind euphemisms and vaguely worded statements. In fact, in March of this year, the very same month that they issued their feral cat statement, HSUS held a workshop on “euthanasia” at their national conference, where it was stated:
“We are not killing [animals in shelters]. We are taking their life, we are ending their life, we are giving them a good death… but we are not killing.”
Any agency which thinks there is a difference between “killing” feral cats and “taking their life” is attempting to obscure reality. Indeed, it is only by the sheerest folly that an argument can be made that the millions of feral cats who will be exterminated in U.S. animal shelters are not being “killed.”
It is time HSUS stopped hiding behind euphemisms—euphemisms which obscure the gravity of what we are doing as a society, and which makes the task of killing easier. Indeed, “euphemisms,” wrote one commentator, “are misnomers used to disguise or cloak identity of ugly facts.” To which the noted writer Albert Camus replied, “The truth is the truth, and denying it mocks the cause both of humanity and of morality.”
Failure is the New Success
In August of 2005, HSUS informed the feral cat community that it was “updating” its “feral cat position statements” to “ensure” that their “policies reflect emerging consensus within the field of animal care and control.” In that, they have succeeded. But the role of a humane organization is not to follow consensus, but to lead. Unfortunately, HSUS informed the nation’s cat lovers that the largest and richest animal agency in the world was content to establish a policy based on the consensus of animal control agencies nationwide—the very agencies with a history of mass slaughter of feral cats.
It took eight months from the time HSUS indicated it was updating its feral cat position to the release of a one page document that yields more questions than answers. Why did it take so long to say so little? Is it possible that the document is intended to silence critics but be vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations, and therefore, not seriously upset their national animal control alliances?
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of their “new” policy or their continued opposition to No Kill is the lost opportunity this means to influence humane societies and animal control agencies throughout the United States in a life-affirming way. We can imagine, for a moment, what the future would look like if HSUS embraced the notion that feral cats have a right to live, that No Kill philosophies should be implemented everywhere, and that its vast wealth would be used to provide shelters the training and tools they need to succeed in those endeavors. We can imagine, if only for a moment, that as a result, we would be closer to living in a society where every animal is respected and cherished, and where every individual life is protected and revered.
No other agency has the ability, the resources, and the influence to bring about a No Kill nation faster. No other agency is as poised to hasten the day when feral cats and homeless animals find in shelters a new beginning, instead of the end of the line. But it refuses to do so.
Every day that HSUS continues its opposition to No Kill or refuses to acknowledge the right of feral cats to live in their habitats, potentially delays that future. Instead of working with HSUS to save lives, No Kill advocates have to fight their pet limit laws, their mandatory registration laws, and their other destructive policies. Instead of turning to HSUS for support and guidance, No Kill groups have to spend their time trying to overcome the obstacles HSUS lays in their path. Because of this—and because of the cost in animal lives that this potentially entails—HSUS continues to fail miserably in terms of removing the political cover they have been offering for catch and kill sheltering practices, particularly as it relates to feral cats.
That is why feral cat caretakers and No Kill advocates do not look to the Humane Society of the United States for a “powerful and positive vision of the future for the care of feral cats.” Because leadership, by definition, leads. It never waits for consensus.
* This also begs two questions: (1) Do groups like the American Bird Conservancy and other anti-TNR advocates participate in the determination as to whether the cats are potentially a threat? and, (2) Why even limit TNR in terms of wildlife impact when all the responsible studies conclude that feral cats do not impact bird and other wildlife populations in the continental U.S. and in light of a feral cat’s right to live?
** It should go without saying that such denigration of cats is not the role of an organization purportedly founded to protect animals, enforce their rights, and increase their social status. Unfortunately, HSUS has a long history—to this day—of vilifying cats.
*** It appears that HSUS continues to endorse these positions. HSUS, for example, urged shelters to embrace the Asilomar Accords at its recent (March 2006) national conference. In addition, HSUS field offices continue to voice positions contrary to the demands of TNR advocates. In Los Angeles this month, an HSUS spokesperson argued against raising the pet limit law beyond three cats, a move that would have protected feral cat caretakers and owners of multi-cat households. In Philadelphia last year, an HSUS spokesperson called feral cat caretakers “closet hoarders.” In Tallahassee recently, an HSUS report--co-authored by the same HSUS representative that once called TNR “inhumane”--suggested preconditioning the acceptance of TNR on cat licensing.
To read a full 12-page critique of the March 20, 2006 Feral Cat Position issued by HSUS, click here .
To hear the "euthanasia" expert at HSUS Expo 2006 denounce "No Kill" and hide behind euphemisms by claiming shelters are not "killing" animals, click here .
To read a true pro-feral policy, "Do Feral Cats Have a Right to Live?," click here .
To read a history of the TNR movement, purchase a copy of "TNR: Past, Present, and Future" by Ellen Perry Berkeley. Available online by clicking here. (Proceeds benefit Alley Cat Allies.)
To read other position papers by No Kill Solutions or to make a donation to the No Kill Advocacy Center and support pro-feral advocacy nationwide, click here.
To support No Kill efforts nationwide through a donation, click here .
This year, some five million dogs and cats will be killed in shelters. The vast majority can and should be placed into loving homes or should never enter shelters in the first place. But there is hope.
No Kill sheltering models, based on innovative, non-lethal programs and services, have already saved the lives of tens of thousands of animals. But instead of embracing No Kill, many shelters—and their national agency allies—cling to their failed models of the past, models that result in the killing of millions of dogs and cats in U.S. shelters every year.
No Kill is a revolution. And behind every revolution is a declaration—a statement of grievances, and a listing of rights and principles that underscore our great hope for the future. We assert that a No Kill nation is within our reach—that the killing can and should be brought to an end. Join us in endorsing The Declaration of the No Kill Movement in the United States.
It is open to every individual, every group, and every agency that wants to bring about an end to the killing by implementing the programs and services that will establish a No Kill nation. Programs like ensuring public access to affordable spay/neuter services, allowing rescue groups to save animals on death row, and communitywide Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) for feral cats. These are not radical concepts, but in the current sheltering world, one can be ostracized for daring to proclaim the simple truths that population control killing is not an act of kindness and that feral cats have a right to live.
Join us in speaking for those who can’t. In the length of time it will take you to readthe Declaration, nearly one hundred dogs and cats will be needlessly killed.
One hundred and fifty years ago, societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and other humane organizations were founded to establish standards for humane treatment of animals, to promote their rights, and to protect them from harm. This marked the formal beginning of the humane movement in the United States.
The scope and influence of these early humane organizations were testament to the public’s concern for animals. It did not take long for them to set their sights on the abuse of homeless animals and cruel methods of killing by public pounds. It was common practice at the time for city and town dogcatchers to beat, drown, or shoot homeless animals.
Many humane agencies responded by entering into animal control contracts with towns and cities to ensure that the killing was done more humanely. But in taking on municipal animal control duties, these agencies abandoned their lifesaving and life-enhancing platforms when those beliefs conflicted with their contractual responsibilities. In the current era, where laws require killing by even more “humane” methods, these contradictions have become starker.
Increasingly, the practices of both humane societies and municipal animal control agencies are out of step with public sentiment. Today, most Americans hold the humane treatment of animals as a personal value, which is reflected in our laws, cultural practices, the proliferation of organizations founded for animal protection, increased per capita spending on animal care, and great advancements in veterinary medicine. But the agencies that the public expects to protect animals are instead killing more than five million animals annually.
Lifesaving alternatives to the mass killing of animals in shelters have existed for decades. These lifesaving methods are based on innovative, humane, nonlethal programs and services that have proven that the killing can be brought to an end. Too many of these agencies, however, remain mired in the kill philosophies of the past, unwilling to or hampered from exploring and adopting methods that save lives. This is a breach of their public trust, a gross deviation from their responsibility to protect animals, and a point of view that we, as caring people and a humane community, can no longer accept or tolerate.
We assert that a No Kill nation is within our reach—that the killing can and must be brought to an end. It is up to each of us working individually and together to implement sheltering models that have already saved tens of thousands of animals in progressive communities. If we work together—with certainty of purpose, assured of our own success, with the commitment that “what must be done, will be done”—the attainment of our goals will not be far off.
II. No Kill Resolution Whereas, the right to live is every animal’s most basic and fundamental right; Whereas, societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and other humane organizations were founded to establish standards for humane treatment of animals, to promote their rights, and to protect them from harm; Whereas, traditional sheltering practices allow the mass killing of sheltered animals; Whereas, every year shelters in the United States are killing millions of healthy and treatable animals who could be placed in homes, and are also killing millions of feral cats who do not belong in shelters; Whereas, life always takes precedence over expediency; Whereas, the No Kill movement in the United States has successfully implemented new and innovative programs that provide alternatives to mass killing; Whereas, lifesaving change will come about only if No Kill programs are embraced and further developed; Whereas, failure to implement No Kill programs constitutes a breach of the public’s trust in the sheltering community; Now, therefore, be it resolved that No Kill policies and procedures are the only legitimate foundation for animal sheltering; and,
It is incumbent upon all shelters and animal groups to embrace the philosophy of No Kill, to immediately begin implementing programs and services that will end the mass killing of sheltered animals, and to reject the failed kill-oriented practices of the past.
III. Statement of Rights We acknowledge the following: · Sheltered animals have a right to live; · Feral cats have a right to their lives and their habitats; · Animals, rescuers, and the public have a right to expect animal protection organizations and animal shelters to do everything in their power to promote, protect, and advocate for the lives of animals; · Animal protection groups, rescue groups, and No Kill shelters have a right to take into their custody animals who would otherwise be killed by animal shelters; · Taxpayers and community members have a right to have their government spend tax monies on programs and services whose purpose is to save and enhance the lives of all animals;
· Taxpayers and community members have a right to full and complete disclosure about how animal shelters operate.
IV. Guiding Principles No Kill is achieved only by guaranteeing the following: · Life to all healthy animals, and to all sick, injured, or vicious animals where medical or behavioral intervention would alter a poor or grave prognosis; · The right of feral cats to live in their habitats. These conditions can be achieved only through adherence to the following: · Shelters and humane groups end the killing of healthy and treatable animals, including feral cats; · Every animal in a shelter receives individual consideration, regardless of how many animals a shelter takes in, or whether such animals are healthy, underaged, elderly, sick, injured, traumatized, or feral; · Shelters and humane organizations discontinue the use of language that misleads the public and glosses over the nature of their actions, such as “euthanasia,” “unadoptable,” “fractious,” “putting them to sleep,” and other euphemisms that downplay the gravity of ending life and make the task of killing easier; · Shelters are open to the public during hours that permit working people to reclaim or adopt animals during nonworking hours; · Shelters and other government agencies promote spay/neuter programs and mandate that animals be spayed or neutered before adoption; · Public shelters work with humane animal adoption organizations to the fullest extent to promote the adoption of animals and to reduce the rate of killing; · Shelters provide care and treatment for all animals in shelters to the extent necessary, including prompt veterinary care, adequate nutrition, shelter, exercise, and socialization;
· Shelters are held accountable for and make information publicly available about all the animals in their care.
V. No Kill Standards The implementation of these lifesaving procedures, policies, and programs must be the immediate goal of every shelter, and animal control and animal welfare agency: · Formal, active commitment by shelter directors, management, and staff to lifesaving programs and policies, and dedication to promptly ending mass killing of shelter animals; · Immediate implementation of the following programs by all publicly funded or subsidized animal shelters:
High-volume, low- and no-cost spay/neuter services;
A foster care network for underaged, traumatized, sick, injured, or other animals needing refuge before any sheltered animal is killed, unless the prognosis for rehabilitation of that individual animal is poor or grave;
Comprehensive adoption programs that operate during weekend and evening hours and include offsite adoption venues;
Medical and behavioral rehabilitation programs;
Pet retention programs to solve medical, environmental, or behavioral problems and keep animals with their caring and responsible caregivers;
Trap-Neuter-Return or Release (TNR) programs;
Rescue group access to shelter animals;
Volunteer programs to socialize animals, promote adoptions, and help in the operations of the shelter;
Documentation before any animal is killed that all efforts to save the animal have been considered, including medical and behavioral rehabilitation, foster care, rescue groups, neuter and release, and adoption.
· An end to the policy of accepting trapped feral cats to be destroyed as unadoptable, and implementation of TNR as the accepted method of feral cat control by educating the public about TNR and offering TNR program services; · An end to the use of temperament testing that results in killing animals who are not truly vicious (e.g., shy/timid cats and frightened dogs) but who can be placed in homes, or are feral cats who can be returned or released; · Abolishment of trapping, lending traps to the public to capture animals, and support of trapping by shelters, governments, and pest control companies for the purposes of removing animals to be killed; · An end to owner-requested killing of animals unless the shelter has made an independent determination that the animal is irremediably suffering or cannot be rehabilitated;
· The repeal of unenforceable and counter-productive animal control ordinances such as cat licensing and leash laws, pet limit laws, bans on feeding stray animals, and bans on specific breeds.
Over 6,000 groups and individuals have signed the Declaration to date. Add yourself to the growing list of signatories.
To sign the Declaration and join our listserve, click here.
To download or print a copy of the Declaration, click here.
To learn how to leverage the Declaration to create change in your community, click here.
For a step-by-step guide to reforming animal control, click here.
general slaughter 4 free roaming cats- FRANCE!!! 2:33 AM The Municipality of Angoulème (France) has planned a general slaughter by the end of this week, of all free roaming and feral cats they can catch! * Please send your protests to the regional authorities : “Conseil général de Charente” : email@example.com * You can also send protest mails to the tourist board of the region , telling them you will never visit their region again: “Comité Dé artemental du Tourisme de la Charente” : firstname.lastname@example.org
2:35 AM I sent a very short letter in French (look beneath) to the regional authorities asking them to intervene; feel free to copy or to endorse or please write your own letter! Time is very short! Letter: Au Conseil général de Charente France Mesdames, Messieurs, Je vous demande d’intervenir d’urgence pour interdire le massacre par la municipalité des chats errants à Angoulème Cette horreur est prévue pour la fin de cette semaine. En vous remerciant d’avance et en attendant vos bonnes nouvelles. [ send green star]
protest letter To: Tourims office! 2:50 AM To: email@example.com
Au --Comité Dé artemental du Tourisme de la Charente,France Mesdames, Messieurs, C’est avec horreur que j’ai appris que la Municipalité de Angoulème planifie, pour la fin de cette semaine, le massacre des chats libres habitant la ville. Je n’accepte aucune excuse pour cet acte cruel et criminel. Je vous fais part de mon indignation et je vous fais savoir que ma conscience m’interdit de visiter dorénavant une région qui n’a aucun respect pour la vie d’ animaux innocents. Je boycotterai aussi tous les produits venant de votre région, et j’en ferai part à tous mes amis et connaissances. Si vous arrivez à convaincre la Municipalité de la Ville d’Angoulème d’abandonner ce plan perfide, veuillez me le faire savoir. Je vous en remercie d’avance. Salutations distinguées,