Pitbull/mix Information Taskforce (PIT)

OK, so we should have listened to those of you with a long history of trying to work with WAIF. You warned us that we were a little too excited about WAIF's "appeals process."

We emailed a request to the WAIF board for an appeal of the Executive Director's negative "Appeal of Decision -- Smiley Dog #078-07" (that's apparently his prison number) on Thursday, 5/22/08. So far, no response. But you warned us:

"WAIF's board doesn't trust the public. It's run like a secret coven. People have wondered about that board for years."

This same person did send us this photo allegedly from a WAIF board meeting, but we have no way to verify its authenticity. (click image to enlarge)

To be fair, the last WAIF newsletter did list an email address for the board president: waifpres@whidbey.net and the executive director's is waifed@whidbey.net. We are going to keep the faith we will hear something soon--since the emailed version has not merited any response.

Oh yes, the Executive Director turned us down based on, uum, we have no idea, since we never even got to fill out an application. We hoped she would have reviewed procedure. But wait! WAIF apparently has no verifiable procedures for the adoption or fostering of pit bulls or alleged pit/mixes. We thought it was just us until we started getting your emails:

"When we adopted our puppy a little over two years ago I got a weird feeling from WAIF. They did not have a phone number and you had to email them your qualifications. I am all for thorough screening but I am freaking trainer who worked on a fully fenced 5 acre dog ranch where my dogs went daily. They denied us the opportunity to even meet any of the dogs and they never gave us a phone number to talk to anyone personally."

"I wanted to adopt a WAIF pit/mix, but I was told I had to bring my other pit/mix to the shelter to meet the shelter dog. I agreed that a meeting was a good idea, but that this was not the best way to go. I prefered to have the dogs meet on neutral territory where they could be parallel walked, maybe more than once. My other dog was a sweet rescue who would have been traumatized by going to the shelter. I volunteered to make a donation if a volunteer would meet me with the dog somewhere other than the shelter. I was rejected before I even filled out an application."

(By the way, the method this person wanted to use is the method recommended by the prestigious Pit Bull Rescue Central, which WAIF claims to use as its guide, but doesn't. WAIF requires face to face meetings at the shelter, where the shelter animal will naturally have a territorial stake. It does not provide home visits, another recommendation of PBRC.

To quote PBRC: "Does the shelter or rescue organization require a dog-dog introduction prior to adoption? Note: if they don't, this is a red flag! A reputable organization will allow multiple introductions with the dog on neutral territory (i.e. outside the shelter, at a park, etc.) and with an experienced volunteer or staff available to help you.)" Note the word reputable.
           
Back to your emails:

" I cannot understand a rescue not wanting to even meet a person one on one and do home checks to get a more accurate feel for the placement. Very strange! I worked with Pit Bull Project and BullsEye Dog rescue when looking for our second baby and love how committed and helpful everyone was to the dogs and in trying to help us find a good match."

Others of you emailed stories about showing up expecting to meet a dog only to be told it wasn't adoptable that day. This after phone calls confirming you were coming. We've now heard from trainers whose offers to help the dogs be "good canine citizens" were rejected due to some vague excuse about liability. We also heard from potential adopters who said they were directed away from pit bulls or pit/mixes because they were dogs with "problems."

"I imagine they did have problems after being cooped up for months and months. It was a very confusing experience and we didn't get to adopt a dog. And we are nice people with a fence and everything else WAIF said was required. So you are not alone."

If WAIF does not strive to protect the most vulnerable animals in its trust, if it is content to run a government funded animal control facility, fine. But don't mislead donors, volunteers, or the media.

Update the objectives on the homepage of WAIF's website that read:

WAIF's main objectives are —
To operate minimum-kill animal shelters.

(Define "minimum-kill." Provide numbers. Explain why adoptable dogs are killed. Release euthanasia records.)

To provide the best care possible while actively seeking adoptive homes for the animals in our trust.

(Define "best care possible" and "actively seeking" and "in our trust," especially as these terms relate to pitbulls, pit/mixes, and the WAG dogs -- WAIF's "Wild-Assed-Guesses" that dogs may be pits or mixes.

Tell us more about fostering programs, training and effective placement services, supportive classes and home visits, coalitions with pitbull rescue groups, outreach activities for the dogs so the public meets them, and so stereotypes get dispelled. You know, do the stuff real rescue organizations do.)

To educate the community to treat companion animals with greater respect and compassion.

(Does this include speaking out against BSL in favor of breed neutral vicious animal ordinances? Educate the politicians in Oak Harbor. Does this include working hard to end cruel, exploitative backyard breeding? Is it respectful and compassionate to kill adoptable animals?)

Speaking of adoptable animals, Smiley is still waiting. In dog years, he has now spent about 10 years waiting for a home, although at least two qualified families we know of wanted to adopt or foster him.

One more email:

"Your Li'l Rascals slide show made me cry. For friends still there and friends now gone: Smiley, Monica, Kali, Jockster, Sweet Pea, Magunda and so many others."

(May we add Bubba, Kalvin, Julius, Tabatha, and dear Ginger to that list? And all the dogs who have died at WAIF without a name...)

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”