Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please continue your efforts in helping us get the message out and the petition signed.
Together we can make a difference. #reformmcacc https://www.change.org/ReformMCACC
I volunteered & fostered at the shelter for a few years. It is a very toxic place. It's like a religious or political war. There's always this "us vs them" energy, but it doesn't cut along the "volunteer & staff" lines that the "reformers" depict. There's a lot of agendas there. Many volunteers coalesce around self-validation: a common enemy, the "organization." But, the organization hires volunteers. Many of them have been exceptionally toxic within the organization (Deb, Kim, Holly, Maggie, Pat). There are people within (or were) who play both sides of that.
To me, it seems polarized upon perfection vs reality. The "reformers" want perfection -- which is easy to say, but runs off many people willing to help (however imperfectly they can). I think the new director Mendel has a good point about taking the personal feelings out of the reality that surrounds unwanted dogs. At the end of the day, there's only so much a person can do. People who think they can do more can start a rescue -- and then either face their own reality about "removing the personal feelings" or become "that guy" with 120 uncared-for animals in the news (the hoarder who started out with good intentions, but couldn't conform to reality).
I always felt "both sides" had more in common than they realized. But, the "reformers" can't live with that. They make everything personal. It's a crusade. They literally let perfection be the enemy of good. They drive good people away who are willing to help (however imperfectly). It's like a religion with "articles of faith." There is no middle ground.
I think these people have more ego than they realize. They say it's "for the dogs." But, they do a lot of stuff that runs off people willing and able to help (because it's a religious environment -- with all the duplicity and backbiting. All the underlying agendas, who I "belong to."). It's toxic. The reformers point out how a study found the shelter to be toxic. But, it's mostly due to the reformers and their toxic politics, backbiting, etc. As I said, a great deal of that makes its way into the shelter when it hires volunteers. Not that the shelter shouldn't. Just that there's a lot of ego involved. People's identities are wrapped up in love for dogs, 'making a difference," which can be enhanced by pushing down the efforts of others who are also trying to make a difference in a different way.).
Lorena. I've seen her embarrassing herself to the media for awhile, about how it was all a misunderstanding (that she was caught toxically working against the shelter). She insists she only does what she does for the dogs. But, I distinctly remember her being very political, rubbing elbows, spotlighted. It always seemed more about her than the dogs (until she got caught playing her cards the wrong way.).
I think she makes good points, but is driven by her ego, "identity." Adding to who she is (as the suffering fighter).
Kim Schulz. I saw some remarkable facebook posting that she's left the shelter and thankful to work somewhere disagreement can be tolerated. I almost wet myself reading this. She was the most divisive, grabbing, whispering person I've ever met in my life(!). Everything was "her way or the highway." She'd talk bad about people behind their backs. "Kiss up, kick down" was how it used to be described in a corporate environment. She wanted supporters, not help. Good riddance to her. She should have been in a more cloistered environment to begin with, where the harsh realities of the shelter could be denied (perfectionist standards applied to a limited subset).
I was thinking about this more. What bothers me is how personal Lorena (and the "reformers") make everything. To me, everything went downhill when the county booted Halo (late 2016). I remember an energy at the shelter: "we're going to do it all ourselves. The community loves us. We'll have volunteers/help coming out our ears." Just 5 years later, Kyle sends out an email that both shelters are out of space & "here's 12 fosterable dogs. Please help if you can." What went from enthusiastic expectations to soul-crunching dogmatism. Control, control, control. (Care comes last.).
IMO, either they made a mistake discarding Halo, or building that entire mega shelter (in the worst place for most people who will engage). I feel like the longer they ignore that fundamental mistake, they're throwing more time/money at something that will never work. They should have built satellite shelters in the north (and further west; call this one "downtown" -- which it is.).
I feel like Mary Martin caused this. Halo's contract wasn't renewed during Mary's incoming. Then she wanted to kill East too and have a monolithic shelter (the ultimate empire for her and her travelling sycophants from prior empires). Most people have agreed East is beneficial to the dogs. The exact same principle could be applied to downtown (so-called "west"). It's more shelter than needed there. Demolish 2/3 of it. Build that space in Deer Valley & Goodyear (true "west").
Another aspect to my argument is that one centralized mega government-agency is an invitation to the kind of power-grasping & corruption we've seen since 2016. Imagine the MVD given a centralized grant of power by the obtuse board of supervisors? ("It's better for people drive to one place for service. Better for *you* -- the bureaucrat."). MCACC seemed to go corrupt/self-serving in the same way you'd expect the MVD to. It became about the shelter, not the dogs.
Then taking the MVD example further: imagine surly/empowered employees trying to cultivate "passionate investment in our charter?" ("Wrong line! Wrong form! Of the 800 dogs we have during overcrowding, we have 12 that are fosterable. Don't criticize me. You work for us!"). That would never work.
IMO, the combination of "care" and "control" (which happened 15-20 years ago?) is untenable now. It's clearly not working. I think it stopped working when they let Halo go. The size of that shelter doesn't help (because it invites empire-building; defending past bad decisions; us vs them).
I think the only two salient questions are 1) was it a mistake getting rid of Halo? (If so, bring them -- or someone -- back to do the job). 2) Was it a mistake to build that much shelter in that location? (We've already accepted there is a point of too "large/centralized." That's why East was preserved. Just take that thought further. Downtown isn't the ideal place for inspiring the public? Distribute that construction around the county to make the shelter more communitarian? More subject to local control/help? Less centralized "defending the organization").
Sure, sure, sure. One central shelter is more "efficient." But, not entirely in a good way. It's efficient for the kind of toxic politics (empire building) you'd expect within any government org.
To me, I feel like the problems are understandable/explainable. It's not "bad people." They're doing what you'd expect due to a bad decision in 2016. The bad decision was "normalized." It's not bad people. When they're depicted that way (Lorena), they're bound to be more defensive/assertive.
IMO, the dogs are suffering from this disconnect. Both sides feed each other, making it personal. Nothing gets to what the underlying issue is: Too much shelter in one less-than-ideal location (due to someone else's bad decision-making). It's just "group think" now. Doing what everyone's done (proper bounds of what can be said/questioned in a government arena). That makes a target-rich environment to those who feel better by pushing others down. Nothing about this is productive. It's political & religious. I think it's much simpler/direct than that: a bad idea for a mega shelter, Halo helped it happen, (and people like Mary who loved that direction for their own personal/empirical reasons.). Now, everyone's made it so personal that they're pushed into their respective corners. It's like a dysfunctional relationship. "Us vs them." There's no consideration for how we got here. None of this would have happened if Halo remained. Things might not be perfect. But, they were better then. Things went backwards. Why? Ditching Halo? Building too much shelter space in the wrong place? Both?
I think if we focused on that origin (IMO) of how we got to now, I think things could move forward. It's way too personal (jilted "activists," leaders who feel like they did it -- when they didn't).
The new director (Mendel) is cleaning house. Long overdue, and was in progress before interrupted by a distemper outbreak, then covid. To understand his opposition you have to consider the history (past 6-8 years) and that he was a volunteer all that time seeing how the shelter changed as political correctness/activism became systemic. And, 2) Mendel was never involved with any of the gaga/egoic cliques. He never played the came. Consequently, he was instantly a threat to clique interests. Much of this latest maelstrom has to do with the "who's who" social registry of "the community." People with an identity negotiated over the past few years are disrespected that that someone beholden to them wasn't installed as director (nor someone new, easily bamboozled like Martin or Jaynes).
Back in 2015-16, volunteering was wide open. Attend an hour group orientation, and then 1-2 hours "hands on" with an existing volunteer. After that, you could walk any dog (no "levels"). The idea was that it was better to have more people involved (regardless of imperfect they are). There were group training sessions with 200 people. Volunteers would stop by the shelter on the way home from work to walk a dog (nobody cared if they weren't wearing their official t-shirt). Nobody cared who was who. There was no rigid "sign up for a shift to do something defined." It was a great time back then. Experienced people could think for themselves. People would bring a co-worker or family member to walk dogs.
Like anything involving people, this wasn't perfect. There were incidents where volunteers were too optimistic which resulted in bites, and the dog being euthanized. Dogs also got loose in the wings. Volunteers forgot to lock kennel doors. A lot of good natured mistakes.
My impression is that Mendel isn't motivated by that. Volunteers know what they're getting into. If they get bit, they're not likely to blame the shelter for their own misjudgement. The dog who suffers the consequence? That's unfair, but keeping them safe from such outcomes leads to them deteriorating in the shelter due to lack of contact (they're euthanized that way too). Things like dogs loose in wings, or kennels left unlocked create a hazard (liability) to the visiting public. A mom with kids walking into a wing where a loose & excited dog menaces them could turn out very badly.
The real problem was that the loose & accommodating environment led to the development of a "shadow government" (insiders, a social-registry of "who's who" protecting their turf, exerting their "influence.") They felt volunteering at the shelter was a right. They took it for granted. They believed it was their duty to work against the shelter, bring everyone else down. I called them "gifted critics" (as if nobody can see how bad things are without their unique gift to point out everything wrong.). A battlefield environment developed where you were "us" or you were "them." They'd work against the shelter ("for the shelter's own good" enabled by social media (and a "private" facebook group where they naively showed their true colors, and the shelter leadership saw the two faces.). It was/is _extremely_ toxic that way. It was very "signalling" and "influencing."
Most people don't want to get involved in things like that. They just want to help however they can. If they didn't join the clique, they were shunned. I know someone who volunteered at east 5-6 years ago whose car was keyed because "you don't belong here." They weren't on the "right side" of things. Too independent of the cliques (which is ironic because now the cliques are upset that Mendel is too independent).
Just a few days ago someone responded to the shadow government's aggrieved rhetoric by coyly suggested (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) that keying cars and flatting tires is a valid way to affect the "out group."
Some very ugly personalities arose from that era of "come one, come all!" It was a great time, but like the old saying: there's always someone who ruins it for everyone else. That's what happened. It turned into agendas & political correctness (cancel culture), and getting "our people" into staff positions. The vanity groups (great term, btw) often had county volunteers helping them. The group would then use to triangulate leverage ("if I stop supporting the shelter, it could mean all these volunteers taking my side. I'm an influencer. Respect me.").
It has been horribly toxic this way. Very political and intimidating. It's been like social-media in real life. All the signalling, and calling out/cancelling, backstabbing. All because no prior director would push the buttons Mendel is pushing. The "leaders" of the vanity groups felt they'd attained some position of mutual authority with the shelter, sharing the director's office. Not only are they losing this status they really did hold, they know Mendel was _never_ one of the gaga types. They're watching years of social-climbing & triangulation evaporate. Compared to the last 6-8 years, this is a very new normal.
Today is much better in many ways (getting rid of the toxic forces). But, much worse in other ways (nobody likes bureaucracy, government brain-deadness, etc.). The dogs aren't helped by the current situation. (But, the dogs were always just a bargaining chip to the social-registry people. "Validate me or I'll affect you through my flying monkeys."). I admire Mendel for hitting this square on the head. It's been needed for a long time. He's taking back authority. The shelter isn't a democracy. You can't attack the people there and expect to walk in and do what you want as a volunteer. (If people want that, they can go to one of those innumerable vanity rescues you mentioned.). The shelter leadership is the shelter leadership, not some clique of volunteers threatening to remove support because they're offended by invalidation. If they don't like things, they can help a rescue pull more dogs with more former volunteers who prefer a different environment. There's no reason for it to be personal. The one reason it is is because people losing their vanity "status" (who's who). The dogs come second to them.
IMO, this is an ideal time to volunteer in a safe environment and display who you are (how you can fit in, contribute dependably, etc). Especially when the equivalent of a "union strike" is underway without regard to the dogs. If things loosen up in the future, such participants today would be established & trusted more to help. Those who can't accept this reset can foster with tremendous autonomy, or volunteer among the social-registry of rescues so those groups can pull more dogs and do things their own way.
We're basically seeing a political war. The "influencers" have been pushed to show their hand which amounts to "It's our way or the highway." Mendel says "work within the system." The shadow government says "we are the system. You need us. Bend to our will or we won't help" (showing the toxic nature they always have. Their response has proven Mendel's position to be reasonable. It's been an extremely unhealthy environment in that way for a _long_ time. He's seen the gaga mentality increase over the past 8 years. He's seen what it's done to the shelter. They know he's not one of them. They've been opposed him from the start.
You make an excellent point about the size of west. This is Mendel's greatest challenge, not the egos and personalities. I don't think anyone can make that much shelter space work in one location. It's a prisoner's dilemma. Ingratiate the egos so they will continue to help (and create a battlefield environment of political correctness, cancel culture, perfection being the enemy of good). Or, take control of the shelter (which has been needed), but then less people(?) to serve an impossible number of kennels. It's set up for failure either way.
I hope Mendel will address that topic. I'm sure it's very unpopular to say "someone made a mistake years ago building this much shelter in one location." But, it wasn't popular to push back against the narcissistic cliques. If he can do the latter, the former should be relatively easy. The only way his bold move against the toxic segment of volunteers will work is if the shelter space is spread around the county (further west, north & south). I don't see average people being inspired to spend a lot of time traveling to a mega shelter to help. The political/signalling motivated would. But, that's problematic in it's own way, and being de-prioritized. The way to reach reasonable people is for the shelter to be more accessible to the community it (located in many places around the county). I don't see this getting better there. He's stuck between a rock and a hard place in this regard. Appeal to the gaga crowd (who release their gaga'ness in undesirable ways). Or, cut the size of the shelter, and distribute that space around the county so normal people can help more easily.
I feel bad for the dogs. But, it was something that had to happen. Like you, I think the size of that shelter is the real problem. It's not consistent with either side's stated goals (but is consistent with showing off, and grasping power.).
Terry, there's definitely no rescue that would tolerate this kind of opposition "helping" from within (people expecting access & be valued just because they love dogs -- all while recruiting opposition to how the rescue does things). Rescues continuously splinter with these same personalities (same differences of opinion about whether something can be "done better"). These people haven't been happy with the shelter for years. They typically form their own rescues instead of joining an existing one. Then they talk behind each others' backs within that "community" (or, they do join an existing rescue, cause drama, splintering.).
It's strange to me that they don't see how they're proving Mendel right. He clamped down on the programs so it's not as easy to undermine the shelter through its own programs. More supervised volunteering to ensure people are there for the right reasons. Less tolerance for the undercurrents of "helping, but my way." (No different than at any other rescue.). Instead of accepting how it is and work with that, they've become more publicly condemning, ridiculing, discouraging others from helping/donating. (It's personal. It always was, and they're showing he was justified. There really was a problem. This view of "who I am at the shelter" existed and played out more quietly, passively, with two faces.).
It's their right to feel that passionate about things. But, it's not what the shelter wants. It's as simple as that. They can go start their own rescue & pull all the dogs from the county, "do better" themselves. There's nothing personal about that. It's just reality. The shelter can't function with the toxicity these people bring (and expect to be validated about).
A 2019 independent study at the county shelter found the environment to be "extremely unhealthy" (not just unhealthy). The only thing good about what's happening right now is that the clique is showing they were the source of that. The shelter has been clamping down on the volunteer program due to this unhealthy condition; requiring more supervision; people need to be there for more constructive reasons (not an ax to grind, a war, selfies to "signal" with.). Everyone I know within my circles think the shelter's direction is entirely reasonable. The shelter could not keep operating as it was with toxic volunteers thinking they run the show (and must be accommodated no matter how oppositional they are.). Just because something's good (their standards and sensitivities) doesn't mean it's good there.
They're being more oppositional, recriminating, offended. Not even trying to hide it or be nice. That leads Michael to eliminate more programs (that these people would use as their venue to "influence" in the way they've shown they do). Their reaction? "Wrong direction! You're not listening! You don't get it!" It's astounding because from my perspective they're the ones going the wrong direction, not getting it, causing further "conscious uncoupling" they claim not to want.
It's like they seriously believe they should be able to hold a parallel leadership position at the shelter (and exercise a potential to public animosity, and work against whomever is in their way, stirring up opposition among those who'd like to help). Like more of that is the winning strategy. They don't see how they're showing they really were a problem the whole time. They expect to run things (and did).
What's happening isn't good. But, it needed to happen. It was going to happen eventually. It's highly likely no one else would have taken the job (at this point, with so much history. Or, it would have gone to one of the clique; things gone worse for longer). The clique are venting at county supervisors for not listening. The clique doesn't consider the possibility that the supervisors hired Micahel because he knows what the problem is, was never part of it. They may not be listening for a reason (which is being proven right every day this continues).
Michael's real focus has been that we need to tone down the humanizing view of dogs (at least at the shelter). That has been the crux of the problem. A lot of people view dogs as "little people in furry suits." They dress them up in costumes. Maybe dogs should be viewed that way. But, until the law treats them that way, the reality is that they aren't people; "murder" isn't being committed at the shelter. Some of us have to live in that reality without blaming others or making them feel guilty for it.
That humanizing mindset has caused a lot of anguish at the shelter. People need to volunteer there with a better track on that reality. It's not healthy to be there with the view that "little people" are being killed, and some people care less than others (deserve to be cancelled, or their property vandalized).
That humanizing view is widely shared within the clique. It's what brings them together. All they had to do was keep the emotions in check (track reality better). But, it's been all personal to them (in the way it always has been in a low, persistent level at the shelter). They're causing greater clamp-down because they don't get it. They're making it more personal, more agonizing, worse for the dogs, depicting other people as worse (all while blaming the shelter director). The consistent message is that it's more about the people than the dogs. They get something from humanizing dogs. It fills a hole. (Again, that's fantastic. They just need to do it somewhere else because it's not healthy at the shelter, operating with a different reality. Constantly saying "do better" doesn't help. And, that's not what they typically say. It's much more personal than that. Their reactions to these changes show this.).
I'm just concerned that the size/concentration of that shelter (in one place, a mistake made long ago) will make Michael's necessary strategy appear to be less fruitful than it could be.
The plan under Martin (and her plan to expand the shelter by closing East) was that volunteers are passionate/caring enough to drive further, spend more time commuting. "They'll do it for the dogs." She literally justified her position saying that. But, that "caring enough" has been a large part of the problem. People can care too much. Mendel wanted people to care less because of the trouble it causes in the shelter (the unrealistic standards people can have when caring too much, blaming everyone else, "us vs them."). Clamping down on the passions begs the question whether the less passionate county residents will drive so far? Martin's own justification for that shelter was that she could milk that caring sentiment to get more out of people (which is toxic in itself! I couldn't believe she justified her mega-empire shelter that way. It sounded openly toxic. "I can squeeze more caring out of you.").
I firmly believe that's Mendel's risk. He inherited a bad situation. The humanizing volunteers were just one part of it. Martin wanted to stoke their energy to get more people helping (however toxic it would turn out). I think that's why Martin left. It became clear that bigger wasn't better (that's why East was preserved against her wishes). More passion wasn't better (that's what the 2019 study found, and why things started to be clamped down before Covid). He's tackling the passion part because he's seen it for years. But, he's still stuck with an oversized "west" (downtown) shelter which Martin expected to operate using passions that are now "scorned." I don't think ordinary dog people who'd like to help will make that trip to help in a shelter that really should have never been built (that large, in one place). And now has the history it does. I wish he would make the case (to his bosses: the supervisors) that these two topics are inextricably linked. It's obvious now that it will never get better. The toxic people are showing they can't be more constructive/supportive in their participation. If a shortage of help is the result, it's likely due to the bad decision of building that much shelter in one place.
FWIW: I just saw the "gifted" critics" complaining that the new director (who was a volunteer for many years) "only walked dogs, and didn't get involved with other volunteers" during all those years. As if that's a bad thing. They describe someone who was "all about the dogs" (not the social registry of "rescue" personalities, stroking). He endured that in ways that most people can't. It's remarkable because a week ago they claimed they're "all about dogs. It's nothing personal" (as they rake the muck for the dogs, as their spokesperson)
This is exactly why the county board of supervisors don't listen to the cliques. They've seen it for years. The "cause" was unhappy with Siliva. Then Martin. Then Jaynes. Everything is about the clique, the social status within the "community." Someone can always "do better."
One recurring theme is that they never step up and do what they say everyone else should "obviously" do. There's an "alliance" within the community. None of them ever offer to take responsibility for the mandated shelter. They just like having "input" while rescuing the most adoptable dogs. Those groups were scandalized about director Martin transporting dogs to areas that didn't face the unwanted-pet problem we have.
That was bizarre because these "alliance" groups gloat about being "no kill" (implying superiority over those who aren't). But, they quietly leave a lot of dogs at the shelter because they're less adoptable. They're divorced from that reality that way. They take the most adoptable, and tn suddenly reality is their own little world of virtue-signalling adoptable dogs. They were extremely upset that the "best" dogs were going to other areas. They didn't see it as an opportunity to share some of that "no-kill" love with the dogs who never get it. They didn't want to step up their game. It was more about "we're entitled to them before other people."
This toxic mess has been mostly out of the public's eye. The board of supervisors know the history. They hired Mendel for a reason. There is a lot of toxic clique problems there, for a very long time. These groups threaten to withhold their support if they don't get their way. But, their support amounted to (at the time of Martin) taking the cream of the crop. As soon as they took a hit that way, suddenly "the county's entire population was being betrayed. These dogs belong here before anyone else gets to take them."
The personalities involved in rescue are so amazingly toxic. They pander to humanizing tendencies. But, ultimately, it's about the organizations (or the individual's in the "community."). The only thing they care about is that *they* are losing. Mendel was never their guy. Years of grasping a power, gone in an instant. Some guy who "only" walks dogs, and wouldn't play the kiss-up game. He's not about the dogs. They are (after being outraged about hundreds of things under other directors. It's Alice In Wonderland).
The personalities involved in rescue are so amazingly toxic. They pander to humanizing tendencies.
Humanizing is a common problem. Everyone does it to some degree. Many people admit they can't volunteer/foster saying they wouldn't be able leave dogs at the shelter (or let a foster go back). They say this as if it's a virtue (they care too much). That's a form of humanizing. They could help, but not within the dog's reality. (They get something better imposing their own reality on the dogs.).
Others believe they can help within the dog's reality. But, for some, it turns into expecting a different reality, taking out disappointment/frustration on everyone else, becoming the advocate among advocates (You're killing 'little humans.' We want to save them, but you won't let us. If you cared as much as we do ..."). That makes it harder for everyone else who can balance things better, more practically. euthanizations became frantic nail-biters. Networking (social media) to save each dog against an uncaring shelter intent on killing it. More than once someone has burst into the room "stop! an adopter's on the way." People got a charge from that kind "I saved one" experience. It's like a merit badge. But, there were many "too late" moments too. Everyone of course wants to save a life (at any cost). But, that energy made things harder (when it went too far, at any cost). There has to be some boundaries. Nothing there is "at any cost," just like any other rescue (who take the most adoptable dogs, and leave the shelter to deal with the rest). The shelter was more like a stage for people to act out an unrealistic perfectionism (oblivious to the harm it caused others who can help more without that.).
The shelter created this by trying to appeal to the most caring idealism (to help at the shelter). There was a very bi-polar (or contradictory) energy there. "Care at any cost" but then changing hats to "I work for the county and it has to be this way." It seemed like gaslighting, and people enjoyed playing both of those. It reminded me of a toxic family. People would play up the most passionate reasons to be there, and then hurt each other using what they know the person is vulnerable about (euthanize a dog someone cared for, "oops." Or, gossip behind someone's back, demoting them across the cliques.). I saw staff punish volunteers/fosters in the most cruel way, as if they alienated themselves from "the family." It really was like a domestic dispute there. Treacherous. Extremely fulfilling, and at the same time punishing, not healthy, not safe. It's like everyone's supposed to care like dogs are little humans, but not care. If they are too caring/independent, then they'll be touched as if they don't care. That pattern of overvaluation/devaluation/discard was part of the toxic environment, and not entirely the fault of volunteers. It was the staff, and volunteers were whipsawed. In essence, the shelter staff would objectify volunteers to get the most out of them, without concern for the person underneath. There was no honest conversation. Just gushing "you're a super hero" and then running that same person down behind their back just moments later (I saw it myself).
Regarding humanizing, one of the clearest examples: they used to dress up dogs in costumes there. They said it made the dog more adoptable ("online appeal"). But, it also added to the overall atmosphere of "little humans (facing murder)." Additionally, almost zero priority was given to practical advice about how to introduce a long-confined & frustrated dog to your home (in a way you wouldn't a person, because dogs aren't). Instead, it was mostly "they're little people! All they need is love!"). When dogs were returned to the shelter after not living up to unrealistic expectations (usually made worse by too much freedom, love, celebration, excitement), the humanizing volunteers were brutally judgemental of adopters for "failing the dog." They would never consider that they failed the dog by objectifying it, contributing to perceptions that don't help dogs to be dogs.
I always thought the budget for the "behavior team" would have been better spent on a staff psychologist. The problems were more about people, not the dogs. The ego loves it when someone's wrong. shadenfreud ( delighting in the misfortune of others) is believed to result from low self-esteem. If someone subconsciously needs to feel better about their self, the shelter is an unlimited "supply" for doing it this way. Any level of passion is justified (especially if we're talking about "little people"). And things are horribly imperfect (especially if we're talking about "little people"). It's not that the people "supplying" themselves this way are bad. Some people fill a hole with drinking, gambling, working, eating. Hubris is just another excess: criticism/perfectionism (viewing oneself as "all good" and others as "all bad."). It's only a problem when they don't realize they're doing it (or why they're doing it). They only seem like bad people because their "supply" just comes at the expense of others (instead of hurting only themselves: hangover, financial bankruptcy, no relationships or obesity).
I seriously believe that a staff psychologist would be the most valuable asset there. The problems are almost always about the people. If volunteer training involved a frank overview of the mind, and how it goes wrong in ways unique to this environment (or the environment attracts personalities susceptible to this unique form of "supply"), maybe the more balanced volunteers (the ones who can accept the reality of the shelter) wouldn't be driven away by the people who are there more for themselves (and maybe that group recognize how they are there for themselves in ways they can't see, because that's how the mind works). Maybe a requirement to sit down and chat with the staff shrink every couple months about how it's going compared to their expectations. More investment in people and keeping them healthy there. Without that, volunteering is like walking into a spinning propeller. The dynamics between that particular setting and some minds (more than others) leads to a lot of very predictable problems. Everyone thinks they're well-intentioned. They are. It's just that some don't recognize why things constantly turn out like so many people aren't. That's a glaring psychological problem. Not personal or invalidating. It just is what it is. Everyone's mind is made up of 95% subconscious that drives them in ways they don't see. If this was more of a normalized topic at shelters, I think it would help far more than "behavior specialists" for the dogs. (I'd suggest a psychologist who's into practicable & experiential mindfulness meditation, not just dry theory of the mind. More about the story in the head, the self talk, inner narration which we all do without realizing it, and don't realize how it influences us. That's something a person can see for themselves, individuate their self from. It's not just theory about how the mind works. It's observable if a person wants to observe it.).
I knew Mendel (by sight. We never spoke.). I think he's doing the right thing. As you mentioned, volunteering used to be very self-directed, free-for-all. I don't think the shelter can do that. There need to be strong expectations about the job to be done; more supervision to maintain expectations. Volunteers are technically unpaid employees. Nobody would believe that employees should be able to work against the shelter just because someone would agree that they're right. Why would it be any different for volunteers? They do the job for free. That deserves respect, more effort to retain. But, not a free pass. It still has to be about assisting the shelter (as it assists dogs). Not assisting dogs despite the shelter. It's just a division of labor. Some people can work in the shelter as it is (but the passionate "dog lovers" make it inhospitable). The lovers can work in rescues where they can have more freedom to do things the way they require. It seems win/win. But, I truly believe a staff psychologist (and or mindfulness teacher) would help people find balance rather than reacting. Find where they fit without it being so much an "identity" they have to preserve/defend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Religious wars
That's a glaring psychological problem. Not personal or invalidating. It just is what it is. Everyone's mind is made up of 95% subconscious that drives them in ways they don't see. If this was more of a normalized topic at shelters, I think it would help far more than "behavior specialists" for the dogs. (I'd suggest a psychologist who's into practicable & experiential mindfulness meditation, not just dry theory of the mind. More about the story in the head, the self talk, inner narration which we all do without realizing it, and don't realize how it influences us. That's something a person can see for themselves, individuate their self from. It's not just theory about how the mind works. It's observable if a person wants to observe it.).
