Drs. Kristin Voigt and Angie Pepper, Authors of “The Ethics of Animal Shelters”

Ethics are a large part of most conversations in animal welfare, and in this episode, we have the pleasure of speaking with two philosophers who explored exactly that. Dr. Kristin Voigt, associate professor at McGill University, and Dr. Angie Pepper, lecturer at the University of Roehampton, are two of the philosophers who set out to understand animal shelters and how ethical decisions are made where time, space, and resources are limited, and the stakes are literally life and death. The fascinating book that came from this project is The Ethics of Animal Shelters, which they talk about in this episode.

Find Human Animal Support Services Online:

• HASS Website
• Facebook
• Instagram
• LinkedIn

Transcript

Diaz Dixon: 0:04

Welcome again to People, Pets, and Purpose, a podcast that's about the human-animal bond and what really matters. I'm your host, Diaz Dixon, the Maddie's Advisor for External Affairs and Partnerships for the Human Animal Support Services Project. You know, it's a wonderful day. And I gotta tell you, it's always interesting, because we've had a lot of interesting guests come in on the show. We've had pet entrepreneurs, innovators, leaders in the animal organizations, even influencers. This episode, we've got a really special one for you. We have two philosophers who are here to talk about their book, The Ethics of Animal Shelters. This is going to be really interesting, it's going to be deep. And I think it's going to be something that everyone can be inspired by to start thinking about. Dr. Kristin Voigt is an associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, and Dr. Angie Pepper is a lecturer at the University of Roehampton. These are two of the philosophers who set out to understand the workings of the local animal shelter. And, you know, we think we know about the workings of a local animal shelter, but this gives a completely different perspective. They went into the Montreal SPCA, and through their work, they took a look at how ethical decisions are made, particularly in an environment where time, space, and other resources are limited, as we know, and where the stakes are really high because they're about life and death. The book that came from this project is The Ethics of Animal Shelters, as I was saying, and I'm thrilled to welcome Kristin and Angie to the podcast today. Welcome, guys.

Kristin Voigt: 1:41

Thanks for having us.

Angie Pepper: 1:42

Thank you for having us.

Diaz Dixon: 1:43

Well, it is a complete joy and honor to be able to have you here. Well, let's just jump right on in; where did the idea from this book come from?

Kristin Voigt: 1:54

So the idea actually came from the Montreal SPCA itself. What happened is that a few years ago, in 2017, Élise Desaulniers became the director of the Montreal SPCA, and Élise is well known in Quebec. She has written on animal rights, veganism, the dairy industry, and she's published several books, she appears in the media very frequently. And Valery Giroux, who is the third co-editor of the collection that we just published, she and Élise knew each other very well. We were chatting at one point, and Élise said, "Oh, I'm dealing with all these ethical challenges in my work at the Montreal SPCA. And wouldn't it be great if some animal ethicist sat down and really thought about those problems and made some suggestions on how we might deal with these problems." So that kind of got us thinking about the issues, and we, we started looking, and we realized that there was actually very little existing work on this. So very little work on the ethical challenges in animal shelters. And when it exists, it often starts from what we think are very problematic assumptions that doesn't really recognize animals as having moral status, animals as sentient beings with their own moral standing. So, we realized that there was a big gap, for having a set of recommendations for how you might deal with the ethical challenges in animal shelters, from a starting point that recognizes animals as, as having moral standing. So, a main goal going into this then became to really come up with a set of recommendations, given a much more demanding ethical framework. So we ended up addressing a whole ton of issues that arose in the Montreal SPCA, that a lot of issues that we weren't expecting, in fact, and this is part of the book that we just published. And, I should also say the, the recommendations that we came up with, they are very tailored to the Montreal SPCA, which is a kind of unique organization, in many ways, but we're hoping that some of this will apply to other shelters too, or can be made applicable to other shelters and organizations. And we really, we would be really excited to talk to other organizations that are interested in doing something like this.

Diaz Dixon: 4:17

Wow, that's great. And then for you to be able to dive in, um, in a field that, two fields that have not historically overlapped, so all of it being new. Was there any hesitation for you guys to jump in when you first heard about this project?

Kristin Voigt: 4:34

So, I will say for myself, I hesitated a lot. So I really wanted to do it, but I was also very conscious of the fact that this would be a very difficult project, and that we'd have to be, we would need a group of people who would be willing to do a lot of background work, who'd be willing to read about, you know, how shelters work, who would be willing to talk to people, listen to people who work in shelters. So, I really wanted to do the project, but I had a lot of trepidation about it.

Diaz Dixon: 5:07

I can imagine. And for you, Angie?

Angie Pepper: 5:11

Yeah. I think that, as you said, Diaz, that, that there's the high stakes for the things that worry you, right? So whenever you're thinking about making recommendations, the costs involved are always in your mind. And I think as well, as Kristin said, working with the Montreal SPCA, we were so lucky that they were so open to the project, and really willing to engage with us and tell us exactly how they experience their work. And it's a kind of, a trust, right, that they put in us that we hadn't really earned. And I think that we felt that responsibility all the way through, and still do. It's a quite unique partnership between a bunch of academics who come from outside of this thing, and a group of people who are really on the ground. And so yeah, I think that we did, we were all apprehensive about it. But hopefully, it did work out well. Um, yeah.

Diaz Dixon: 6:17

Well, amazing. Because, you know, particularly you're coming in and you're not having any background or experience in animal sheltering. But it also goes to show you the amount of respect that was already there, and trust that was already there. And both of you to come in. How did you actually get started? Once you decided to set out to examine the ethics of animal sheltering, like, you know, this project, what was step one? And then what was step two? And when you're assembling the team, and pulling together, what, where do you even begin?

Kristin Voigt: 6:52

Yeah, so we, it took us a while to really develop a plan. Because as I said, it was one of the things that became clear from the beginning was that we would have to have a methodology where we had plenty of time to sit down with the staff at the Montreal SPCA, and really hear from them, what they think the ethical challenges are that they're dealing with in their work, how they think about the issues, how they are currently responding to them, what kinds of constraints they have, as they're responding to them. So we really kind of wanted to bake that sort of methodology into, into the project, especially because as you were saying earlier, Diaz, we don't have firsthand sheltering experience. And then it was also really important to have a team of people who would be prepared to do this work, because it's not something, for philosophers, is not something that we are trained to do. So it's sort of, people have to be very willing to do a lot of extra work. So we start with the first step really was to assemble a team of people who, who we knew would be excited about this and be prepared to do a lot of work to prepare themselves for this project. And then we had a first meeting at the Montreal SPCA, actually, on its premises where we brought the philosophers together with the Montreal SPCA, and that was really a meeting over a couple of days where the staff at the Montreal SPCA talked to us about the specific problems that they were dealing with in the work that they were doing for the specific part of the Montreal SPCA that they were working in. So, that was, that was giving us a lot of insight into the work and the problems that staff deal with. And then we, we went away. And the, the philosophers sort of started drafting a set of recommendations, which took us a long time because we had to agree amongst ourselves, which is not easy, because philosophers are all about disagreement.

Diaz Dixon: 8:56

Right.

Kristin Voigt: 8:56

We had to come up with something that we thought was coherent and made sense. And then we went back for a second meeting with the Montreal SPCA a few months later and presented them the work that we'd done, and to get feedback from them and see how they, what they think about it. And then we used that feedback to revise and rewrite and revise and rewrite some more, and then came up with the final version.

Diaz Dixon: 9:23

Fantastic. Well, and I can see, you know, you said you put together a team that was excited about the project. When you first walked into the walls, into the doors of the Montreal SPCA, were they excited?

Angie Pepper: 9:37

I think that, um, I think it was probably mixed. Really. I think that for some people, it was, it just gave them such an opportunity that they hadn't had to really voice their experiences and their concerns to people who were sort of neutral, neutrally, sort of positioned and there to just listen. And I think for some people, that side of the project was, yeah, just presented like this new opportunity that is rare and hard to come by in this sector. And then I think for others, there was probably more trepidation. Because we were coming from the outside, and we didn't have any real experience of, of animal shelters, and the sector. And so, you know, if I was them, I would also be apprehensive about what, what exactly were we there to do? And were we really to, you know, to be trusted. And so I think that there were questions in the minds of some people about that. But in general, I think that we, over the course of the two meetings, like, you know, I think people really came together. And I, personally, was surprised by how willing people were to open up about the things that keep them awake at night with regard to their work, and to, to really, to speak about things that are painful, but also a source of disagreement amongst colleagues, where that can be, you know, it's not the kind of thing that you want to necessarily talk openly about with others. But I think that that was, it was a surprise to me. But it was also invaluable to the project, that there was that that willingness to be open about, about the nature of the work. So whether everyone was that excited about it at the beginning, I don't know. But I think that in general, there was much to be gained. And a lot of people got something out of the experience, even if it was just a kind of catharsis, right, having that opportunity to, to speak and be heard about, about all of these issues.

Diaz Dixon: 12:02

That's great. You guys all obviously did a great job of creating those safe spaces where people could use their voices to come in, use it have disagreements on both sides. So with your team, coming together with the philosophical differences, and then what the struggles might have been on their side. I'm just thinking, I have 150 questions right now, because I'm picturing this could be a marvelous documentary, watching the, this come together. Those are two drastically different cultures that you merged, to have a discussion and come up with some solutions, some things. Were, were the cultural difficulties, or even the language, that both sides used, were those barriers for you in any way?

Kristin Voigt: 12:44

So I think we were extremely lucky in this partnership, that we were on the same page on a lot of things. So as I said earlier, for us, it was important that we had this ethical framework, where non-human animals are seen as having moral status, moral standing. And that was sort of our starting point. And that's also the, the, we wanted this to cohere with what the Montreal SPCA is doing and how they think about their work. So, and they already had, they, they shared a lot of these commitments that we also had. So I think there was a lot of commonality to start from, and that was fantastic. I guess the language we use is, it's not always the same, but I didn't find that to be too much of a difficulty, because we shared a lot of ethical commitments that we could start from and build the project on.

Diaz Dixon: 13:45

That's awesome. That is awesome. Well, let me ask you, I know I'm asking some of the difficult questions. What were some of the things on your team's side that you disagreed on?

Angie Pepper: 13:53

Good question. So I think that, I mean, we had disagreements about pretty much everything. I think we had disagreements about particular policies. So, policies that spring to mind as sources of disagreement were things like return to field for stray cats, and trap neuter release and maintain, which cats that policy should apply to. Questions around abortion, and whether that's permissible, and is it permissible for late term pregnancies, issues around adoption policy, issues about, so one of the sources of disagreement, I think amongst us was quite how progressive or how much the shelter should look to try to transform the social context in which it operates. So how much of a role should shelters take on in being advocates for social justice for non-human animals. And for some philosophers, you know, there's an exciting potential for these organizations, that shelters shouldn't just settle for the status quo and dominant public opinion around how we treat animals, but rather, they should be doing more radical work and seeking to transform the world that we find ourselves in. And then, for the slightly more conservative people in the team, that's, you know, perhaps a good aspirational goal for a shelter, but given all of the difficulties that shelters face in their day to day work, and there's extremely non, non ideal conditions that they have to operate in. There's a question about whether that aspirational goal should really be foregrounded in what we recommend to shelters because it can be tricky to weigh all of these things that are very demanding, everything's very demanding in terms of time and resources. And so yeah, there's disagreement, I think about how we think about the actual role of shelters in society.

Diaz Dixon: 16:10

Very interesting. Because everything you just named, are oftentimes some of the same things that people disagree on, even inside the animal sheltering world. But it's really neat to hear the deep thought and discussions that happened even separately before you brought this in. What, what's what stood out to you the most in your interactions with the animal shelter?

Angie Pepper: 16:32

So I think that, probably, so, for many of us, we didn't have much experience of animal shelters at all. And I think that coming from a point of complete ignorance, a lot stood out, and a lot was surprising. And so, I think that for many of us, the thing that was most striking, and it should come as no surprise, but that shelter staff are so dedicated to their work. And they're so dedicated to the individual animals with whom they interact and who they are trying to protect. And that comes with significant emotional costs, and psychological trauma, for want of a better word when you're constantly in a situation of having to negotiate these really difficult circumstances. When you've got so many, so many lives to protect, and not enough resources, really, to protect everybody, all of the kind of emotional burden of that, I think I just hadn't really fully appreciated the moral stress that shelter workers are under, under. And that makes a massive difference to how you think about the organizations and the sorts of responsibilities that workers there bear and ought to bear in our world. So that was, I think, particularly stood out as something that we really needed to be mindful of. But then there were just like a whole bunch of other practical things, like the stuff around animal abortions. I could just never even, never even entered my mind to even think about it. But of course, if you've got pregnant animals who are due to give birth, not, in not too distant future, and, again, you're going to need homes for all of those animals. This raises questions about, about resources and which animals to protect. So yeah, I mean, there were lots of lots of things like that, that I just had never even thought about.

Diaz Dixon: 18:32

Yeah, yeah. Well, I think that oftentimes, when you come from outside the animal sheltering world, there are so many preconceived notions about what it's all about. And it tends to be much more simple in the average person's mind when they show up, they see an animal in a kennel, and whether they're gonna take it home or not, and they don't. That's all they see. And it's, there definitely is a great amount of depth to it. And, and trauma, as well. And it is really interesting to hear from your perspective. And yes, you're talking about walking in and seeing that and digging deeper into that, and I'm sure, I'm sure it led to some great discussions for you guys. Would that, was there, was there a moment when you left after you meeting with the animal shelter that you sat with your team and you kind of shook your head like, where are we gonna go with this?

Kristin Voigt: 19:25

Yes, various points. I think it was also that, I mean, I don't think we really felt like, okay, now we've talked enough, now we're ready to sit down and come up with our recommendations. It was more like okay, we've taken up enough of their time. Now we need to sit down and try and come up with some responses and identify the issues.

Diaz Dixon: 19:44

Okay, so, at what point did you decide okay, we are now ready to begin the ethical examination? You know, when you had enough information, you said, okay, we got enough information to move forward. What was that like?

Kristin Voigt: 19:59

Yeah, so we have these two days for our first meeting at the Montreal SPCA. And afterwards, we looked at our notes. And I think we were struck. First, by just the wide range of issues that had come up. Many of these issues we didn't, we hadn't even thought of beforehand. So, these were all issues that we knew we would have to say something about. And then there were also other issues that we wanted to address that may not have necessarily struck people at the Montreal SPCA as ethical problems, but that we felt were ethical issues that we wanted to talk about. And then, throughout the project, whenever we had questions, we would turn back to specific staff members at the Montreal SPCA, if we had more questions, and they were really willing to spend time with us, talking us through some of the questions that we had. So we had this sort of ongoing communication, as well. But yeah, we, it was definitely a very difficult, difficult process to come up with, just to kind of sit down and write down a list of issues that we would need to address.

Diaz Dixon: 21:09

Yeah, yeah, I can imagine going back and forth. And even when you're looking at different species, like the issues are different, the difference are, different issues for small animals versus cats versus dogs. I think most of us have a good sense of what the ethical issues facing animal shelters are. Because we, we live with them every day seeing that they have to decide what gets to live, what's dying. How do you, how are they, are they thriving? And what gets medical care? When and how? Did you guys dive heavily into those? There had to be times where you find yourself going down a rabbit hole.

Angie Pepper: 21:48

There's so many times. But I think the question is right, I mean, what we tried to do was from the notes that we took, from our interviews with the individual members of staff, we compiled lists of questions that they had raised and issues that they had raised. We looked for commonalities across the interviews, we then tried to narrow it down to a core set and then arrange them thematically. So it's probably like how we went about it. And then, so we're always driven by what they were saying. To, you know, to ask and be really very much motivated by those questions. But yeah, I think that we tried as best we can, I think, to like respond to as many of the concerns that they raised, because the overall aim of the project was to be helpful. It was to try to lessen the burden of having to worry about all of these things, by yourself, right? So for shelter workers having to manage and navigate all of these ethically kind of complicated issues, that the real aim was to try to help. And so whilst, as Kristin said, you know, there were some things that we thought that they may have touched on, but didn't dwell on, and it didn't seem to be central, a central concern for them. We thought, nonetheless, there were things that we wanted to pick up because they are important, like, for example, how should we define what euthanasia is. Trying to pick up on some things that we thought were important, but nonetheless be primarily driven by the questions and issues that were of central importance to them was, was really important, because it was, that whole aim of the volume is to try to reduce the cognitive load on shelter workers in general.

Diaz Dixon: 23:42

I love the fact that you took the perspective of being helpful. You know, you're coming in from that perspective, because there's so many different areas. And it's so, there's so many different lanes that you could get in where you become judgmental, and just think, oh, what are you doing? But working together collaboratively, that part is huge. But deciding which parts of the animal shelter to focus on can be difficult just in itself. Because there are so many different, so many different areas, right?

Kristin Voigt: 24:09

Yeah, we tried to be fairly comprehensive. And the recommendations that we came up with ended up being a very, very, very long document, much longer than, than, than we thought. But there were just so many issues that came up and that needed to be addressed. So that's what we ended up doing. Yeah.

Diaz Dixon: 24:29

Yeah. And what were the, what were the top issues for you? What were the, the ones that were, that you found to be the most critical?

Kristin Voigt: 24:36

So, I'll say, and I don't know Angie's, because that's I think one of the issues that sort of came up in different guises is that we felt, as Angie mentioned earlier, that there was an opportunity for the Montreal SPCA to take this larger role in shaping how people think about non-human animals and not just companion animals, but also animals in, you know, who live in the streets, animals who are used in the animal, used in animal agriculture. So, and this was also already something that the Montreal SPCA was doing. And we were, I think, trying to be more systematic in trying to see how that would affect different aspects of the organization. So one of the things that we recommended was that the Montreal SPCA think about the language that they use when they're talking, you know, in their documents, when they're talking about animals, for example, we, we recommended that they don't use the word pets, they use animal companion instead, they don't use, don't say owner, they say guardian, and so on. So that affected a lot of the recommendations that we, that we made. And so that's interesting, because to a large extent, that was what the Montreal SPCA was already doing. So one thing that I thought was a brilliant idea, was that they had arranged, they had arranged things so that when people came in to adopt a cat, they had to walk past the enclosure for pigeons, because the Montreal SPCA would look after pigeons that were injured, in need of care, until they were ready to be, to go back out. You know, pigeons are such a vilified group of animals. And I think this is such a brilliant idea just to have people see them as the kind of animals, as the kinds of beings that, you know, need medical care and deserve medical care. So I think that was a fantastic approach that they were really doing. And we're sort of trying to build that into the recommendations more systematically.

Angie Pepper: 26:46

Yeah, I think just on that, so not everything that we say in the recommendations would be new to the Montreal SPCA. A lot of it is also a kind of a comment on good practice. And, you know, perhaps things where there was some disagreement over what they were doing. Thinking about, yeah, are you doing the right thing? Yeah, this does seem to be the right thing, right. So it wasn't all about coming up with new things that they ought to be doing, but sometimes just actually recommending that they carry on doing some of the, carry on with some of the initiatives that they had already begun. So I think that one of the things that came up was around palliative care. And you know, how many, how much resources should be invested in palliative care programs for companion animals. And so there were things like that, where it's like, no, this is a good program, and it's something that you should carry on with. And yes, it's costly, but, you know, we've tried to find, find space in the budget somewhere.

Diaz Dixon: 27:51

You know, you can tell it's abundantly clear, listening to you guys talk about the quality of work that you put in, but also the growth that you had on the other side, as you're looking at these, one of the things that I really appreciate about the work is that for both of you guys, it's clear how you focus on the animals and the humans that are working inside the shelter. And you really recognize how difficult the situations are, that they're there in, and how the system is a very difficult system to navigate. And I know that in your book, you addressed the often overlooked part of things. What got you guys interested in the actual people part of the animal shelters? Was that the focus at the beginning?

Angie Pepper: 28:37

Oh, so I think that probably for us, it's always been a part of, it was always a part of, of the project. And the main reason for that, I think, is that as moral philosophers, we're interested in, like what we ought to be doing, right, so what all people to be doing with regard to one another, and in this case, with regard to the animals in their care, and how should they be interacting with the wider society and so on. And so, I guess that at the heart of this sort of general ethical approach is the fact that it will be people ultimately, who are going to be responsible. And then of course, it raises questions about how responsible you know, what's a reasonable burden that people can be required to take on? What does morality really demand of us, given our circumstances? So I think that we were always mindful of that, but as I said earlier, I, I was really underprepared for the level of moral stress, and grief, and disillusionment, and despair at times, that people who work in shelters experience. And so, that, I think, really cemented for all of us that the people had to be really at the heart of it. So it wouldn't work to make recommendations that were unrealistic or that would make people feel even worse about their situation or so that, that was, I guess, central to, to our overall outlook. But we started, I think, I think it would be fair to say that we started with an interest in improving, or thinking about shelter workers and the animals that they care for. But the place of people in the project really big was cemented after those initial interviews.

Kristin Voigt: 30:26

Yeah, and I think we, we wanted, just wanted to make space for the emotions that people have. Because when you care about animals, and you work in this environment, where you're constantly dealing with situations where you don't, don't have the resources to do everything that you think you ought to be doing. And as Angie was saying, that the grief that it, that it causes, it's just a, it's an a sort of appropriate response to the situation. So. And also, as we were speaking with the staff, we realized there wasn't really any time, or any space to deal with that or even to acknowledge it. So we want, we didn't want to sort of, we wanted there to be space for the emotional responses and not pretend that they weren't happening or even pathologize them in any way. So I think it became, just became obvious that that had to be part of the recommendations as well, because people are working in shelters, just care. You know, and the organization depends on people caring, and so we have to just make room for that.

Diaz Dixon: 31:30

I love it. I love it. You know, it's interesting, it's great that you made room for that. I think one of the most interesting things is that you also found room and space for budgetary talk. I mean, bringing up the the actual opportunity to talk about, I don't see how philosophy, I wouldn't have expected that the guidelines to go in how shelters should do their budgets. How did you find room for that?

Kristin Voigt: 31:58

Well, we weren't expecting this either. But one of the things we realized was that there was a certain amount of, there were just disagreements among people are working in different parts of the Montreal SPCA about how to approach priority setting, the allocation of resources. And so in the shelter division, it might seem natural to just try and help as many animals as you possibly can, whereas the Montreal SPCA also deals with enforcement of animal welfare legislation. So they might be getting individual animals out of abusive situations. And their approach was often, okay, we're dealing with these animals who have suffered so much, we're going to try and have them live, have them, allow them to live out their lives, with as much pleasure and joy as, as we can. So, they just had a very different approach to how they might use the, want to use the resources that they had. And there is no, both of these approaches is legitimate. But it created a certain amount of friction that we thought was unhelpful. So we, we suggested that dividing the budget so that different divisions of the organization with different priorities could just allocate their budgets differently without this creating tension within the organization. So we're also, I think this was a way of allowing for, for accommodating disagreements about the best ethical approach in different parts of the organization.

Diaz Dixon: 33:29

That makes sense, that makes total sense. How would you say that your book has been received from people from all sides, from whether people on the philosophical side or people on the sheltering side? What's been the impact?

Kristin Voigt: 33:45

It's, it's probably a bit early to say, certainly from philosophy part, because philosophy moves very, very slowly. So we probably have to wait another five years before we can tell you anything, anything about that. I think, for us, to be honest, I think the, Angie can obviously say if she disagrees with that, but I, for us, I think it's more interesting to see how the shelter community responds, because this is really who, this was a primary audience. And we've had some positive responses. And what we're really hoping is that we can open the conversation a little bit in the sense that we don't actually think we've, you know, we've, we've said the last word on anything. We're happy for people to disagree with us. But we're, what we're hoping to have done is to just have a set, have a framework of how you might think about the various aspects of shelter work, when you start from the assumption that all animals have moral status. And we, I'm sure we got it wrong in various places, and we're hoping that, that people will, will tell us that. So, I think we'd just be excited to have an ongoing conversation with that, especially with people who are actually doing the work.

Diaz Dixon: 35:00

That's critical. And that's an important place to start. People who are actually doing the work and recognizing that it's different from place to place, and I think one of the things that you talked about, that would be great across all organizations, and for people who are doing the work is the ethics board. That was actually a phenomenal recommendation. How was that received?

Angie Pepper: 35:22

So, I think in general, it's been positively received by those people that we've spoken to who are either vets who have some relationship to shelters, or people who work in shelters. And I think that we, I guess, in the, in the collection, we mentioned it, and it was put forward, and we thought it was a great idea, because this is, it models what already happens in the human healthcare context. And so, when we're thinking, for us, at least we're thinking, you know, here are the shelter workers at the Montreal SPCA telling us of all of these problems, sometimes specific cases, sometimes policy. And these people have been, you know, carrying this stuff around for a really long time, they should have an ethics committee or an ethics board, like a hospital does, so that you can be able to consult more regularly, right? So this is a one-off project, but really, we need something like this in place more permanently. And so, that was the basic thought. But, and a lot of people have found this to be an intriguing and an exciting idea, but there's a lot of work that actually needs to be done in thinking about precisely how you set these things up. So that's our next project. And so we're currently looking into thinking exactly about how these boards should be composed, what their bylaws should be. So for example, how frequently should they meet? What range of issues should they be consulting on? And who can make use of them? And there's just lots and lots of questions to be asked about exactly how you set them up. So I guess if you do have any listeners that already have established anything like an ethics board or committee, at their shelter, then we'd be really interested to hear from them because we're currently looking at these entities in the human healthcare context. But of course, the human healthcare context is very, very different from the situation facing animal shelters. So what might work in that, in that context might not actually be fitting for animal shelters. So if there are, if there is anyone out there, that does have one, we will be really, really interested in hearing from them as we sort of embark on the next bit of the project.

Diaz Dixon: 37:48

Fantastic! Listeners out there, you guys tuning in right now, is there an ethics committee or board that you have and you're currently working with, or you're looking at putting one together, we've got some fantastic resources with Angie Pepper and Kristin Voigt here. So make sure you reach out. So, that is good. That's something that I think, across the country, we should have everywhere. And I know, for a short time, when I was at, when I was running Nevada Humane Society, we had a small committee that would meet on the most difficult topics on a weekly basis. It takes a lot of stress and strain off of any one particular individual having to make tough decisions. I like that. I really like that. In addition to that, I also really appreciate you recognizing that marketing, and engagement with supporters and donors, is a piece that shelters have to think about. Nonprofits in general, typically push that off to the side. So how did you guys come up with that?

Angie Pepper: 38:44

So, again, like this, really came through in our initial interviews with the staff at the Montreal SPCA. So, you know, lots, in lots of the interviews, some people would say something like, you know, really, I think we should be doing this, but we can't do that, because we're worried about what that will mean for our reputation and our image. Or, where there were sources of disagreement, it might be precisely because of the potential for reputational damage. And so, when we kind of came away, it was really clear to us that this is another feature of the non-ideal conditions in which shelters have to operate, because they are, as you say, very heavily dependent on, on public goodwill. So if that is in any way jeopardized, then the shelter is in trouble. And so this, I think adds a level of complexity to the work of animal shelters that just is very rare in other contexts, right? So, they really have to think about what they do, and sometimes because public opinion perhaps is not as progressive on certain issues as the workers, their views are, it puts shoulders in a really difficult position, because oftentimes they maybe have to do things that are compromising their, their core mission statement, their core values, and their core commitments. And so, this is something that we are very mindful of all the way throughout and trying to think of ways to manage and negotiate public opinion in ways that doesn't threaten funding, but also, at the same time giving shelters the opportunity or, you know, trying to harness the potential for shelters to bring about transformative change in society. So, yeah, and I just think it's such a big and complicated matter. Yeah, we've, we've tried to make several recommendations in in this area, but I think that, that would again, be one thing that we just didn't know, or didn't really appreciate going into this; quite how vulnerable organizations are to the whims of the public, right? If certain things get found out about what your practices are. And it comes back, just one last thought on this, it comes back to something that you said about, you know, for a lot of people, we just don't know, that the general public doesn't know what goes on inside a shelter. But the problem is that it becomes self-fulfilling, because the shelter needs to present a particular image of itself as competent, effective, like, all of the animals are happy, and everybody's having this amazing time, because that image is the image that gets, like, the funding. And so, that leads, you know, there is this, it kind of breeds a certain a certain view in the public's mind about what's going on in these organizations, which then makes it hard for these organizations to say, you know, holding their hands up and saying, we're struggling here, right? This is really difficult. And we're not really meeting all of our goals, because it's hard given the circumstances that we're operating in. So yeah, I just think that it's a really complicated, really complicated issue. But it gave us lots to think about and definitely shaped what we thought that we could recommend in the here and now.

Diaz Dixon: 42:06

Yeah, yeah. Well, and the further you dig in, and you see how complicated a lot of these particular issues are. I want to ask you both, outside of the complication piece, was there any particular person or any particular companion animal that jumped out at you, storywise, that you, in a positive manner, that you, that you can talk about?

Kristin Voigt: 42:28

I, so I definitely remember bits of the conversation, where people talked about individual animals and being just incredibly struck by, by how much people care about the animals that they're trying to help, and the grief that they're experiencing, but also how that doesn't stop them from caring again in the future. I don't think that there was, I think this is something we saw, pretty much throughout. So, I don't think there's a single person I would, that there's any one person that I would single out in that respect.

Diaz Dixon: 43:01

Yeah. Very cool. Well, there's one question I have to ask you both, that I ask for every guest that comes on PPP. And that is to tell me about the animals in your life. And for you listeners out there, you couldn't see but Kristin's cat came and made an appearance, said hello, worked his or her way through. What, what, what do you, what do you guys got for me?

Kristin Voigt: 43:27

So I, I live with three cats. Morna, who you just saw, and Sorensen and Faisal, and they are incredible cats. Of course. They're all rescue and stray animals. One thing that I think anyone who lives with animals just becomes aware of, is the individuality of, you know, the personalities, preferences, relationships with me, relationships with each other, they're all very different. So they, they have very strong personalities, all three of them, very different personalities. And one thing I find exciting about philosophical work on non-human animals over the past few years, it's become much more attuned to that. And there's a much greater sense of individual animal's agency and individuality and how important that is. So I think that's really exciting to see in the literature. Though, I'm also, I'm also very aware of the fact that I make all the important decisions for, for my cats, and I think that's something Angie will have something to say about, as well.

Angie Pepper: 44:38

Yeah, so I grew up in rural England. And you know, for the first part of my life, I grew up with cats and dogs and chickens and rabbits and guinea pigs and rats and hamsters and gerbils and fish and lizards, like the whole, like we had, our house was always full of animals. And, and I have had companion animals since, and I don't have any at the moment. And as Kristin was sort of gesturing out then, I think that I've come to appreciate having a bit of distance in my relationship to domesticated animals, because it's enabled me or given me the opportunity to reflect on our desire to keep animals and to, to have them, to hold them, and to, you know, control them, even in a loving way, right. And so I've become very interested in our relationships to the animals that live amongst us, but not it with us in our houses. And currently, I have a pair of magpies who are in the, in the tree, across the way from me who have been in the tree for about 18 months. They shout at the window, from asking for nuts, and I dutifully put them out on the window sill. But, one of the things that's important about this relationship, and I've been kind of writing about this, is that they are free to come and go as they please. And I don't control all of the aspects of their lives. So it's a different way of thinking about how we can interact with animals and live with them without necessarily kind of controlling them in the ways that we do.

Diaz Dixon: 46:14

Very, very cool. I love that. I love all of that. I really, really want to thank you guys for coming on the show today. And, for all our listeners out there, this is something that's been very different for them. Very insightful, I love the work that you are digging in and what you're doing. And for those of you listeners out there, you know, listening to both of these wonderful human beings, you see that they are architects of thought, and continue to help shape our foundations of the understandings of the world, and particularly the human-animal bond, and what we're doing, and here at People, Pets, and Purpose, that's what it's all about. We want to make sure that we are in the relentless pursuit of support. And all of that is good, supporting human kindness and animal kindness, because we know that we need a lot more of it. So thank you both for coming on the show.

Kristin Voigt: 47:02

Thank you guys for letting us talk about the book and the project.

Angie Pepper: 47:07

Thank you.

Diaz Dixon: 47:08

Fantastic. How can our listeners find you guys?

Kristin Voigt: 47:11

So our email addresses are very easy to find. If you just Google our names, you will find our departmental webpages that include our email addresses, but we can also include them for, for your blog, for your website, if you like.

Diaz Dixon: 47:27

Fantastic, fantastic. And thank you for listening, as we have tuned in to these wonderful individuals giving us some additional thought on the moral, ethical, and intellectual development of animal sheltering. And until next time, be safe, be well, and lead with love.