 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / General Topics / February 2005No-kill vs. non no-kill shelters
I am creating this post to answer a comment that was made in another post. The choice of making this a new topic is because the issue of no-kill shelters just clouded the original topic's issue. It is an important enough topic to rate a post. I have seen and heard many people talk about the "no-kill" shelters and how they are different from the ones who "kill the animals." Much of what I have heard is just so untrue that I'm getting tired of the lies. The myths surrounding the "no-kill" shelters are getting in the way of reality. Unfortunately, many statments are believed by the public if they are repeated often enough. A statement was made that said "... I think a lot of the shelters that euthanize could change their policies and go no-kill or network with other shelters to take cats if they have room but I think they choose not to. Pretty sad." That is a direct quote, cut and pasted. This person and I had a very, VERY long series of posts a while back that discussed no-kill shelters, and other closely related subjects. I made it VERY clear that the shelter that I volunteer at does network, as much as possible, with all the other shelters in the area. It is my understanding that many, if not most, private shelters do the same. Government owned shelters can be a completely different situation. This discussion is only about non-government owned ones. The reality is that the no-kill shelters are usually full when we are. Networking has very limited value because of that. The same holds true for the foster program, when we are full, everyone else is too. As a matter of fact, a local no-kill brought a very large number of animals to us two weeks ago. While it MAY be true that they don't euthanize, it is partially because they bring them to us to do it. Now, if that isn't dishonest, I don't know what is. Even if the particular ones they brought are not euthanized, where do you think that we are going to get the room for them? It turned my stomach when I found out that we had to euthanize so many animals so that they could tell their supporters that they are "no-kill." I don't know how you define no-kill, but my definition does not allow for sending the animals somewhere else to be disposed of. Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens periodically, how dishonest! Many of the shelters and all the foster programs are over filled right now because it is puppy and kitten season. This is not just here, it is all over the country. There are very few shelters that are not full right now. If there are some who have room for 50 animals, who is going to pay for the transportation costs and/or arrange transportation for 50 animals? The answer is "NO ONE." No one at my shelter likes to euthanize, but it is an unfortunate fact of life. If there was a practical way to change that policy, we would do so instantly. All here agree on this. We are not doing this by choice, it is by necessity. There is not enough room to house all the animals. There is not enough money to feed and care for them. There is not enough time to visit with them so their life isn't just a hollow shell. Until there is, euthanasia is a fact of life. By the way, the same issue applies to dogs and rabbits also. While I understand this is a cat group, it is interesting that many of the previous discussions seemed to imply that this issue only affects cats. If you have a practical, realistic solution to this, please, PLEASE tell me. I keep hearing about people who are against euthanasia, but have no solutions that work. You might tell me that my philosophy is wrong, but you offer no solution that will work. That is bogus and I am tired of hearing it. Theory is great, but when it conflicts with practical, ideas need to change. If you are simply against euthanasia, but don't know how to make it unnecessary, just say so, "I hate it, but I don't have a practical, realistic solution to it." I can respect that, hell, I totally agree with it myself. I would love to see it become unnecessary, I just don't know how to do that in the near future. A term worse than "no-kill shelter" (which means whatever one wants it to; there is no standard out there that I know of) is "kill shelter," which even some conventional shelters are beginning to call themselves! One definition of "no-kill" is a high road to fat donations. The reality is, nonprofit and private shelters can turn animals away when they are full. And they do. Conventional (county and city) must take animals, at least those within their jurisdiction. If there is no room, what is their alternative other than euthanasia? And how does turning away animals in need, especially adoptable animals, make the "no-kill" shelter better? I know there are some horrible shelters out there (some of them "no-kill"), but give our county and city shelters a break. They are doing their best with a horrible situation. "No-kills" are a delusion and a snare; let's get real and work to enforce spaying/neutering and educate a public that allows itself feel good about abandoning pets at a "no-kill" facility instead of taking responsibility for the life of the animal. Flames will be disregarded. I've had many years to come to this conclusion. Sharon Talbert Friends of Campus Cats give our county and city shelters a break. They are doing > their best with a horrible situation. "No-kills" are a delusion and a > snare; let's get real and work to enforce spaying/neutering and educate a > public that allows itself feel good about abandoning pets at a "no-kill" > facility instead of taking responsibility for the life of the animal. I suppose that there is a triage system of sorts done to decide which animals go. "Wild" ferals likely get euthanasia, and secondarily very sick animals are offed too. At the other end of the spectrum are the friendly tame animals that the shelter places out on the "showroom floor". We got our current cat that way, they had him in a group of cages in the lobby/ reception area of the shelter. Then there must be a fair amount of reasonably tame animals that just don't get adopted. Behavioral problems (scratches furniture, doesn't use the box, and such). > give our county and city shelters a break. They are doing > > their best with a horrible situation. "No-kills" are a delusion and a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I suppose that there is a triage system of sorts done to decide > which animals go. "Wild" ferals likely get euthanasia, Hopefully wild ferals can be spayed or neutered and released but that requires volunterrs too do the trapping and feeding. ron herfurth and > secondarily very sick animals are offed too. At the other end > of the spectrum are the friendly tame animals that the shelter places [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > animals that just don't get adopted. Behavioral problems (scratches > furniture, doesn't use the box, and such). > give our county and city shelters a break. They are doing > > their best with a horrible situation. "No-kills" are a delusion and a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I suppose that there is a triage system of sorts done to decide > which animals go. "Wild" ferals likely get euthanasia, Thankfully, we have a program that runs through our shelter that will take ferals. We vaccinate, they alter and test for FIV/FeLV, tip the ears, and find them homes. The cats that don't become social are found homes as barn cats with owners that are aware of the needs and responsibilities it entails. The cats that do become social are placed into indoor-only homes. and > secondarily very sick animals are offed too. We do our best, but unfortunately, when shelters are packed, illness gets worse as well. And it becomes harder to get each individual animal over their illness because there are constant new sources of new strains of bacteria in the air. At the other end > of the spectrum are the friendly tame animals that the shelter places > out on the "showroom floor". We got our current cat that way, > they had him in a group of cages in the lobby/ reception area of > the shelter. Then there must be a fair amount of reasonably tame > animals that just don't get adopted. Behavioral problems (scratches > furniture, doesn't use the box, and such). Don't forget blatantly aggressive animals. Behavioral, though... litterbox problem cats, if the owner admits that the cat was never seen by a vet, we will generally run a urinalysis. > A term worse than "no-kill shelter" (which means whatever one wants it to; > there is no standard out there that I know of) is "kill shelter," which [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Sharon Talbert > Friends of Campus Cats I would imagine both "kill" and "no-kill" are doing the best with the resources they have. I have no problem with either as long as they are up front about what their policy is. I foster for a rescue group. They don't have a shelter at this time. They are lucky that a local vet (VCA btw) permits them to house 7 cats at their facility since the group lost their space at Pet Smart. But that's the sum total of their "shelter" capacity at this time. The remainder of probably 40-50 cats are in foster homes and you can only foster so many cats. So yes they turn away cats when there just plain and simple isn't anywhere to put them. The problem won't be solved until people get off their lazy butts and take their pets to get them neutered. There is no excuse not to. Most areas have somebody doing low cost spay/neuters. So around here for $40 - $50 bucks you can get your animal neutered - for less than it costs for the yearly visit to the vet. > I would imagine both "kill" and "no-kill" are doing the best with the > resources they have. I have no problem with either as long as they are up > front about what their policy is. I have a problem with it, because no-one is "up-front" about the reality of their policy, especially the so-called "no-kill" shelters. What I have a big problem with is the (possibly deliberately) misleading term, "no-kill." Could as easily be "no-take." But that wouldn't get the donations... I've never liked the "no-kill" label and I really hate it when conventional shelters are called "kill" shelters. That is as unfair as "no-kill" is misleading. > I foster for a rescue group. They don't have a shelter at this time. They > are lucky that a local vet (VCA btw) permits them to house 7 cats at their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they turn away cats when there just plain and simple isn't anywhere to put > them. Which is the point of this debate. How can a shelter justify calling itself "no-kill" just because it has the option of turning away animals it doesn't want to deal with or hasn't room for? > The problem won't be solved until people get off their lazy butts and take > their pets to get them neutered. There is no excuse not to. Most areas have > somebody doing low cost spay/neuters. So around here for $40 - $50 bucks you > can get your animal neutered - for less than it costs for the yearly visit > to the vet. You are absolutely right. But until that day, it is still neither fair nor accurate for any shelter to call itself a "no-kill" facility. I really feel that this designation is not only self-serving, it has contributed to the deliquency of lazy pet owners, who proudly report they do their best to find a "no-kill" shelter for their discarded pets. I even had a woman call me once and say she was going to "donate" her unwanted cat to Campus Cats... Sharon Talbert Campus Cats > > I would imagine both "kill" and "no-kill" are doing the best with the > > resources they have. I have no problem with either as long as they are up [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > when conventional shelters are called "kill" shelters. That is as unfair > as "no-kill" is misleading. I can only speak for the groups/shelters locally. The ones that state "no-kill" aren't receiving public funding. They are totally dependent on donations and are manned by volunteers. The donations go to services for the animals. They also don't give the impression that they take all animals. I don't find this deceptive. They make no promises they don't keep. If you manage to get you animal into their "system" it won't be killed. I don't know of any group/shelter that is called "kill" around here. The only problem I have with the government funded shelters is that they aren't totally up front about how long they will keep the animal before euthanizing it. They may say 3 days but have been known to put an animal down almost as soon as it's relinquished to the shelter. I understand they have the same space problems everyone else does but I'd prefer if they were up front and made no time committment. There are some people who would make other arrangements (maybe hold on to the animal longer themselves or make more of an effort to home the animal on their own etc.) if they had the true picture of the animal's prospects at the shelter. My biggest problem isn't with either no-kill or kill facilities. It's with people who don't take responsibility for their pets. It's the guys that lock out the pregnant cat - like they didn't know what caused that condition and the animal "misbehaved" by getting itself pregnant. It's with the people who let their unaltered toms wander the neighborhood because it's "unmanly" to get it altered and it's "nature" to wander. It's with the people who drive somewhere and dump the cat by the roadside or in a parking lot. It's with the people who move away and just leave their pets behind with no arrangement made for their welfare. It's the people who take their cat to the shelter because it has fleas. etc. etc. etc. <sigh> without them we wouldn't need to have this debate. > I even had a woman call me once and say she was going to "donate" her > unwanted cat to Campus Cats... Sheesh! and your response was???? > Sharon Talbert > Campus Cats Wendy, I am glad to see this debate, though it is already petering out, with folks retiring to their usual respective corners. That's ok; it will come up again. And again. I respect nonprofit and private shelters and the hard work they do. But I also respect our public shelters and what they must do. They do not deserve to be labeled "kill" shelters any more than the private shelters deserve to take the high-road "no-kill" title. Anyway, here's my response to your response, with due and true respect. ************************************** > I can only speak for the groups/shelters locally. The ones that state > "no-kill" aren't receiving public funding. They are totally dependent on > donations and are manned by volunteers. The donations go to services for the > animals. They also don't give the impression that they take all animals. I > don't find this deceptive. They make no promises they don't keep. If you > manage to get you animal into their "system" it won't be killed. Public funding is generally a very tight budget, often not enough to allow for more than the most basic facilities and care per animal. Nobody wants to pay their taxes, and animals are always last in line for benefits. While it is true that nonprofit shelters must beg for their money, claiming they never kill is a great little fund-raiser in itself. But no-kill is only true if you squint and blink. Animals die in the public shelters because that is where they end up and there is no other option for them. Animals don't die in "no-kill" shelters only because such shelters will not accept animals when they are full. And they are always full, accepting new admits only as adoptions are made or foster space is freed up. I would be interested to compare adoption figures of public shelters to those of private shelters. I would also like to see some researced figures of accept numbers versus numbers turned away (numbers which I doubt are on record). But I digress. > I don't know of any group/shelter that is called "kill" around here. The > only problem I have with the government funded shelters is that they aren't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > an effort to home the animal on their own etc.) if they had the true picture > of the animal's prospects at the shelter. "Kill shelter" is becoming all too familiar. I am saddened when I see public shelters referring to THEMSELVES as "kill shelters." Most public shelters say three days but mean three days is how long an unclaimed pet has before it is evaluated for adoption. A surrendered owned pet can be taken to the killing room on the spot if there is no room and the animal is not deemed "adoptable." I would like to hear from some public shelters on their front-desk policy as they accept (as they must) surplus animals. Mileage may vary, naturally. Some shelters threaten death on the spot (esp if they are way full), hoping the owner will at least take their pet home and try again when its chances are better. Most, I suspect, just smile and accept the animal to make way for the next person in line with their throw-away pet. Who's the one to blame here? > My biggest problem isn't with either no-kill or kill facilities. It's with > people who don't take responsibility for their pets. Oh yeah! But what bothers me about the "no-kill" thing is that people actually feel good about themselves for dumping their unwanted pets there! They think as long as they find a "no-kill" they are doing their duty as animal lovers. They are being way too easy on themselves... You asked what I said to the person who offered to "donate" her cat to Campus Cats? It was a telephone message, so she was spared my laughing in her face. I hope I returned her call, but it is possible I didn't. There were other messages to reply to, from people who were making an honest effort to resolve their problems. Keep up the good work, Wendy. Sharon Talbert Friends of Campus Cats Seattle > Wendy, I am glad to see this debate, though it is already petering out, > with folks retiring to their usual respective corners. That's ok; it will [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > But I digress. > Sharon Talbert and so shall I I've heard that something like 5 million cats are euthanized in the US each year. The no-kill shelter where I volunteer has saved almost 500 from this fate; I've saved 19. No, not 519 a year, 519 total, against 5 million a year put to sleep. Have we made a dent in the killing? No. Is it a great deal for the 519 we've saved? They think so. Can we all adopt 5 million cats each and every year? hardly Can we prevent 5 million unwanted cats from being born each year? Yes - spay and neuter every cat you can get in a trap. Why do I volunteer at a no-kill shelter that doesn't do TAR, and also for a group that TARs but isn't a shelter? balance I guess ron (snip) > I have a problem with it, because no-one is "up-front" about the > reality of their policy, especially the so-called "no-kill" shelters. You are making blanket statements that are simply not true. Many no-kill facilities only accept animals scheduled to be euthanized in public shelters. The SFSPCA takes no public surrenders. Please stop apologizing for public shelters. It took a state law in California to insure shelter animals receive food, water, veterinary care and an outlet for adoption. (snip) > I really hate it > when conventional shelters are called "kill" shelters. This is an apt term for shelters that routinely euthanize animals after the mandated holding period, those that are so unsanitary that animals who are healthy going in soon sicken and die or are euthanized for ill-health, that have limited or no adoption hours, do no public outreach for adoptions, do not develop a foster program, a training program, an in-house volunteer program, do not have a low-cost s/n programs, no free services for ferals and other programs that pay off in lower euthanasia rates. Public shelters are only as good as their directors and many directors don't give a flying f.ck how many or in what manner animals are killed under their watch. Not long ago, a shelter director in Solano county, California, was arrested, (suspended sentence...no surprise), after using shelter kittens as fighting dog bait. This went on for years until a disgruntled employee blew the whistle. The blame for these slaughterhouses must be shared by the public. Citizens have the power to lobby local governments for better run and better funded shelters. If you can figure out how to make people care about homeless animals, please let me know. I'm stumped. (snip) > But until that day, it is still neither fair > nor accurate for any shelter to call itself a "no-kill" facility. Yes, it is...as long as you allow a bit of tinkering with the word "adoptable". (snip) > I even had a woman call me once and say she was going to "donate" her > unwanted cat to Campus Cats... Heh. I like the ones who say, "...if you don't come and get my ten year-old, blind, cat with kidney disease and a hernia by 6:00 tonight, he's going in the shelter drop box." > You are making blanket statements that are simply not true. Many > no-kill facilities only accept animals scheduled to be euthanized in > public shelters. The SFSPCA takes no public surrenders. My point has been that there IS NO STANDARD for so-called "no-kill" shelters. No-kill means whatever they want it to mean for their particular shelter and/or whatever the public wants it to mean. > Please stop apologizing for public shelters. It took a state law in > California to insure shelter animals receive food, water, veterinary > care and an outlet for adoption. I am not apologizing for our public shelters. I am defending them. They are what they are and most of them are doing their best. Their best is often very poorly funded, of course, but that's not their fault. And yes there are some horrible horrible public shelters out there. The public really needs to take an interest and clean up the bad shelters. And I still say it stinks to call public shelters "kill shelters." I prefer the "limited admittance"/"open admittance" designation. But of course that wouldn't bring in the fat donations.... Sharon Talbert Campus Cats > I am creating this post to answer a comment that was made in another > post. The choice of making this a new topic is because the issue of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have seen and heard many people talk about the "no-kill" shelters > and how they are different from the ones who "kill the animals." snip > If you have a practical, realistic solution to this, please, PLEASE > tell me. The solution is to spay and neuter enough cats, dogs and bunnies, so that there are no unwanted ones. This includes both pets and ferals. I support a group that TARs fearls, a no kill animal sancturay, and a no kill place that takes in FIV+ and Felv+ ferals (that would be my house). I believe thay all have their place and value and that they are all necessary. I do not however help at the local kill shelter which is open for adoptions Wednesday through Monday; I think about that on Tuesdays sometimes. ron herfurth charlottesville, va I keep hearing about people who are against euthanasia, but > have no solutions that work. You might tell me that my philosophy is > wrong, but you offer no solution that will work. That is bogus and I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with it myself. I would love to see it become unnecessary, I just > don't know how to do that in the near future. >The solution is to spay and neuter enough cats, dogs and bunnies, so that >there are no unwanted ones. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >ron herfurth >charlottesville, va You are actually doing something that helps the situation instead of simply making hollow reteric and I applaud you for that. Too bad more people are not like you described. The Trap Alter Release groups are also performing a great public service and they are seldom even mentioned. Some people fail to realize proper spay/neuter is probably the ultimate solution to this problem. It is probably the ONLY long term solution that could work, in fact. You might want to do some volunteer work at that local shelter you referenced. It would give you more incite to the situation. Your efforts there will help get a few more animals adopted in the process too. Please tell us more about your sancturay, it is interesting. How many of the FIV and Felv+ ferals do you shelter? Do you try to find homes for them, or is this their permanent home? How did you get started doing that and when and why? Where does the funding come from, how much time does it take per week? Do you have any tips for others would would like to do this also? This might even be important enough to start a new topic. It might inspire others to do the same. I also wouldn't mind a new topic on the TAR program. That also gets too little publicity and they are both good causes. Thank you for being part of the solution. > >The solution is to spay and neuter enough cats, dogs and bunnies, so that > >there are no unwanted ones. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > efforts there will help get a few more animals adopted in the process > too. ================================= > Please tell us more about your sancturay, ================================ It's my house, blue over brick split level, 3 baths with a litter pan in ever one, 1/4 acre lot, side street so there's only a little traffic (but most of my cats are indoors). > it is interesting. I like it better when things are nice and dull. > How many of the FIV and Felv+ ferals do you shelter? Currently 1 Felv+ and 4 FIV + along with 14 healthy ones but i cleared that with my vet. > Do you try to find home for them, or is this their permanent home? Permanent. > How did you get started doing that and when and why? They showed up, I took them in. I trapped several at work. A couple of years ago the TAR group in town sent out an email that one stray they just trapped had tested positive for Felv, only had one eye, and would be put down before the vet went home that night if no one could provide him an indoor home. I figured it was bad luck not to save a one eyed cat so... >Where does the funding come from, My paycheck > how much time does it take per week? more than I want to think about but they're worth it. >Do you have any tips for others would would like to do this also? Do what ever you can afford, every little bit helps and listed to Sharon Talbert, she knows what she's talking about. > Thank you for being part of the solution. I love the US and its people very much, having been a regular visitor for many years, however I cannot for the life of me understand this attitude with regard to killing animals in shelters. I am not against euthanasia where it would end the unnecessary suffering of a cat or other animal, but to kill a perfectly healthy creature is abhorrent to me and I wonder it is legally allowed. Here in the UK I volunteer for Cats Protection (www.cats.org.uk) and we operate a strict no-kill policy throughout the organisation, which runs 30 shelters (with both paid staff and volunteers) up and down the country, plus there are several hundred local branches run entirely by volunteers. At none of these are cats euthanised except by and on the direct advice of a vet where it would not be possible or ethical to prolong the cat's life any more. The main example of this would be a cat infected by the FeLV (leukemia) virus. Even a cat infected with FIV is homed wherever possible. There are no time limits imposed on cats coming into our shelters, we have some at the shelter I volunteer at who have been there several years. The long term residents, as I call them, have free run of the place and aren't confined to pens, and it's great to see them sunning themselves in the grounds when the weather is fine :-) We recently lost Sammy, our oldest "resident" who was 22, he'd been with us for over 2 years and was a delightful old gentleman who was always ready for some fuss and of course food..! I was sad to see him go, but he'd had 19 years with his owner and I'm sure he was as happy as he could be under the circumstances while he was with us. In his case, euthanasia was the sensible option, but to kill just due to space considerations is an abomination and I'm glad such practices don't happen here. The answer is, of course, as has been said, is to ensure as many cats as possible are spayed and neutered. Ivor Ivor, can you tell us more about the treatment of cats in the UK? We have a serious problem in the US, with many homeless cats (and unsterilized) cats and many unaltered pets giving birth to at least one litter. I believe we have more cats than laps, if we count the (uncountable) ferals. How is it you Brits don't seem to have shelters overflowing the unwanted cats and kittens? Space IS the issue in our shelters; "no-kills" can call themselves that only because they can turn away surplus animals, which have nowhere to go but the city and county shelters. If the UK doesn't have this problem, it can only be that people are actually spaying/neutering and doing it before the animal is of breeding age. I ramble, but I am seriously interested in in you have to say. The number of animals that die at public whim every year in the USA is an abomination. Here in Seattle, nonprofits are spaying/neutering feral cats by the thousands and the kittens just keep rolling in. Sharon Talbert Friends of Campus Cats snip > to kill a perfectly healthy creature is abhorrent to me and I wonder it is > legally allowed. > > Here in the UK I volunteer for Cats Protection (www.cats.org.uk) and we > operate a strict no-kill policy throughout the organisation, snip Are you saying that NOWHERE in the UK is there a (public or private) shelter that euthanizes strays, or are you speaking for your organization only? Is it illegal to euthanize "excess" animals in the UK? Pardon, I don't mean to be an uncouth yank, but I find it hard to believe that there are no euthanasia shelters in the entire UK. If I am mistaken, forgive me, but if this is true I would give ANYTHING to know how the UK manages its stray population. I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of other yanks who would like to know also, because I would do anything in my power to put it to work here. Can some other brits chime in here and let me know if this is really the law in the UK? Hugs, CatNipped CatMom to: Bandit, (a.k.a. "Bitch Cat From Hell"), 14, DLH Tabby Demi, (a.k.a. "Ghost Cat"), 5, DLH Pure White Beauty Jessie, (a.k.a. "Jet Ski"), 4, DSH Tortoiseshell Samantha / Sammy, (a.k.a. "Mini Me"), 2 ½ months, DLH Tabby http://www.gcmensa.org/Cats.html (Jessie, Demi, Bandit) http://www.gcmensa.org/Sammy/ (Sammy) http://www.gcmensa.org/Sammy2/ (All my fur babies) > snip > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > organization only? Is it illegal to euthanize "excess" animals in the > UK? I'm speaking with regard to CP only, as I have no experience or knowledge of any other organisation. I have no idea what the actual legal position is. > Pardon, I don't mean to be an uncouth yank, but I find it hard to > believe that there are no euthanasia shelters in the entire UK. If I > am mistaken, forgive me, but if this is true I would give ANYTHING to > know how the UK manages its stray population. I'm sure there are > hundreds of thousands of other yanks who would like to know also, > because I would do anything in my power to put it to work here. There may very well be "shelters" that kill in the UK, but I don't know of any personally. One of the prime missions of CP is to educate the public about the importance of neutering; have you visited the website..? This link gives a summary of the basic aims of the organisation: http://tinyurl.com/4ey4p - I'm sure you can find a lot of useful info there that you can pass on to organisations in your area. > Can some other brits chime in here and let me know if this is really > the law in the UK? Like I said, I doubt it's the law as such (although it should be) but at least we're doing our part. Ivor >On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:08:01 -0000, "Ivor Jones" <snip> >At none of these are cats euthanised except by and on the direct advice of >a vet where it would not be possible or ethical to prolong the cat's life >any more. That seems to offer some wiggle room; what does ethical mean? A vet could make such determination from many, many different causes. Could the fact that there is absolutely no home for this animal be such a factor? How about if they have already bitten three professionals at your shelter and mauled two other shelter animals? Oh, and the reason they are here is because they killed a child (usually a dog, not a cat though)? Is that grounds for euthanasia, even though the animal is in fine health? >There are no time limits imposed on cats coming into our shelters, we have >some at the shelter I volunteer at who have been there several years. The >long term residents, as I call them, have free run of the place and aren't >confined to pens, My shelter also has to deal with dogs, rabbits, small animals, reptiles, horses, farm livestock, etc.. This is not acceptable for many of these animals. There is also the issue of procreation since some of our residents have not been altered yet. > and it's great to see them sunning themselves in the >grounds when the weather is fine :-) Some very strong animal activists believe that keeping an animal locked up, indefinitely, is not acceptable. They have said that quality of live can reach a point where it is better to not live than to be stressed out from becoming what is called "kennel crazy." I have actually seen animals with this and it is not a pretty sight. Frankly, I was shocked at what I saw a previously gentle dog do. I now understand why it is called "crazy." I have been told, by the experts that I work with, that there is no coming back from this condition and the most humane thing to do is euthanasia. Some of the experts, not necessarily the same ones, say that cats, dogs, rabbits, etc. should never be let outside alone, it is inhumane. There are too many dangers, including, but not limited to: automobiles, wild animals, stray animals, traps, poisons, etc.. I live within the city limits, but there was a fox living in my back yard for months, a couple of years ago. I frequently see raccoons, opossum, and snakes in my yard at night. There is also a bird of prey, but I have seen only evidence of it, not the actual bird. They show statistics that outdoor animals have an average lifespan much shorter than if they had been kept indoors. I know that many people, especially in Europe disagree strongly with this. That is actually another debate, separate from this one. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss that issue further. <snip> >In his case, euthanasia was the sensible option, but to kill just due to >space considerations is an abomination and I'm glad such practices don't >happen here. This is exactly what I have been getting at for a long time. Tell me what one is to do when all, and I do mean ALL the space possible is used up, all the foster programs are full, and there are no other shelters that have any room? I have asked this question time and again and if I get any reply, which is seldom, it does not answer the question as it is asked. Saying that you would find a place is NOT an acceptable answer because in this example, there are no other places, NONE! This includes your saying that you will take the animal in. That is also not an option because every location has some kind of limit. One can not house thousands of animals in their house. If for no other reason than it is against the law. You have to run out of room some time, the question is not if, but when. Perhaps you have the luxury of an infinite number of people who will each take an exceptionally large number of animals and give them adequate care. We do not have such a situation here. This is not a theoretical question, it is completely practical. It is what we deal with every day around this time of year. It also crops up at other times, but it can be counted on during kitten and puppy season. This actually happens, what are we to do when there is no more room, anywhere? In my metro area, the information that I have gathered suggests that somewhere around 15,000 animals are processed by the various shelters per year. While a percentage of them are already dead when they are brought in, a percentage are too sick or dangerous to work with, and a percentage are reclaimed by their owners, that leaves many thousands, perhaps around 8,000 a year, to be sheltered until adopted. Okay, you are willing to take in five animals, thank you. Your neighbor will temporarily house two, thanks to him/her also. I'll take in four. Lets see, local no-kill A is full, so are B and C. D just sent us a group of puppies and kittens that they didn't have room for. Refuge E has an opening for ten, but we have to arrange for transport and they ask a $10 per animal fee to help cover costs. Hmmmmmmm how do I come up with $200 to do this, my budget is already completely full with no room to cut it. Any money that is donated will have to come out of the budget to feed and house the others, can't do that. I could try to arrange transportation across county, but that could easily take half a day, or even more. That is one less half day to use toward helping the animals. Where will I get the staff time to do this? Perhaps I'll take a animal care technician for it. So a few dozen animals won't get fed today because he/she won't have time, they ate yesterday. Sorry, I don't find that acceptable. Okay, we have got a solution for that crisis, great. Now lets do this again for the other ones, say, oh, 3,000 times this year; some of the others were already adopted. Think this will work? I don't. Oh, I forgot to mention, the puppies that you and your neighbor agreed to take have parvo. Their chances of survival are poor and they need to be bottle fed every two hours, 24 hours a day. They are not litter trained, of course. Oh, and they are very contagious, so I sure hope your champion dogs don't get it, it is often fatal. >The answer is, of course, as has been said, is to ensure as many cats as >possible are spayed and neutered. > >Ivor > >On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:08:01 -0000, "Ivor Jones" > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the fact that there is absolutely no home for this animal be such a > factor? Definitely *NOT* - as I said, we have several cats that have been with us some years and have free run of the place. > How about if they have already bitten three professionals at > your shelter and mauled two other shelter animals? Oh, and the reason > they are here is because they killed a child (usually a dog, not a cat > though)? Is that grounds for euthanasia, even though the animal is in > fine health? AFAIK that hasn't happened and you must admit is somewhat unlikely. > >There are no time limits imposed on cats coming into our shelters, we have > >some at the shelter I volunteer at who have been there several years. The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > many of these animals. There is also the issue of procreation since > some of our residents have not been altered yet. Well by the name, CP is cats only, and neutering is one of the first things done..! > > and it's great to see them sunning themselves in the > >grounds when the weather is fine :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quality of live can reach a point where it is better to not live than > to be stressed out from becoming what is called "kennel crazy." As I said, the long term residents aren't locked up, they have the run of the building and grounds. > I have actually seen animals with this and it is not a pretty sight. > Frankly, I was shocked at what I saw a previously gentle dog do. I now > understand why it is called "crazy." I have been told, by the experts > that I work with, that there is no coming back from this condition and > the most humane thing to do is euthanasia. Doesn't apply. Ivor > Some of the experts, not necessarily the same ones, say that cats, > dogs, rabbits, etc. should never be let outside alone, it is inhumane. [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > > >Ivor >> >On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:08:01 -0000, "Ivor Jones" >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >AFAIK that hasn't happened and you must admit is somewhat unlikely. Unlikely, but not impossible. An exageration, yes, but I am asking this as a hypothetical. The point that I am trying to make is that I have seen MANY of the so-called no-kill shelters that will see to it that some animals are euthanized for behaviorial problems. This is just one of the dirty little secrets that they have. They say that they don't euthanize, but they will give an animal to us to do it just so they can tell people that they don't believe in euthanasia. >> >There are no time limits imposed on cats coming into our shelters, we >have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Well by the name, CP is cats only, and neutering is one of the first >things done..! If we had that luxury, it would make it somewhat easier. The reality is that we have to deal with all animals. >> > and it's great to see them sunning themselves in the >> >grounds when the weather is fine :-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >As I said, the long term residents aren't locked up, they have the run of >the building and grounds. None of the shelters in my metro area have the luxury of being cat only. You are fortunate that you don't have the problem, but we all do and we must deal with that ourselves. There are too many animals out there for anyone to be able to specialize that much around here. Then there is that debate of whether it is humane let cats roam outside and whether it is humane to never do so. >> I have actually seen animals with this and it is not a pretty sight. >> Frankly, I was shocked at what I saw a previously gentle dog do. I now [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Ivor I would ask for your response for the rest of the post. It is ironic that I said "... I have asked this question time and again and if I get any reply, which is seldom, it does not answer the question as it is asked." and you ignored that part. I do not intend any disrepect for you when I say that this is just exactly the problem that we have with discussions about kill vs no-kill; the people who say that kill shelters are wrong will never tell me a viable alternative. You stated that you consider euthanasia because there is no room to be an "abomination", but you didn't give a viable alternative to the situation that we are in, the one outlined in the post. I have read posts that give theory and how things should be. I have read posts that say to give an animal to the foster program when it is very clearly stated that the foster program is already full over it's capacity. I have read posts that say to give the animal to another shelter when it is clearly stated that the other local shelters are full or over full. I have read posts that say to ship the animal across the county, but won't answer where the resources for that will come from. I challenge those who are so against euthanasia to answer the tough questions instead of bypassing them. Viable means one that really works, not just theory, not an ideal, but one what works in the real world. As a matter of fact, that is the reason that this post is here. It is to either get the anti-kill shelter people to admit that there is a place for those kind of shelters or to give the above mentioned viable alternative. So far, they have ducked the question. >> Some of the experts, not necessarily the same ones, say that cats, >> dogs, rabbits, etc. should never be let outside alone, it is inhumane. [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >> > >> >Ivor I agree, I haven't heard a viable alternative either. I hate and abhor the fact that there have to be shelters that euthanize animals because there is no space, no funds, no personnel, and no other choice. I think all animal lovers do. But to say that they are an abomination and to disrespect the people who work there, or support them, is an even worse abomination. These people are under-paid, over-worked, emotionally distraught (after trying to cope with an uncaring, ignorant bunch of people who see animals as throw-away items and then having to snuff out the lives of the innocent victims of these so-called humans), and they are just about the bravest, most wonderful people on the face of the earth. I know I couldn't do what they do. As stated earlier in this thread, I still haven't heard anyone suggest a viable alternative to this practice - and I don't know of any nation on earth that doesn't have the problem of cat and dog over-population, so I don't think there is one. OK, let's say we don't euthanize any stray cats, so what happens then? The shelters are all full, there is no more funding to feed the current population much less the thousands that are brought in every week. Do we let them just roam the streets? Asisde from the obvious danger that would cause to humans, what would become of the animals? They would face slow, painful starvation. They would face the possibility of being hit by vehicles and killed, or worse, not being killed but injured with no chance of treatment and relief from their pain. They would face pandemic illnesses caught from other strays. They would face the possibility of being tortured by those sick people who seem to be cropping up more and more now-a-days. They would face the possibility of being rounded up and sold to unethical labs to be experimented on. They would face the possibility of being poisoned by those people who look for a quick, inhumane solution to the "pestilence" of roving strays. I don't have the statistics from other countries, but here in the US feral cats live an average of 1 to 2 years, "outside" cats live an average of 3 to 5 years and "inside" cats live for 13+ years. Those statistics alone should tell you that the above paragraph is not an exageration of what can happen to a cat living on its own. Yes, it's horrible to have to euthanize a healthy animal. No, nobody likes the idea of having to do so. Yes, wouldn't it be great if everyone would sterilize their pets (and wouldn't it be great if we had world peace and an end to hunger!!). Yes, we would all jump at the chance of a viable alternative - ANY viable alternative. But I still haven't heard one either, and I'm afraid that human ignorance, greed, inhumanity, carelessness, selfishness, etc., etc. is nowhere near coming to an end. For those of us who care, all we can do is all we can do and that is never, never enough. Personally, as much as I hate the fact, I think it is much kinder to an animal to give it a quick, painless death than to give it a "life" such as described above. If we made euthanasia illegal we would be condemning our beloved kitties to pain and suffering that they don't deserve, because we don't have any other way to cope with the problem. Hugs, CatNipped CatMom to: Bandit, (a.k.a. "Bitch Cat From Hell"), 14, DLH Tabby Demi, (a.k.a. "Ghost Cat"), 5, DLH Pure White Beauty Jessie, (a.k.a. "Jet Ski"), 4, DSH Tortoiseshell Samantha / Sammy, (a.k.a. "Mini Me"), 3 months, DLH Tabby http://www.gcmensa.org/Cats.html (Jessie, Demi, Bandit) http://www.gcmensa.org/Sammy/ (Sammy and Bandit) http://www.gcmensa.org/Sammy2/ (All my fur babies) http://www.gcmensa.org/Sammy3/ (Sammy and Jessie) > I agree, I haven't heard a viable alternative either. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > about the bravest, most wonderful people on the face of the earth. I > know I couldn't do what they do. I think there's a reason that you couldn't do what they do. Something in your soul tells you how wrong it is. Of course there must be another solution. Saying you're a "no-kill" shelter doesn't cut it if you just pass off the killing to other shelters. A massive spay and neuter operation with strong government backing and some degree of enforcecment might be a good idea. If people want their cats to reproduce, they have to show that they can care for the offspring and they are allowed one liter only. > I don't have the statistics from other countries, but here in the US > feral cats live an average of 1 to 2 years, "outside" cats live an > average of 3 to 5 years and "inside" cats live for 13+ years. Those > statistics alone should tell you that the above paragraph is not an > exageration of what can happen to a cat living on its own. We have a feral cat that is fed at our door, I trapped him and had him neutered and innoculated a couple of years ago. He has been around the neighbourhood for some 7 years, and that is facing Canadian winters as well. Yes, I did build him a shelter, but the skunks got it last winter. I put out a cardboard box and a blanket in a sheltered area. He refuses to come into the house unless trapped and then he hides in a corner of the basement and we never see him. It can't be much of a life. This is a very street-smart AND woods-smart cat. He never gets run over and gets right off the road when cars come. I have seen him on more than one occasion chase off a skunk without gettinglevel of trust with him and support him in the best way possible in his chosen lifestyle. If I were to bringthis cat in against his will, I think it would be worse than killing him, but if the winter gets too bad for him, he's coming in till spring.  SignatureFred (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply if by email). "Libertarianism is to economics as 'Trial by combat' is to justice." >> I agree, I haven't heard a viable alternative either. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I think there's a reason that you couldn't do what they do. >Something in your soul tells you how wrong it is. Your comment was certainly a "cheap shot" and an insult. If you read all of these posts you will see that you are simply part of a reoccurring theme. You say it is wrong to euthanize. You imply that those associated with the shelters are doing something that is improper, but you offer no viable alternative. You criticize euthanasia, but you refuse to offer a viable alternative. That is what I have seen over and over and over from those who consider themselves "no-kill." They talk the talk, but they can't walk the walk. As I have said, over and over and over, it is wrong to criticize if you have no viable alternative. The answer the anti-euthanasia advocates give is always the same, they don't have a viable short term answer. I have never, ever, heard any anti-euthanasia advocate give the requested "viable alternative" answer that will make it possible to eliminate euthanasia. All of you keep saying how wrong it is, but you never can come up with that viable solution that I keep asking you for. The criticisms of euthanasia and the people who do it are very hollow when the anti-euthanasia advocates can't answer the question that keeps being asked. I find this continuing "No one has any other solution to the problem, but what you are doing is wrong" attitude very offensive. It is a prime example of negative criticism, you offer no solution, just criticism of those who are doing the best that can be done under the circumstances.. Your following comments about limiting the population could be a part of a long term solution if they were implemented, but it is not viable except in a totalitarian country. They also have no value in the short term and therefore are not the "viable solution" that I keep asking for. > Of course there must be another solution. Saying you're a >"no-kill" shelter doesn't cut it if you just pass off the killing to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >want their cats to reproduce, they have to show that they can care >for the offspring and they are allowed one liter only. Having the government do the enforcement would be acceptable in a socialist country, but not in a democracy. This is similar to what Communist China (currently known as Mainland China) does with human birth control and it does have some effect. One must consider whether giving up personal freedoms are worth it, but that is a totally different topic and probably not even appropriate for this group. >>>I agree, I haven't heard a viable alternative either. >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > those who consider themselves "no-kill." They talk the talk, but they > can't walk the walk. If you've been reading this thread you'll see that I *did* offer a viable alternative. Stepped up spaying and neutering and some laws to support the effort. It may not be a compolete solution, but it'd be a good start. It was not intended to be a cheap shot, by the way, just a comment on how it is morally wrong to kill except possibly in cases of mercy killing. It was a comment made in sadness at the horror of overpopulation, (both animals and humans, by the way), and not in the spirit of arguement. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. SignatureFred (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply if by email). "Libertarianism is to economics as 'Trial by combat' is to justice." >>>>I agree, I haven't heard a viable alternative either. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >overpopulation, (both animals and humans, by the way), and not in >the spirit of arguement. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Your comments were totally clear. You keep saying how wrong euthanasia is, but you are still unable to give a viable alternative that will work in the near future. What is actually immoral is to criticize those who are doing what is necessary when no one can offer a viable solution for the present. Neither you nor any of the other anti-euthanasia supporters have ever given a viable solution that will work in the next few days, weeks, months, or even years. You criticise, in the strongest possible terms, but your inability to offer that viable solution for the present and the short term makes that criticism wrong. The proposed solution that you did offer is a long term one. No one has ever claimed that it will solve the problem in the near term, the next few months or years. It is a good thing to do, but it is long term, not the present, nor short term. It takes a long time to pass and implement a law, typically one to five years. An increase in voluntary spaying and neutering is also a good thing, but again, there is absolutely no way that it is going to solve the problem in the next year. Actually, I would be plesantly surprised if it makes a significant difference within the next five years. Until that time, what are we to do? You say that it is immoral to euthanise because we are totally, absolutely out of viable options, but you don't offer an alternative that will work in the near future, let alone the next few years. We have been offered no such solution because none exists. Why not be honest enough to just admit that? Euthanasia is a terrible thing, there is no disagreement on that from anyone, but it is the only answer that works for now. The people who do it are to be commended for doing something that is distasteful, but necessary. There is honor in that, not immorality. Until that day, would you be willing to pay to have some animals shipped to you? You would have to sign a legal contract agreeing to properly take care of them for the rest of their lives because we are about our animals. It will probably average about $100 each for the transportation if you are in the US. Can I sign you up for, oh say 50 of them a month for the next six months? I pick that number at random, it sounded like a good place for you to start. How about if all the anti-euthanasia advocates got together and would do this for each of the thousands of shelters that are currently resorting to euthanasia. No? I didn't think so. That's just another part of the anti-euthansia people talking the talk, but refusing to walk the walk. (snip) > Neither you nor any of the other anti-euthanasia supporters have ever > given a viable solution that will work in the next few days, weeks, > months, or even years. You criticise, in the strongest possible terms, > but your inability to offer that viable solution for the present and > the short term makes that criticism wrong. Most people will agree that the human species is over-populated, that many children born are homeless and hungry and will remain that way throughout their lives. No one suggests that a "viable solution" to this crisis is mass euthanasia. Why do you apply different standards to other species? Do other animals love life less? Are they less worthy of existence? > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > throughout their lives. No one suggests that a "viable solution" to > this crisis is mass euthanasia. Sure they do it's call abortion. > > (snip) > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sure they do it's call abortion. Pay attention. It reads "children born", not embryos in the womb.. I'm more concerned about moral consistency than your archaic views on abortion. If you oppose abortion for humans, you should oppose abortion of cats. If you oppose euthanasia for convenience of two year old children, you should oppose euthanasia for convenience of two year old cats. I believe we are all equal here, in the ways that really count, and we need to treat each other as such. > > Neither you nor any of the other anti-euthanasia supporters have ever > > given a viable solution that will work in the next few days, weeks, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > other species? Do other animals love life less? Are they less worthy > of existence? Actually, I'm in favor of sterilization. I'm fully expecting flames, but there are just some people that should not have children... or have pets. The trouble comes in deciding who, exactly, isn't worthy of having children. I find it ironic that shelters basically function as adoption agencies for pets - we can pick and choose who gets which animal based on a number of factors. Children aren't so lucky. > Actually, I'm in favor of sterilization. I'm fully expecting flames, but > there are just some people that should not have children... or have pets. > The trouble comes in deciding who, exactly, isn't worthy of having children. > I find it ironic that shelters basically function as adoption agencies for > pets - we can pick and choose who gets which animal based on a number of > factors. Children aren't so lucky. i agree that: - some people should not be allowed to have children - some people should not be allowed to live with animals as companions those people fall into two major categories: those that are "bad" parents and those that are unable to support their children. we can usually only identify those in the first group after the fact, when it is often too late. those in the second group are easier to identify. some of them are individuals that live in a country where they SHOULD be able to but for one reason or another fall short. then there are those that live in a place where the enviropnment cannot support the population. (this is one of the reasons i don't support famine relief efforts. the land cannot support the population, so couples have more and more children because (1) they are poor and/or under the spell of some organized myth-worshipping group AKA religion and are without adequate access to birth control or (2) think the extra bodies will aid in scratching out more food from the depleted earth. as the saying goes. nature is trying to restore balance.) dogs/cats? we can begin by shutting down the breeders. boycott "pet stores" that sell living species such as dogs, cats, birds until they cease. get local/state governments to provide or at least help defray the costs of spay/neuter. continue educating the public. allow caretakers who prtactice TNR (trap-neuter-release) access to public/private property to set up our feeding stations and weather shelters. so much to be done. i'm going back to bed! > (this is one of the reasons i don't support famine relief efforts. the > land cannot support the population, so couples have more and more [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > public/private property to set up our feeding stations and weather > shelters. I'm very happy that my workplace partners with a local chain of pet food stores. They donate cat and dog food to us, and open their doors at each store for "satellite centers" for our adoptable animals - and they're working on building a fourth store with another center! It's something many humane societies do, and lately we haven't been able to keep their satellite centers full (don't get me wrong, we have cats, but the requirements for going to the centers aren't always easy to meet - negative fecal, healthy, gets along with other cats). At least one other pet store in town partners with another humane society for their animals as well. What store is it? I know the Petsmart and Petcos here in the Phoenix have a small adoption area for cats which I guess can be considered a satellite center. Plenty of rescues use it too. SignatureCat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs! www.panthertekit.com > I'm very happy that my workplace partners with a local chain of pet food > stores. They donate cat and dog food to us, and open their doors at each [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > gets along with other cats). At least one other pet store in town partners > with another humane society for their animals as well. It makes ya wonder if people who don't treat kids right had sex and accidently got pregnant or if they actually wanted kids. It really makes u wonder. What do u all think? -- Catcrazy > > Actually, I'm in favor of sterilization. I'm fully expecting flames, but > > there are just some people that should not have children... or have pets. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > so much to be done. I'm going back to bed! >It makes ya wonder if people who don't treat kids right had sex and >accidently got pregnant or if they actually wanted kids. It really makes u >wonder. What do u all think? If you have to have a license to drive and a license to get married, you ought to have to get a license to breed. Period. (snip) > Stepped up spaying and neutering and some laws > to support the effort. It may not be a compolete solution, but it'd > be a good start. People who relinquish litters of kittens and puppies to public shelters should be given a voucher for free s/n of the mother. If they fail to use the voucher within a given amount of time, they should be fined and the fines should be compounded every month until the offenders comply. All fines should be ear-marked for the shelter. Most urban shelters have an in-house veterinary staff that can perform surgeries at minimum costs. Data from Santa Clara and San Diego has shown that it is cheaper for counties to offer free s/n services than it is to house unwanted animals for the state mandated 5 days and then euthanize unwanted animals by state-mandated methods. (snip) >(snip) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the fines should be compounded every month until the offenders comply. >All fines should be ear-marked for the shelter. Some shelters do just that. While you would think that penalties for not using it are not needed, they actually are. A fair percentage of those certificates are not used. The person who owns the animal just doesn't give a damn. Since there is nothing in it for them, they don't act. I would like this implimented, but then the people would simply not bring the kittens in. They would dump them. Recently, I read a newspaper article about a traffic accident where a baby was killed. The infant was thrown out of the car and died from that impact. When you hear about the people involved you will understand why it made the paper. The driver of the vehicle that ran the stop sign has a long history of traffic tickets. They are for things like speeding WAY above the limit and for running stop signs. Gee, what a surprise. Wait, it gets better. The mother of the infant also has quite a traffic ticket history too. Several of them are for failing to properly restrain her baby in the car. Folks, these are the kind of people who don't give a damn for human life. What makes us think they would do even a tiny bit for an animal. I believe that humans are at the top of the ladder of all the animals. These two are not there yet. A year or two ago, a woman was stopped by police for erratic driving. It turns out that she was breast feeding her infact while driving at over 75MPH. She explained to the officer that her failure to pull over when he tried to stop her was because she wasn't finished and it was inconvient for her to stop the car. We expect people like this to care about spay/neuter? >Most urban shelters have an in-house veterinary staff that can perform >surgeries at minimum costs. Data from Santa Clara and San Diego has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >(snip) We are kept busy just doing the ones that we house, but I would like for us to offer that service. The vet who does them is extremely good at it. He should be, he does several thousand a year. > Some shelters do just that. While you would think that penalties for > not using it are not needed, they actually are. A fair percentage of > those certificates are not used. The person who owns the animal just > doesn't give a damn. Since there is nothing in it for them, they don't > act. Which is why many shelters have no choice but to alter before the animals are even adopted out. Cats are not made available for adoption until they've been altered here. > I would like this implimented, but then the people would simply not > bring the kittens in. They would dump them. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > for us to offer that service. The vet who does them is extremely good > at it. He should be, he does several thousand a year. "Kalyahna" <kehl_jads@charter.net> had some very interesting things to say about Re: No-kill vs. non no-kill shelters: >> Some shelters do just that. While you would think that penalties for >> not using it are not needed, they actually are. A fair percentage of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >are even adopted out. Cats are not made available for adoption until they've >been altered here. That matches the county shelter I got my cat from. They'd had him neutered shortly before I met him, so I was able to take him home that day. Otherwise, he'd have been sent from shelter to vet's office and I would not have been able to collect him until after neutering. SignatureFelix, with help from his secretary/Mom > "Kalyahna" <kehl_jads@charter.net> had some very interesting things to > say about Re: No-kill vs. non no-kill shelters: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > day. Otherwise, he'd have been sent from shelter to vet's office and I > would not have been able to collect him until after neutering. All cats that come into our shelters (Cats Protection, UK www.cats.org.uk) are neutered/spayed and are also microchipped before they're adopted. Ivor > (snip) > People who relinquish litters of kittens and puppies to public shelters > should be given a voucher for free s/n of the mother. We offer this. > Most urban shelters have an in-house veterinary staff that can perform > surgeries at minimum costs. Data from Santa Clara and San Diego has > shown that it is cheaper for counties to offer free s/n services than it > is to house unwanted animals for the state mandated 5 days and then > euthanize unwanted animals by state-mandated methods. >Your comment was certainly a "cheap shot" and an insult. If you read >all of these posts you will see that you are simply part of a [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >giving up personal freedoms are worth it, but that is a totally >different topic and probably not even appropriate for this group. At the risk of being flamed, I am going to jump in here. I understand that this is a very difficult situation, with no easy answers. However, I find myself feeling very negative about kill shelters. I just cannot help it; it just seems *wrong*. It doesn't help that our local Humane Society is pretty horrible (well, at least it has been in the past), with euthanasia's poorly done, selection for euthanasia based solely on color, and even telling me they would put down a cat I tried to bring in because he had ear mites! They are in a new 2.1 million dollar building, but can't afford to treat ear mites? I took the cat home and still have him. A dear friend of mine is the President of the Board of a shelter that used to be kill, but with her and her friends hard work, became no-kill. It is a successful shelter by all accounts, from what I can tell. If they can go no-kill, why can't others? And yes, I know, this leaves the problem of lack of space and what to do about it. They have at the shelter mentioned a fostering network of sorts, and a couple of people always willing to take in "just one more". This may not be ideal, but in their small town, it works fairly well. Unfortunately, I think the only long-term solution is to convince virtually *everyone* to spay and neuter, and I am sure everyone here knows how difficult that is. I wish I had a solution. I really do. But I cannot help my feeling that no-kill shelters are better options, either. Just my rambling thoughts on the matter. Ginger-lyn [snip] > I understand that this is a very difficult situation, with no easy > answers. However, I find myself feeling very negative about kill [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ginger-lyn You and your friends are to be commended on your efforts, if even one cat survives as a result, it's been worth it. Take a look at www.cats.org.uk to see how at least one organisation here in the UK works. Ivor > >Your comment was certainly a "cheap shot" and an insult. If you read > >all of these posts you will see that you are simply part of a [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > Ginger-lyn No kill shelters can be successful because they can refuse to take more cats when they are full. The public shelters cannot do that. It's like the difference between public and private schools. The private schools don't have to put up with the disruptive students or the under-achievers. So of course they are going to appear to be more successful. W > At the risk of being flamed, I am going to jump in here. <snip for brevity> > I wish I had a solution. I really do. But I cannot help my feeling > that no-kill shelters are better options, either. > > Just my rambling thoughts on the matter. Well said Ginger-lyn. Don't worry about getting flamed. It's probably a troll and they typically have no emotional committment to whatever point of view they express. They just want to get an arguement. I think we can ignore this one now. I know two people who volunteer at the local no-kill shelter and they really have the best interests of the cats in mind. I really doubt that there are many where they take cats to another shelter to be killed. It's a litle absurd, (not that it might not have happened somewhere,... sometime). Usually when a no-kill shelter is full they just start canvassing their call list and if that doesn't work they have to refuse to accept new cats. That may result in some getting killed, but it also encourages people to find other viable alternatives. In future, (i.e. after this post) I'm only going to respond to this topic on <alt.pets.cats.community> which is the group I read. If you want to see my comments, if any, you'll have to go there. SignatureFred (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply if by email). "Libertarianism is to economics as 'Trial by combat' is to justice." >> At the risk of being flamed, I am going to jump in here. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >whatever point of view they express. They just want to get an >arguement. I think we can ignore this one now. How dare you say that! I am very involved with this issue on a real basis, not just the reteric that most people are giving. I am doing, not just saying. How many hours have you spent volunteering or working for a shelter, any shelter? How about your involvement in community education about animals, or helping a shelter's animals get adopted? And you call me a troll. That is terribly insulting and totally untrue. If you have read my posts on this subject over the last year or so, you would know that. In fact, I have stated that I volunteer several hundred hours a year at a local shelter as well as making significant monitary donations to them. That's what makes your comment about "no emotional committment" so insulting and totally untrue. > I know two people who volunteer at the local no-kill shelter and >they really have the best interests of the cats in mind. I really >doubt that there are many where they take cats to another shelter to >be killed. It's a litle absurd, (not that it might not have >happened somewhere,... sometime). Also, if you read my posts, you will see that I am almost always polite, even when I strongly disagree with someone. I do not believe in name calling, but in this case, nothing less is appropriate. I needed to preface what I am about to say with that statement so people can understand the importance of it...Your statement is idiotic and very mean spirited and totally false. You should be ashamed of yourself for having said it. It goes so far beyond being simply wrong that I find no excuse for it. Have you spent any time talking with people who work in a regular shelter to come to this conclusion about their motives? I doubt if you have spent two minutes trying to determine their motives and thoughts on this subject, yet you profess to know how they feel. There is an old saying that you should walk a mile in one's shoes before you criticise that person. Your statement is also insulting. I have worked, hand in hand, with those people for over two years. I know that the vast majority of them have the best interests of the animals in mind. I have heard them cheer when a particular animal that has been here to long is adopted. I have seen their sadness when things don't go well for an animal. Their compassion is genuine. I'm curious, what do you think would motivate a person to give several hours of his/her time a week to volunteer for a job if they didn't have the best interests of the animals at heart. There is no pay, no recognition, we have to pay our own expenses (even to events where we are volunteering), cleaning up is dirty heavy work, it smells bad and the barking dogs can hurt your ears. Why would we do this if we didn't want to help the animals. I will admit that I am not familiar enough with government owned shelters to comment on the motivation and thoughts of their employees. Since I don't know about them, I cannot say, one way or another. I am familiar enough with those of a vast majority of private shelters to make the comments that I have made about them. >Usually when a no-kill shelter is >full they just start canvassing their call list and if that doesn't >work they have to refuse to accept new cats. That may result in >some getting killed, but it also encourages people to find other >viable alternatives. If the no-kill shelter really had the best interests of the animal in mind, how could they turn them away? The answer is that they are being practical, they know they can't take care of the animal so they refuse to accept it even if that means it will be euthanised by another shelter. They really have no other choice. Well, sir, we ARE that other shelter that has to do the dirty work that the no-kill wouldn't. Criticising us is like killing the messenger. The anger is aimed at the wrong person. You owe an appology to me for calling me a troll and saying that I have no emotional committment to this subject. That really hurt my feelings. You also owe an appology to the dedicated shelter workers and volunteers who give of themselves to help the animals. You assumed that since they worked in a place that you objected to, that they had to feelings or emotions. That is rediculous. > In future, (i.e. after this post) I'm only going to respond to this >topic on <alt.pets.cats.community> which is the group I read. If >you want to see my comments, if any, you'll have to go there. > I understand that this is a very difficult situation, with no easy > answers. However, I find myself feeling very negative about kill [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a new 2.1 million dollar building, but can't afford to treat ear > mites? I took the cat home and still have him. How do you know about their choices and method of euthanasia? Honestly, unless you're speaking to the people that actually make the choices and perform the euthanasia, you know less than you think. If they're telling you they'd euthanize a cat for ear mites... well, that's just shitty of them. > A dear friend of mine is the President of the Board of a shelter that > used to be kill, but with her and her friends hard work, became > no-kill. It is a successful shelter by all accounts, from what I can > tell. If they can go no-kill, why can't others? Because a fast, virtually painless death is better than starving or suffering for years from disease or being hit by a car or killed or maimed and left to die by roving predators. You need to be aware of what euthanizing shelters are up against. We have had days where all fifteen cages in admitting are full - every other cage in the building is also full. And we have six to ten carriers on the floor. We're open admission. We're the county facility as well. We do not have the option of saying "no" to people. The best we can do is ask them to make an appointment and explain that this time of year, taking in their cat right now means another cat WILL be put down. Some of them don't care. Our isolation (sick cats only) room has 25 cages. The seven large cages currently house twenty cats. Most of them STRAY litters of kittens. There were 43 cats in there this morning. It takes us four hours every morning to do all the medicating - another three or so at night. We opened at noon today with one cage open in admitting. By the time I left a little after two, there were no empty cages, and there were five carriers on the floor. They don't start REALLY rolling in until 5 or so. Most days, we're scheduled from 10-7:30. My coworkers were there until 10:30 last night, busting their a.ses to move cats and find cages. > And yes, I know, this leaves the problem of lack of space and what to > do about it. They have at the shelter mentioned a fostering network > of sorts, and a couple of people always willing to take in "just one > more". This may not be ideal, but in their small town, it works > fairly well. I'm a foster parent. So are the vast majority of my coworkers. I have SIXTEEN kittens in my apartment right now. Three full litters. Ten of them are sick, half of those are feral. I'm doing more than my part. > Unfortunately, I think the only long-term solution is to convince > virtually *everyone* to spay and neuter, and I am sure everyone here > knows how difficult that is. We had a very successful Spay Day marathon a few months ago. Over 100 spays and neuters. We just had another one, and we're doing another at the end of this month, with the same goal. We focus on low-income areas, SNAP (spay/neuter assistance program) participants, sometimes other shelters that don't have a staff vet. And the cats and kittens (and dogs, this year, too) just keep coming in. > I wish I had a solution. I really do. But I cannot help my feeling > that no-kill shelters are better options, either. > > Just my rambling thoughts on the matter. > > Ginger-lyn >> I understand that this is a very difficult situation, with no easy >> answers. However, I find myself feeling very negative about kill [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >perform the euthanasia, you know less than you think. If they're telling you >they'd euthanize a cat for ear mites... well, that's just shitty of them. That is exactly what they told me, and I was shocked, believe me. >> A dear friend of mine is the President of the Board of a shelter that >> used to be kill, but with her and her friends hard work, became [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >suffering for years from disease or being hit by a car or killed or maimed >and left to die by roving predators. And I really can't disagree with that. You need to be aware of what >euthanizing shelters are up against. We have had days where all fifteen >cages in admitting are full - every other cage in the building is also full. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that this time of year, taking in their cat right now means another cat WILL >be put down. Some of them don't care. I find that sad. But I suppose the other big education problem (next to spay/neuter) may be to education others about shelters, dumping, etc. And I'm sure each of you here does just that, but it is a big struggle. >Our isolation (sick cats only) room has 25 cages. The seven large cages >currently house twenty cats. Most of them STRAY litters of kittens. There [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I have SIXTEEN kittens in my apartment right now. Three full litters. Ten of >them are sick, half of those are feral. I'm doing more than my part. I more than believe that. And belive me, I am not attacking those who work in kill shelters. I personally could not do it, and my heart and hand goes out to anyone who can and does. >> Unfortunately, I think the only long-term solution is to convince >> virtually *everyone* to spay and neuter, and I am sure everyone here [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >don't have a staff vet. And the cats and kittens (and dogs, this year, too) >just keep coming in. It isn't going to happen overnight. It is going to take a long time and a lot of effort. And I am not a "major" rescuer or volunteer. I'm just an individual who tries to do the little bit I can, and doesn't always make the right choices. I would just like to see the day when no-kill shelters are the norm, not the secondary. Ginger-lyn >> I wish I had a solution. I really do. But I cannot help my feeling >> that no-kill shelters are better options, either. >> >> Just my rambling thoughts on the matter. >> >> Ginger-lyn [snip] > It isn't going to happen overnight. It is going to take a long time > and a lot of effort. And I am not a "major" rescuer or volunteer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ginger-lyn They are here. Once again, see www.cats.org.uk for some ideas. Ivor >They are here. Once again, see www.cats.org.uk for some ideas. > >Ivor Apologies, Ivor -- I don't mean to be ignoring you. My computer is very old, and I have trouble acc |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message