Very sad

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Karen - 16 Feb 2007 17:47 GMT

I don't understand this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/16/shelter.outbreak.ap/index.html

So, they are to go from not euthanizing to euthanizing in 72 hours? What
about doing things properly to begin with? They obviously were giving the
wrong vaccinations and going about this all the wrong way. Other shelters do
do this, so it can't be so impossible. This just frustrates me so much.

Reply to this Message

Sherry - 16 Feb 2007 18:05 GMT

> I don't understand this:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> wrong vaccinations and going about this all the wrong way. Other shelters do
> do this, so it can't be so impossible. This just frustrates me so much.

I don't understand it either. I don't understand Heaven Can Wait
slamming them that way. The damage is done, that won't undo it. You'd
think they ought to be supporting them and helping them to do things
right in the future. It doesn't help the animals to point fingers.
This part I don't get either:
"Shelter officials vowed to adopt new policies when it reopens Friday,
including euthanizing animals after 72 hours at the shelter -- as the
Humane Society recommends -- and improving conditions for the animals,
including vaccinating them when they arrive."
Whoa! That's extreme. 72 hours isn't even long enough to maybe give
the owner a chance to find it. And WHAT "Humane Society" recommends
this? Are they talking about Heaven Can Wait?
The good news in this is that people *really* respond to media
attention. I bet they get a lot of adoptions over this story.
The part I do understand is allowing the shelter to become overcrowded
simply because you hate to put them down. You get a dozen or more dogs
in every day, if you don't have enough quarantine room, all it takes
is ONE parvo dog to get it going. Parvo is awful. You can vaccinate
the moment they come in the door, but if you don't have good
quarantine, they get infected before the shot takes effect.
We had an awful ringworm epidemic at the shelter, and part of that was
because it was overcrowded and the new cats weren't isolated long
enough. It was awful and a lot of cats had to be put down. Not from
ringworm, per se; because of the crowding AND the ringworm.
Bob has ringworm. We just got him neutered and the vet found it. :-(

Sherry

Sherry

Reply to this Message

MaryL - 16 Feb 2007 21:53 GMT

>> I don't understand this:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Humane Society recommends -- and improving conditions for the animals,
> including vaccinating them when they arrive."

<snip>

> Sherry

I don't understand that, either. I've never heard of a policy that requires
euthanizing animals after 72 hours. Instead, there is usually a *minimum*
policy to *keep* the animal before euthanasia. If there is not overcrowing
(which they apparently had at this place), an animal could be kept
indefinitely. Duffy was at the animal shelter for several months before I
adopted him. Their policy is to keep cats and dogs for "at least" 14 days,
but they kept Duffy a lot longer in an attempt to find a home for him. It
makes no sense at all to say that all animals should be euthanized after 72
hours. It sounds like this place was overcrowed and also was not providing
proper care.

--
MaryL

Reply to this Message

Helen Miles - 16 Feb 2007 18:31 GMT

I feel sick. Purrs for those who have had to go to the bridge. :(

Helen M

Reply to this Message

Matthew - 16 Feb 2007 19:03 GMT

This is disgusting I hope charges are brought against them for animal
cruelty and all of them are forced to face the music. No matter what the
hopes were they knew they were wrong.

Our shelter quarantined the animals for about 30 days after that they were
immediately immunized before entering the population

>I don't understand this:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> do
> do this, so it can't be so impossible. This just frustrates me so much.

Reply to this Message

Karen - 16 Feb 2007 19:18 GMT

> This is disgusting I hope charges are brought against them for animal
> cruelty and all of them are forced to face the music. No matter what the
> hopes were they knew they were wrong.
>
> Our shelter quarantined the animals for about 30 days after that they were
> immediately immunized before entering the population

WEll, that is just it. It sounds (at least by the article. I guess who knows
what the situation really is) that the main thing that has gotten them into
trouble is HOW they are doing things.

Reply to this Message

Sherry - 16 Feb 2007 20:50 GMT

> This is disgusting I hope charges are brought against them for animal
> cruelty and all of them are forced to face the music. No matter what the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> > do
> > do this, so it can't be so impossible. This just frustrates me so much.-

That is absurd. How would throwing the staff in jail help the
animals? What those people need is better management, a manager who
makes decisions with his/her head, not heart; and who is more
knowledgeable re: health issues. There are some people that possess
an extreme element of compassion that prevents them from making good
decisions re: shelter management.
I don't think this is a case of abuse by definition. It's neglect.

Sherry

Reply to this Message

Adrian A - 16 Feb 2007 21:03 GMT

> I don't understand this:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Other shelters do do this, so it can't be so impossible. This just
> frustrates me so much.

You're right, this is so sad. :-(

Signature

Adrian (Owned by Snoopy and Bagheera)
Cats leave pawprints on your heart.
http://community.webshots.com/user/clowderuk

Reply to this Message

Rate this thread: