Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue
CatKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Animal Planet Heroes Should Cover No-Kills

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Cat Protector - 16 Jan 2006 17:27 GMT
"Animal Planet Heroes Phoenix is an exciting drama that showcases the
lifesaving work of the Arizona Humane Society's specially trained Emergency
Animal Medical TechniciansT. Before the first rescue was caught on tape,
however, more than a year of work on the series had already been done behind
the scenes."

I have to wonder how many times the AHS will toot their own horn? Perhaps
Animal Planet should have looked at the no-kill shelters first. No-kill
shelters definately deserve more consideration for a show than the AHS. Why
is it that Animal Planet insists on doing these shows that actually cover
shelters that are known to euthanize animals? I think groups like AzCATs,
Animal Welfare League, Sun Valley Animal Shelter, etc deserve to be seen a
hell of a lot more.

It's time Animal Planet start showing the true unsung heroes out there for
these types of shows. As much as I have enjoyed Animal Cops I still feel
that no-kill shelters deserve more consideration. Apparently rescuing a cat
from the euthanasia list of known kill shelters is not as exciting to Animal
Planet. AzCATs for example does TNR of feral cats in the Phoenix area but
yet don't get the credit they deserve for the work they do. I guess rescuing
and trapping feral cats is not exciting because apparently you have to have
a big budget and have a reputation for euthanizing in order to make it on
Animal Planet.

Yes, these are my opinions but I think it is time for the no-kill shelters
and rescue organizations to get the credit they deserve. They also deserve
to get donations as well. Yes, during the Katrina disaster I donated to the
ASPCA which is not no-kill but I also donated to Alley Cat Allies. ACA which
is the national organization for feral cats hardly has the budget the ASPCA
does but also does not have the budget the AHS does.

According to one site charitynavigator.org which lists non-profit budgets
and also salaries of the CEO's shows that the head of the AHS Cheryl Naumann
makes over a $161,026 a year as her salary while the head of Alley Cat
Allies Donna Wilcox makes only $58,710 per year.  Alley Cat also doesn't
have the enormous budget that the Humane Society has but there is still
something very wrong with this picture. Heck even the head of the Arizona
Animal Welfare League which states they are the largest and oldest no-kill
shelter in the state of Arizona doesn't have the budget the AHS has. The
head of that organization Betty Welton only makes $65,880 a year as salary.

I think this pattern shows that unless you have the money, Animal Planet and
other media outlets are not as interested in your story. It is about time
this changes. No-kills work just as hard and seem to get very little credit
or nods from the media. Every year the AHS has a telethon on one of the
local TV channels (ABC 15 I believe) to raise money and also gets their own
show on Channel 3. Do the no-kill organizations get the same consideration?
Heck no. The no-kills are lucky they get a small mention in the newspaper
let alone a major fundraiser.

I think no-kills are the unsung heroes of the rescue community. They take in
many animals in the hopes they get adopted and also are willing to work with
the more difficult cases. I remember rescuing one cat who was apparently
abused and had a very piss poor attitude. He took swipes and hit and spit.
Luckily I contacted Sun Valley Animal Shelter in Glendale who worked with
this cat and eventually fully rehabilitated him and got him placed in loving
home. It took two tries to get the right placement but he still did. If he
had gotten placed in a shelter known for euthanasia I don't think he'd be
alive today. Feral cats also face a lot of doom when it comes to shelters
known to euthanize.

I challenge the media to finally start covering and lending support to
no-kills. These organizations work just as tirelessly to rescue animals as
well as getting them placed. I applaud the efforts of organizations like
AzCATs which are starting to get a little more support for their efforts
(they host a show every Sunday on one of the local AM stations here in
Phoenix which deals with animals. It's called The Animal World and can be
heard on KKNT 960AM radio and KTIE 590AM  radio in Los Angeles) but the
press still seems to shy away from covering feral cat issues.

Wake up Animal Planet. It's time to start covering the no-kills. They may
not have the budget but their work deserves some credit.

BTW, if there are fans of AHS on this group, I will say that some of their
programs are not all bad. To AHS's credit they do have a low-cost spay
neuter program which has better rates for shots and a few other services
than the vets do. Of course the vet for my cats is a little more (a few
dollars more) which I gladly pay now instead of going halfway across town to
the AHS to get them. Pets on Parade which is hosted by the Humane Society on
Channel 3 is also not bad either. They show animals up for adoption and also
have a few other bits of info about animal care and a few interesting
stories as well. I just wish that the AHS goes no-kill. They certainly have
the budget and support for it.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

-L. - 16 Jan 2006 22:33 GMT
> "Animal Planet Heroes Phoenix is an exciting drama that showcases the
> lifesaving work of the Arizona Humane Society's specially trained Emergency
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> is it that Animal Planet insists on doing these shows that actually cover
> shelters that are known to euthanize animals?

"No kills" kill animals too.  They do it by default; by refusal, by
picking and choosing which animals to accept.  They do it when the
animal is sick or ailing.    There is no such thing as a "no kill"
shelter.  The term "no kill" is merely a pretty name they like to call
themselves so they don't have to face the reality of what they do.

Furthermore, the general pubic needs to understand what happens when
they refuse responsibility for their pets.  They need to see that when
they dump fluffy or fido many times the animal ends up being hit by a
car, starved or worse, and that its fate is death - either as a result
of their actions or because the shelters have few resources and have no
recourse but to euthanize them.  That is one reason shows like Animal
Cops focus on orgs like the SPCA and Humane Scoiety.

>I think groups like AzCATs,
> Animal Welfare League, Sun Valley Animal Shelter, etc deserve to be seen a
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> shelter in the state of Arizona doesn't have the budget the AHS has. The
> head of that organization Betty Welton only makes $65,880 a year as salary.

Why don't you take a look at the number of animals served by each org
and the areas served.  It will shine a light on the salary differences.

> I think this pattern shows that unless you have the money, Animal Planet and
> other media outlets are not as interested in your story. It is about time
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> alive today. Feral cats also face a lot of doom when it comes to shelters
> known to euthanize.

When you only have X number of dollars to spend on X number of animals,
it makes most sense to spend those dollars on the animals which are
most likely to be adopted - which ferals  and cats with behavioral
issues are not.  "No kills" who can pick and choose which animals they
"want" might have that luxury - Humane Societies and SPCAs which serve
all animals all the time do not.

> I challenge the media to finally start covering and lending support to
> no-kills. These organizations work just as tirelessly to rescue animals as
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> stories as well. I just wish that the AHS goes no-kill. They certainly have
> the budget and support for it.

You are obviously ignorant of how Humane Societies are run and what
they do.  While the "no kill" private shelters have their place in
helping to control the unwanted pet overpopulation problem,
organizations like the Humane Society, which serve all animals all the
time, carry the brunt of this burden.

Good luck getting the "no kill" shelters some media attention from the
major syndicate - fat chance it will happen, though.

-L.
Steve Crane - 17 Jan 2006 00:29 GMT
> > I have to wonder how many times the AHS will toot their own horn? Perhaps
> > Animal Planet should have looked at the no-kill shelters first. No-kill
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> shelter.  The term "no kill" is merely a pretty name they like to call
> themselves so they don't have to face the reality of what they do.

Exactly correct. What the local "no kill" shelter doesn't accept, end
up at another shelter without the same policy. I think it is the height
of hypocrisy for any shelter to call themselves a "no kill" shelter
just to garner additional funding and support and make some people feel
better - it is without question a huge sham and deceit. Publicly
operated shelters end up taking all the cast-offs that the local
"no-kill" shelter refuses. The "no-kill" shelter gets to fool
themselves and their clients and leaves the publicly operated facility
to take all the risk and all the grief.
Cat Protector - 17 Jan 2006 03:15 GMT
You have got to be kidding. The only time I have seen any no-kill shelter
say we can't take any more animals is during cat and kitten season. Often
times shelters are filled to capacity with felines because people fail to
have their cats spayed or neutered.

I would love for you to go to a no-kill shelter and tell the volunteers that
you think that non-kills are all sham artists and that they are hypocrites.
I am willing to bet you will not get a positive reaction and be met with
angry volunteers who work tirelessly to rescue the many animals that get
dumped in the city streets by uncaring humans. I can come up with a whole
list of no-kill shelters that do exactly what they say they do and do not
kill animals.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

"Steve Crane" <eodemolay@cox.net> wrote in message so they don't have to
face the reality of what they do.

>
> Exactly correct. What the local "no kill" shelter doesn't accept, end
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> themselves and their clients and leaves the publicly operated facility
> to take all the risk and all the grief.
idontmind@gmail.com - 17 Jan 2006 03:26 GMT
> You have got to be kidding. The only time I have seen any no-kill shelter
> say we can't take any more animals is during cat and kitten season.

Oh really?  do they take all FeLV and FIV positive cats?  What about
kittens with FIP?  What about old, feral Tomcats who are meaner than
sh.t?  Cats on the brink of death for one reason or another?

>Often
> times shelters are filled to capacity with felines because people fail to
> have their cats spayed or neutered.

(Now we know what kind of nimord we are dealing with, Steve...)

> I would love for you to go to a no-kill shelter and tell the volunteers that
> you think that non-kills are all sham artists and that they are hypocrites.
> I am willing to bet you will not get a positive reaction and be met with
> angry volunteers who work tirelessly to rescue the many animals that get
> dumped in the city streets by uncaring humans.

I bet what we will find are a bunch of ignorant  housewives who
volunteer at no kills because they think it is a "kinder and gentler"
shelter.  They haven't got a clue about the real politics of animal
welfare and pet overpopulation.

I can come up with a whole
> list of no-kill shelters that do exactly what they say they do and do not
> kill animals.

If you think no-kills never kill animals, you are a fool.  Of course
they do - either directly because they are ill or old, because doing so
is humane, or they do so indirectly by turning away the
"uindesirables".  The no-kill here doesn't even take cats anymore and
haven't for over 2 years.  All they are is a warehouse for cats that
annot be placed - what a great life that must be - to live your life in
a cage.

I will take the letal injection over a life in  prison, any day.
-L.
Cat Protector - 17 Jan 2006 03:40 GMT
Actually I know one no-kill organization that actually does take in special
needs cats. Arizona Feline Network is one organization that quickly comes to
mind. It is funny that because you don't have a leg to stand on you quickly
resort to name calling.

BTW, calling me Nimrod I'll take as a compliment. Thanks to NBC's show
Surface, Nimrod is now considered cool. If you don't watch Nimrod is the
name of one of the creatures on that show that is pretty caring and
intelligent.

It is you who doesn't have a clue and is acting foolish by condemning the
volunteers for their work at no-kill shelters and organizations. Obviously
you are one of those who don't bother to volunteer or rescue cats in your
area. You are pretty sad if you are going to piss all over the efforts who
give up their time and money to help make life a little easier and better
for those cats awaiting adoption at no-kill shelters. All I can say is shame
on you!

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

>
>> You have got to be kidding. The only time I have seen any no-kill shelter
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> I will take the letal injection over a life in  prison, any day.
> -L.
idontmind@gmail.com - 17 Jan 2006 03:17 GMT
> Exactly correct. What the local "no kill" shelter doesn't accept, end
> up at another shelter without the same policy. I think it is the height
> of hypocrisy for any shelter to call themselves a "no kill" shelter
> just to garner additional funding and support and make some people feel
> better - it is without question a huge sham and deceit.

Bingo.  It makes me sick, really.

> Publicly
> operated shelters end up taking all the cast-offs that the local
> "no-kill" shelter refuses. The "no-kill" shelter gets to fool
> themselves and their clients and leaves the publicly operated facility
> to take all the risk and all the grief.

Yep.

-L.
whayface - 17 Jan 2006 13:51 GMT
>> > I have to wonder how many times the AHS will toot their own horn? Perhaps
>> > Animal Planet should have looked at the no-kill shelters first. No-kill
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>themselves and their clients and leaves the publicly operated facility
>to take all the risk and all the grief.

Like North Shore which has a show on Animal Planet refused to take back a dog they had
placed for I forget the reason so the owner was taking it to a local shelter which was not
a "no kill" shelter so actually North Shore killed the animal in round about way!!
-L. - 17 Jan 2006 17:41 GMT
> Like North Shore which has a show on Animal Planet refused to take back a dog they had
> placed for I forget the reason so the owner was taking it to a local shelter which was not
> a "no kill" shelter so actually North Shore killed the animal in round about way!!

I didn't see that episode.  I have never encountered a shelter that
wouldn't take a return. :/
-L.
Phil P. - 18 Jan 2006 09:17 GMT
> Exactly correct.

How would you know?

What the local "no kill" shelter doesn't accept, end
> up at another shelter without the same policy. I think it is the height
> of hypocrisy for any shelter to call themselves a "no kill" shelter
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> themselves and their clients and leaves the publicly operated facility
> to take all the risk and all the grief.

Have a lot of experience with no-kill shelters, do you, Steve?  That's a
rhetorical question- based on the stupidity of your statement, the answer is
obviously no.

Many no-kill shelters- like mine- take many cats with special needs, and
otherwise "unadoptables", *first*, from kill-shelter's death rows and
provide *life-long* care since those are the cats that would be killed
first.  IOW, slick, we take the cats that the kill-shelters routinely kill-
not to mention older healthy cats as well.

No kill shelters also take healthy cats that kill shelters kill.

No kill shelters are also privately funded----

Its always the a.sholes who know nothing and do nothing that criticize the
people who do.
-L. - 18 Jan 2006 10:11 GMT
> Many no-kill shelters- like mine- take many cats with special needs, and
> otherwise "unadoptables", *first*, from kill-shelter's death rows and
> provide *life-long* care since those are the cats that would be killed
> first.  IOW, slick, we take the cats that the kill-shelters routinely kill-
> not to mention older healthy cats as well.

That's awesome.   But you are a limited intake shelter, no doubt.  Do
you take every animal offered to you or every animal on death row?  Of
course not.  And where do those animals that you refuse end up? - many
at the "kill shelters".  And while I have no doubt that *you* provide
long-term, good quality of life for the animals you rescue, many "no
kill" shelters don't.   Some "no kill" shelters are no better than
hoarding situations.  There have been more than one instance of this
covered in the media.

> No kill shelters also take healthy cats that kill shelters kill.

Some do, yes.  I don't think anyone is arguing that.

> No kill shelters are also privately funded----

Of course.  As are many Humane Societies and SPCAs.

> Its always the a.sholes who know nothing and do nothing that criticize the
> people who do.

You always resort to attacking one's "lack of experience" when they
have a differing viewpoint.  Funny, that.

The local "no kill" cat shelter here is a joke - they do not take in
animals and haven't for over 2 years.  They have a warehouse of over
250 cats, most of whom will never get placed.  I have to question the
quality of life for those animals.  I looked into volunteering there
and quickly decided that my efforts are much better spent elsewhere.

Bottom line is, the "no kill" shelters  provide a valuable service in
helping the homeless animal population.  But "no kills" aren't serving
the same animal populace as the kill shelters do.  "No kills" are
limited intake, they pick and choose which animals to take (many only
selecting the desirables) and they *do* kill animals, whether it be for
humane reasons, behavioral reasons, or whatever (all have different
criteria).

I think what I object to is the false idea or pretense that no animals
are killed in such shelters (which the OP insists is true).  The truth
is, if one surrenders an animal and it gets sick and can't be
rehabilitated, or bites someone, it may be killed.  I just wish they
were more forthcoming with that truth.  Many of the websites do not
address their policies at all - and IMO, that's hypocritical, if you
are billing yourself as a "no kill" shelter.  The general public thinks
"no kill" means just that - that animals are *never* killed there.

-L.
Phil P. - 18 Jan 2006 10:45 GMT
> > Many no-kill shelters- like mine- take many cats with special needs, and
> > otherwise "unadoptables", *first*, from kill-shelter's death rows and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> That's awesome.   But you are a limited intake shelter, no doubt.

We take as many cats as we can provide proper care for.

Do
> you take every animal offered to you or every animal on death row?

Stupid question.

Of
> course not.  And where do those animals that you refuse end up? - many
> at the "kill shelters".

We take cats *from* kill shelters that would have been killed.

> > No kill shelters also take healthy cats that kill shelters kill.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Of course.  As are many Humane Societies and SPCAs.

Most kill shelters are government funded.  Most no-kills operate on their
own money and donations.

> > Its always the a.sholes who know nothing and do nothing that criticize the
> > people who do.
>
> You always resort to attacking one's "lack of experience" when they
> have a differing viewpoint.  Funny, that.

Not really- The "differing viewpoints" are often due to "one's" lack of
experience or different experience or usually less experience than mine.

Actually, it *is* funny that a pet food salesman is criticizing no-kill
shelters!
-L. - 18 Jan 2006 10:13 GMT
> Many no-kill shelters- like mine- take many cats with special needs, and
> otherwise "unadoptables", *first*, from kill-shelter's death rows and
> provide *life-long* care since those are the cats that would be killed
> first.  IOW, slick, we take the cats that the kill-shelters routinely kill-
> not to mention older healthy cats as well.

That's awesome.   But you are a limited intake shelter, no doubt.  Do
you take every animal offered to you or every animal on death row?  Of
course not.  And where do those animals that you refuse end up? - many
at the "kill shelters".  And while I have no doubt that *you* provide
long-term, good quality of life for the animals you rescue, many "no
kill" shelters don't.   Some "no kill" shelters are no better than
hoarding situations.  There have been more than one instance of this
covered in the media.

> No kill shelters also take healthy cats that kill shelters kill.

Some do, yes.  I don't think anyone is arguing that.

> No kill shelters are also privately funded----

Of course.  As are many Humane Societies and SPCAs.

> Its always the a.sholes who know nothing and do nothing that criticize the
> people who do.

You always resort to attacking one's "lack of experience" when they
have a differing viewpoint.  Funny, that.

The local "no kill" cat shelter here is a joke - they do not take in
animals and haven't for over 2 years.  They have a warehouse of over
250 cats, most of whom will never get placed.  I have to question the
quality of life for those animals.  I looked into volunteering there
and quickly decided that my efforts are much better spent elsewhere.

Bottom line is, the "no kill" shelters  provide a valuable service in
helping the homeless animal population.  But "no kills" aren't serving
the same animal populace as the kill shelters do.  "No kills" are
limited intake, they pick and choose which animals to take (many only
selecting the desirables) and they *do* kill animals, whether it be for
humane reasons, behavioral reasons, or whatever (all have different
criteria).

I think what I object to is the false idea or pretense that no animals
are killed in such shelters (which the OP insists is true).  The truth
is, if one surrenders an animal and it gets sick and can't be
rehabilitated, or bites someone, it may be killed.  I just wish they
were more forthcoming with that truth.  Many of the websites do not
address their policies at all - and IMO, that's hypocritical, if you
are billing yourself as a "no kill" shelter.  The general public thinks
"no kill" means just that - that animals are *never* killed there.

-L.
-L. - 18 Jan 2006 11:01 GMT
> Many no-kill shelters- like mine- take many cats with special needs, and
> otherwise "unadoptables", *first*, from kill-shelter's death rows and
> provide *life-long* care since those are the cats that would be killed
> first.  IOW, slick, we take the cats that the kill-shelters routinely kill-
> not to mention older healthy cats as well.

That's awesome.   But you are a limited intake shelter, no doubt.  Do
you take every animal offered to you or every animal on death row?  Of
course not.  And where do those animals that you refuse end up? - many
at the "kill shelters".  And while I have no doubt that *you* provide
long-term, good quality of life for the animals you rescue, many "no
kill" shelters don't.   Some "no kill" shelters are no better than
hoarding situations.  There have been more than one instance of this
covered in the media.

> No kill shelters also take healthy cats that kill shelters kill.

Some do, yes.  I don't think anyone is arguing that.

> No kill shelters are also privately funded----

Of course.  As are many Humane Societies and SPCAs.

> Its always the a.sholes who know nothing and do nothing that criticize the
> people who do.

You always resort to attacking one's "lack of experience" when they
have a differing viewpoint.  Funny, that.

The local "no kill" cat shelter here is a joke - they do not take in
animals and haven't for over 2 years.  They have a warehouse of over
250 cats, most of whom will never get placed.  I have to question the
quality of life for those animals.  I looked into volunteering there
and quickly decided that my efforts are much better spent elsewhere.

Bottom line is, the "no kill" shelters  provide a valuable service in
helping the homeless animal population.  But "no kills" aren't serving
the same animal populace as the kill shelters do.  "No kills" are
limited intake, they pick and choose which animals to take (many only
selecting the desirables) and they *do* kill animals, whether it be for
humane reasons, behavioral reasons, or whatever (all have different
criteria).

I think what I object to is the false idea or pretense that no animals
are killed in such shelters (which the OP insists is true).  The truth
is, if one surrenders an animal and it gets sick and can't be
rehabilitated, or bites someone, it may be killed.  I just wish they
were more forthcoming with that truth.  Many of the websites do not
address their policies at all - and IMO, that's hypocritical, if you
are billing yourself as a "no kill" shelter.  The general public thinks
"no kill" means just that - that animals are *never* killed there.

-L.
NMR - 17 Jan 2006 01:36 GMT
Hold the phone don't add all no kill shelters to this.  Both shelters I fund
as in I pay the bills and volunteer my time at.  They are both completely no
kill unless they animal is so sick that it's quality of life will never
return.  Both local humane societies and the animals control come to us with
their over burden of animals.  They are no kill also.  We find room for
every cat that comes to us either thru foster families or permanent homes.
Other animals that comes to us we find room where ever we can even if we
have to load the animal up and drive to another state.
   We also have associations that find homes for these animals by what ever
means necessary.  We do a lot of elderly people pet fosters since It has
been proven an elderly person with the ability to actively have access to
pet shows improventment in their life( to sum it up quickly).  There are so
many of no kill shelters here in Florida that do the same thing as us.
Everyone of the hurricane refugees we took everyone that they needed us to
take  we adopted every one and happy to report  many of cats were returned
to their families.  So please don't include all us no kill shelters in this
Cat Protector - 17 Jan 2006 03:31 GMT
I have been at and talked to many no-kills that actually rescue animals from
the euthanasia list from both county shelter and AHS. I think it is pretty
bogus when someone here calls no-kills hypocrites or puts them in a bad
light. The no-kills here in the Phoenix area often see and rescue animals
from tough situations. I remember being at Sun Valley once when they brought
in a 1 day old kitten who was dumped out of a car next to a busy freeway. I
actually got to hold this kitten and my heart just went out to them.

This same no-kill shelter also took in abused cats which otherwise would be
euthanized at AHS or the county shelters simply because they were scared
after being treated so badly. I know firsthand because I rescued a cat of
suspected abuse. The cat was also dumped outside and was declawed and his
humans moved away. I had him for only one day before driving him to Sun
Valley. The slighest movement set this cat off but if you sat calmly with
him he'd put his paws up on you and gave you a hug. or allowed you to pet
him. He had a sweet side. Knowing this, Sun Valley took him in despite being
full and got him rehabilitated and eventually placed in a loving home.

Sun Valley like many no-kills work under a heck of tighter budget than those
that euthanize. I think its time they get more support and credit. They do
alot for the cats that need help and many would not be alive today to get
adopted if not for their efforts and those of their volunteers.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

> Hold the phone don't add all no kill shelters to this.  Both shelters I
> fund as in I pay the bills and volunteer my time at.  They are both
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> returned to their families.  So please don't include all us no kill
> shelters in this
-L. - 17 Jan 2006 11:08 GMT
> Hold the phone don't add all no kill shelters to this.  Both shelters I fund
> as in I pay the bills and volunteer my time at.  They are both completely no
> kill unless they animal is so sick that it's quality of life will never
> return.

IOW, they are a kill shelter.  They kill animals.  I will also bet they
have limited intake and preselect the animals they take in.  So thus,
they kill by exclusion.  What do you think happens to the animals they
turn away?

> Both local humane societies and the animals control come to us with
> their over burden of animals.  They are no kill also.  We find room for
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> take  we adopted every one and happy to report  many of cats were returned
> to their families.  So please don't include all us no kill shelters in this

Hate to break it to you, Matty boy, but it is a kill shelter.  They
kill animals - they just aren't honest about it.

-L.
Phil P. - 18 Jan 2006 09:17 GMT
> > Hold the phone don't add all no kill shelters to this.  Both shelters I fund
> > as in I pay the bills and volunteer my time at.  They are both completely no
> > kill unless they animal is so sick that it's quality of life will never
> > return.
>
> IOW, they are a kill shelter.  They kill animals.

That's an utterly stupid statement- Euthanizing a suffering animal is not
the same as killing a healthy animal.

Don't judge all no kill shelters based on your limited experience.
-L. - 18 Jan 2006 09:40 GMT
> > > Hold the phone don't add all no kill shelters to this.  Both shelters I
> fund
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> That's an utterly stupid statement- Euthanizing a suffering animal is not
> the same as killing a healthy animal.

Didn't say it was.

> Don't judge all no kill shelters based on your limited experience.

Killing is killing Phil. You can't call a shelter a "no kill" if you
kill animals.
<shrug>  You will note that the better limited-intake, placement
shelters do not use the term "no kill".
-L.
Phil P. - 18 Jan 2006 10:45 GMT
> > > > Hold the phone don't add all no kill shelters to this.  Both shelters I
> > fund
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Didn't say it was.

Hard to tell what the hell you're saying.   Seems to me that you implied
Mat's shelter is a kill shelter because they euthanize suffering animals.
That's not a kill shelter.

> > Don't judge all no kill shelters based on your limited experience.
>
> Killing is killing Phil.

Another stupid statement.  There's a difference between euthanizing a
suffering animal and killing a healthy animal.  If you don't know the
difference, let me know- I'll be happy to educate you.

You can't call a shelter a "no kill" if you
> kill animals.

Another utterly stupid statement.  Better to let suffering animals suffer,
eh, Lyn?

> <shrug>  You will note that the better limited-intake, placement
> shelters do not use the term "no kill".
> -L.

My shelter *is* no kill- and mine *is* a "better" shelter. I have never
killed a healthy animal. Many of our cats have behavioral problems or have
chronic illnesses or are older and would have been killed a long time ago in
kill shelters.  IOW, we take cats that kill shelters kill.

Most no-kill shelters are privately funded and accept as many animals as
they can possibly care for.  That's the best they can do - both morally and
ethically.

What do you do other than bad mouth shelters that save cats' lives, huh?
-L. - 18 Jan 2006 18:01 GMT
> > Killing is killing Phil.
>
> Another stupid statement.  There's a difference between euthanizing a
> suffering animal and killing a healthy animal.  If you don't know the
> difference, let me know- I'll be happy to educate you.

You are limited intake, and the excess get euthanized.  It's no
different than the kill shelters - the excess - healthy or not -  are
euthanized, regardless.  So, in effect, you kill by exclusion.  You
just don't have to do the "dirty work".

> You can't call a shelter a "no kill" if you
> > kill animals.
>
> Another utterly stupid statement.  Better to let suffering animals suffer,
> eh, Lyn?

You can't call yourself a "no kill" shelter if you kill animals.  It's
deceptive.  The general public (like the OP)  thinks that means that no
animals are ever killed.  What you can say in good conscience is that
you euthanize only when it is in the best interest of the animal, for
reasons of injury or illness.  This is exactly the stance the SPCA of
SF takes.

> > <shrug>  You will note that the better limited-intake, placement
> > shelters do not use the term "no kill".
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> chronic illnesses or are older and would have been killed a long time ago in
> kill shelters.

That's great, as long as the quality of life is good for the animals.

> IOW, we take cats that kill shelters kill.

Some of them.

> Most no-kill shelters are privately funded and accept as many animals as
> they can possibly care for.  That's the best they can do - both morally and
> ethically.

That's no different than kill shelters, except that some (not all)
receive city or county funds.  They care for as many animals as they
can and kill those they can't place.  You just never take the ones you
can't place.  There is no moral righteousness in that.

> What do you do other than bad mouth shelters that save cats' lives, huh?

What do you do other than belittle people who share differing
viewpoints?

Now, tell me, am I  supposed to list the volunteer activities I do in
the area of animal welfare because you asked that question?  Why do I
need to do that, Phil?  So you can play "I'm more dedicated than thou"?
 Sorry, I won't play in your pissing war.

I have no doubt you do a lot of good for the cats you rescue.  But
don't belittle others simply because they don't toot their own horn,
too.  Remember what I said about egotism.

-L.
Phil P. - 19 Jan 2006 08:48 GMT
> > > Killing is killing Phil.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> You are limited intake, and the excess get euthanized.

You're just chock full of stupid statements, aren't you?  We organized
specifically to rescue death row or otherwise unadoptable cats.  Even Best
Friends- the largest animal sanctuary in the country has a limit.  Your
argument- or whatever the hell you're trying to prove, is utterly asinine.

You're not helping the animals in the shelters by bad-mouthing the shelters-
or can't you think that far ahead when you type your assine posts?

> > You can't call a shelter a "no kill" if you
> > > kill animals.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You can't call yourself a "no kill" shelter if you kill animals.  It's
> deceptive.

I don't think you understand the difference between euthanizing a suffering
animal and killing.

> > > <shrug>  You will note that the better limited-intake, placement
> > > shelters do not use the term "no kill".
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> That's great, as long as the quality of life is good for the animals.

Our cats have a better quality of life than many owned cats.

> > IOW, we take cats that kill shelters kill.
>
> Some of them.

As many as we can provide proper care for- and then some.

> > Most no-kill shelters are privately funded and accept as many animals as
> > they can possibly care for.  That's the best they can do - both morally and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> can and kill those they can't place.  You just never take the ones you
> can't place.  There is no moral righteousness in that.

Are you intentionally obtuse or is it your natural state?  Did you not
understand that I said we take the cats with chronic illnesses, surrendered
for behavioral problems, older- IOW, the cats that are the least likely to
be adopted?  We rarely take private surrenders unless the cat has special
needs and would meet certain death in a kill shelter.  We try to home as
many as we can, the ones we can't we provide care for life.  So, no, we
don't only take cats we can place.  In fact, its just the opposite.

If a no kill shelter took only one death row cat- that would be a life
saved.  You don't seem to understand the concept.  No one can save them all-
but we try to save as many as we can.

> > What do you do other than bad mouth shelters that save cats' lives, huh?
>
> What do you do other than belittle people who share differing
> viewpoints?

This is more than differing opinions when you use words like "deceptive" to
poison the well.

> Now, tell me, am I  supposed to list the volunteer activities I do in
> the area of animal welfare because you asked that question?

It was a rhetorical question.  I don't think you do much- if anything, in
the area of animal welfare other than criticize those who do- maybe that's
why you criticize those who do  If this all you know about no-kill shelters,
then you don't know very much.

Kill shelters and no kill shelters have different functions and purposes.
Kill shelters are often associated with ACs whose major function is just
cats off the streets or out of unwelcomed areas as well as take voluntary
surrenders.  Some even charge a surrender fee which often leads to
abandonment. Their primary function isn't rescue or sanctuary. Occasionally,
they investigate and prosecute animal abuse cases.  Their objective is
getting rid of unwanted animals one way or the other.  Many have time limits
as short as 3 days.  Some don't even wait that long.  The function of no
kill shelters is rescue and sanctuary.  Do you understand the difference? Or
do I have to explain that to you too?

Many- not all- no kills only rescue death row cats whether they're adoptable
or not.  I'm sure there are some no kills that cherry pick.

Your problem is you only see in two dimensions and only in black and white
and you make sweeping generalizations based on your distorted and limited
understanding-- just like your ridiculous perception that pets are "bound in
servitude".
-L. - 18 Jan 2006 09:41 GMT
> > > Hold the phone don't add all no kill shelters to this.  Both shelters I
> fund
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> That's an utterly stupid statement- Euthanizing a suffering animal is not
> the same as killing a healthy animal.

Didn't say it was.

> Don't judge all no kill shelters based on your limited experience.

Killing is killing Phil. You can't call a shelter a "no kill" if you
kill animals.
<shrug>  You will note that the better limited-intake, placement
shelters do not use the term "no kill".
-L.
PawsForThought - 18 Jan 2006 17:24 GMT
> > Hold the phone don't add all no kill shelters to this.  Both shelters I fund
> > as in I pay the bills and volunteer my time at.  They are both completely no
> > kill unless they animal is so sick that it's quality of life will never
> > return.
>
> IOW, they are a kill shelter.  They kill animals.

Would you rather they NOT euthanize sick animals who can't be
rehabilitated?  The shelter where I adopted my cats from, and used to
volunteer at, will euthanize an animal if it is suffering and can't be
saved.  I commend them for that.

Lauren
abRokeNegRo - 17 Jan 2006 01:59 GMT
> Good luck getting the "no kill" shelters some media attention from the
> major syndicate - fat chance it will happen, though.
>
> -L.

this "sounds" like horse sh.t

the public "thinks" no kill means...

we adopt them out oppossed to killing them

there is no way you can say that no kill shelters pick and choose who
they will not
take...maybe some do; but im sure it's the minority

you don't have a case
sit you tail down
Cat Protector - 17 Jan 2006 03:09 GMT
I bet you can't prove it can you that no-kills actually kill animals. None
of the no-kills that I am aware actually kill animals. I would like to see
proof from you that no-kills actually by their own hands kill animals. I
think it is funny that when someone rises to the defense of the no-kills
they are called ignorant or that they don't have a clue. It is time many
here wake up to reality that no-kills make a significant impact on the
rescue of animals.

As for your hypothisis regarding salaries, I would love for you to explain
how a national organization like Alley Cat Allies which is national makes
less money than the AHS? Last time I checked feral cats are plenty and when
they get into a shelter known for euthanizing they are put down simply
because they are feral cats. From what I have heard, any cat deemed feral is
put down because shelters simply do not have any knowledge about feral cats
nor do they even want to take the time to learn. Euthanizing a feral cat is
not an effective way to deal with the situation. TNR is.

I would sooner bring a cat to a no-kill shelter than one known for
euthanizing. As for turning away animals I can see how this can happen
during cat and kitten season. So many are born because people fail to spay
or neuter their animals and then on top of that they get dumped into the
streets because they don't want the responsibility. This is not the fault of
the shelters but the stupid a.s humans who care only about themselves. Even
the AHS has been trying to prevent this by trying to educate the public.

No-kills mean just that. They are no-kill and will allow an animal to be
fostered in their network or allowed to have refuge until they are adopted
or until their life ends. Like any shelter they can turn animals away and
the only time I have seen this is when it is cat and kitten season. If you
don't believe that no-kill shelters exist then I challenge you to check out
Sun Valley Animal Shelter or even AAWL in Arizona. In fact AAWL has greatly
assisted AzCATs in getting the kittens from feral cats in the system so they
can be adopted.

As for media attention, no-kills are starting to get a little more attention
where they are locally. They certainly did get some media attention during
Katrina. However, they deserve more. Animal rescue workers from no-kills are
often spending much of their own money to foster animals. Do they get
recognition from the media? Absolutely not.

I applaud the efforts of animal rescue organizations that rescue animals
including AHS but I also believe the no-kill organizations deserve their
moment in the sun. I think organizations like AzCATs which faces an uphill
battle to educate the public about feral cats deserves a lot of media
attention and applause from the public. Volunteers from that organization
are out every day trapping feral cats so they can be spayed or neutered and
then returned to their environment where a human caregiver makes sure the
cats have enough food or water and are looked after. To me organizations
like this definately deserve attention and more donations and support from
businesses. Luckily, they are getting some.

It is obvious by your posting that you don't support no-kills or shelters
that have similar policies. I wonder what would happen if you went to a
no-kill shelter and said that they were actually a kill shelter simply
because animals are turned away. One thing I can applaud the AHS for is not
turning away animals but when they have behavior or medical issues they are
often euthanized where they could be saved.

I know of a few no-kills that rescue animals from the euthanasia list. I
think this deserves kudos and certainly erases your position that even
no-kills actually kill. Many of these shelters are on very limited budgets
but are still willing to say to those animals on the euthanasia list that
"we will take you." I do know that the AHS and even Maricopa County Animal
Care & Control work with these organizations.

I am not totally against the AHS because I am sure they don't want to
euthanize but sometimes I feel they are somewhat quick to do so. I think
their low cost spay neuter program is also good and think some of their
programming like Pets on Parade is good by showing animals up for adoption.
I love watching the cats on that show. It is cool they have an EAMT program
but I think no-kills would have them if they actually had the financial
support.

I think however it is time to start supporting the no-kills a little more
and give them their own shows. In some ways they do have them. AzCATs has
their own radio show every weekend and I think it is wonderful. They often
have guests who are actively involved in supporting no-kill organizations. I
think AzCATs has done a terrific job. They may not have the budget but they
have one of the toughest jobs in the TNR of feral cats. I think Animal
Planet should really do a series about them.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

"-L." <gentleboa@peacemail.com> wrote in message

> "No kills" kill animals too.  They do it by default; by refusal, by
> picking and choosing which animals to accept.  They do it when the
[quoted text clipped - 133 lines]
>
> -L.
-L. - 17 Jan 2006 11:05 GMT
> I bet you can't prove it can you that no-kills actually kill animals.

All no kills kill animals - they have to.

>None
> of the no-kills that I am aware actually kill animals.

You are either extremely young or extremely naive.

>I would like to see
> proof from you that no-kills actually by their own hands kill animals.

I'd like to see a list of no kills that don't.  There is no "no kill"
shelter that does not kill animals.

> I
> think it is funny that when someone rises to the defense of the no-kills
> they are called ignorant or that they don't have a clue. It is time many
> here wake up to reality that no-kills make a significant impact on the
> rescue of animals.

I said they did, but they do it by promoting themselves as something
they are not.  They lie.

> As for your hypothisis regarding salaries, I would love for you to explain
> how a national organization like Alley Cat Allies which is national makes
> less money than the AHS?

Do you really have to ask this question....?

> Last time I checked feral cats are plenty and when
> they get into a shelter known for euthanizing they are put down simply
> because they are feral cats. From what I have heard, any cat deemed feral is
> put down because shelters simply do not have any knowledge about feral cats
> nor do they even want to take the time to learn. Euthanizing a feral cat is
> not an effective way to deal with the situation. TNR is.

Euthanizing a feral cat makes sure the population doesn't grow.  TNR is
effective but it does not ensure every feral in every colony is TNR'ed
and that every cat has quality of life.  Ferals are culled because they
are less desirable and harder to place than non-ferals.

> I would sooner bring a cat to a no-kill shelter than one known for
> euthanizing. As for turning away animals I can see how this can happen
> during cat and kitten season.

And in doing so, they sentance those cats to death.

Enough said.

<snip the obvious...>

> No-kills mean just that. They are no-kill and will allow an animal to be
> fostered in their network or allowed to have refuge until they are adopted
> or until their life ends.

As long as they are accepted into the system.  Thousands of animals are
turned away from "no kills" every day.  Those animals end up being
killed, in part, because the "no kills" wouldn't accept them.  The "no
kills" have blood on their hands.

> Like any shelter they can turn animals away and
> the only time I have seen this is when it is cat and kitten season.

Then you haven't been around very long.  I can assure you they turn
away FeLV, FIV or FIP-laden cats, and most likely aggressive cats and
cats with severe behavioral issues (like biters).  Very few will take
FeLV or FIV cats, no one will take an FIP kitten except to euth it.
Biters are a liability and are euthanized.

>If you
> don't believe that no-kill shelters exist then I challenge you to check out
> Sun Valley Animal Shelter or even AAWL in Arizona.

I can guarante you that both of those shelters euthanize cats.

> In fact AAWL has greatly
> assisted AzCATs in getting the kittens from feral cats in the system so they
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Katrina. However, they deserve more. Animal rescue workers from no-kills are
> often spending much of their own money to foster animals.

Are you so naive to think that people who volunteer at HSs or SPCAs
don't do so out of their own pockets?

>Do they get
> recognition from the media? Absolutely not.
>
> I applaud the efforts of animal rescue organizations that rescue animals
> including AHS but I also believe the no-kill organizations deserve their
> moment in the sun.

"No kills" simply need to be honest about what they do. They kill
animals.  For that reason I will never support one, nor will many
people.

<snip>

> It is obvious by your posting that you don't support no-kills or shelters
> that have similar policies. I wonder what would happen if you went to a
> no-kill shelter and said that they were actually a kill shelter simply
> because animals are turned away.

I hate to be the one to tell you but this is a truth that the kill
shelters know.  It's not exactly a secret.  It's just their "dirty
little secret" they don't want the public to know.

<snip the rest - you are extremely naive and under the impression that
"no kill" shelters do not kill animals>

Look - no one is negating the good work that no-kill shelters perform.
But the cold, hard fact is, no kill shelters have limited intake and
only retain animals which they can either wearhouse or place.  Any
other animal they take in is euthanized for the reasons stated above.
The SPCA in San Francisco is held up as the ideal model for a "no kill"
shelter, and has been in the forefront of the "no kill" movement.  Last
year they took in only 148 animals from the public.  When I worked at
the Humane Society in Indianapolis about 10 years ago, we would take in
148 animals from the public in a day, easily.  Furthermore, even the SF
SPCA admits they cull animals: "Animals are euthanized only if they are
too sick to be rehabilitated, or too aggressive to be safely placed in
a home."  What they don't admit is that they poreselect animals so that
only very few will ever fit the criteria of having to be euthanized.
The bottom line is - from their own website - they KILL animals.  As do
all "no kill" shelters.

-L.
Cat Protector - 17 Jan 2006 17:56 GMT
No-kills are exactly that. They are no-kill shelters. Do you understand what
the term means or do some of you who claim they kill animals just prefer to
argue without proof because you like to argue. I think the ones downplaying
no-kills and saying they actually kill animals are usually the ones who
don't volunteer or even donate to them.

None of those claiming that no-kills actually euthanize (I am not talking
about animals too sick to survive where euthanizing is the only option) have
offered proof nor provided us in here with an actual manager of a no-kill
sanctuary claiming they kill animals. They also have not provided physical
documentation claiming no-kill shelters kill animals. The only thing these
people who say no-kill shelters kill animals have offered is "they turn
animals away so that alone is proof." This not evidence.  Some no-kills have
had to turn animals away because during cat and kitten season many shelters
are filled to capacity with felines. This is the result because some stupid
assed humans fail to have their cat spayed or neutered. This is not the
fault of the shelters.

Some people have taken to think that a shelter being no-kill is a drop-off
hotel during a natural disaster. I am reminded of one no-kill shelter in
Texas that was in the path of Hurricane Rita and some people actually
thought they could dump their cat or dog off there instead of taking them
with them. When the shelter said they could not take them a few got mean and
one woman started yelling obscenities at the shelter workers. This shelter
already had animals they took in and it is shocking that some people feel
they can just dump their animal off as if it were a hotel or leave them
behind in their homes so they can save their own a.ses. This happened during
Katrina as well. A lot of people who otherwise could have taken their
animals left them behind when they evacuated. Some actually did stay behind
with their animals because the stupid organizations like the Red Cross which
could have assisted animal rescue efforts by saving both humans and 4-legged
creatures did not do so. Animal rescue efforts were also hindered by red
tape leaving a lot of animals to having to wait even more to the point they
were starving.

For those of you who believe no-kill animals actually kill animals it is
obvious you have no clue how hard the volunteers actually work and how many
animals are alive today because these organizations not only worked
tirelessly to rescue them from the streets but also from the euthanasia
lists. For those of you who condemn the volunteers and the no-kill shelters
they work for, shame on you! It is obvious that you don't know anything
about animal rescue because you'd realize that no-kills work on less than
half (or sometimes half) the budget than those who have a practice of
euthanasia. Some rescues also don't have shelter facilities and instead use
a network of fosters to care for animals.

It is funny when you suggest that euthanizing a feral cat makes sure the
population doesn't grow. You obviously have no clue about feral cats or you
wouldn't have said that. TNR is the best and only way to deal with the feral
cat situation. I suggest you read about it or volunteer with an organization
that does this. If you want to read more about TNR I suggest you check out
the AzCATs web site at www.azcats.org or Alley Cat Allies at
www.alleycat.org unless of course you just want to pull statements or info
out of your butt that isn't true.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com
"-L." <gentleboa@peacemail.com> wrote in message

> All no kills kill animals - they have to.
>
[quoted text clipped - 134 lines]
>
> -L.
-L. - 17 Jan 2006 18:31 GMT
> No-kills are exactly that. They are no-kill shelters. Do you understand what
> the term means or do some of you who claim they kill animals just prefer to
> argue without proof because you like to argue.

You're ignorant.  I posted proof that they kill animals from the SF
SPCA - THE primere "no kill" shelter in the US!

> None of those claiming that no-kills actually euthanize (I am not talking
> about animals too sick to survive where euthanizing is the only option) have
> offered proof nor provided us in here with an actual manager of a no-kill
> sanctuary claiming they kill animals.

Go re-read the post I made about the SF SPCA - they kill directly
because of health and behavior issues.  As do all "no kill" shelters.

They also have not provided physical
> documentation claiming no-kill shelters kill animals. The only thing these
> people who say no-kill shelters kill animals have offered is "they turn
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> assed humans fail to have their cat spayed or neutered. This is not the
> fault of the shelters.

It is when they claim they are a "no kill shelter".

<snip>

> For those of you who believe no-kill animals actually kill animals it is
> obvious you have no clue how hard the volunteers actually work and how many
> animals are alive today because these organizations not only worked
> tirelessly to rescue them from the streets but also from the euthanasia
> lists.

You're naive and an idiot.  And a top-poster too.  Three strikes,
you're out.

<snip rest of incessant babbling>

-L.
Cat Protector - 17 Jan 2006 19:02 GMT
You didn't post proof. All you know how to do is name call and post stuff
that isn't true. As for the San Francisco SPCA nowhere does it state they
are no-kill although it does say:

"San Francisco has been on the forefront of the "no-kill" movement, which
aims to stop the killing of homeless cats and dogs. The San Francisco SPCA
guarantees to find a home for all San Francisco's adoptable cats and dogs -
animals that are healthy and free of serious behavior problems. In addition,
each year we save thousands of dogs and cats that need medical or behavioral
treatment before they're ready for adoption. Animals are euthanized only if
they are too sick to be rehabilitated, or too aggressive to be safely placed
in a home."

This does not mean they saying they are no-kill but aims to stop the killing
of animals. Apparently they are attempting to try a no-kill policy.

All of your posts have been stating over and over that no-kills indeed kill.
You made a very bold and untrue statement about Sun Valley and the Arizona
Animal Welfare League in another posting by saying that "you guarantee these
organizations actually kill." The truth is you can't guarantee anything
other than the fact you try to attack no-kills and that you act like your
word is the one the only one and those that disagree with you are either
stupid or ignorant.

You made a statement that euthanizing feral cats is an effective way of
dealing with them which is not true. Euthanizing will not stop feral cats
from breeding and is also expensive. Also when you kill a feral cat one or
two others will move in to take that cat's place. TNR is the best and only
way to effectively deal with the situation. It has been proven as fact.

You have called me naive and an idiot. Is name calling the only way you can
make your point? Apparently so. You are losing ground so now you have to
take the child's way out. I guess I'll just put you on ignore since you are
obviously only in this discussion to name call and bully.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

>
>> No-kills are exactly that. They are no-kill shelters. Do you understand
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> -L.
-L. - 17 Jan 2006 19:41 GMT
> You didn't post proof. All you know how to do is name call and post stuff
> that isn't true. As for the San Francisco SPCA nowhere does it state they
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> This does not mean they saying they are no-kill but aims to stop the killing
> of animals. Apparently they are attempting to try a no-kill policy.

They are a "no kill" shelter and have been held up as the model to
which no kill shelters strive to attain.   You are just ignorant and
uninformed.  In fact, Sun Valley receives funds from Maddie's Fund
project which is an off-shoot of tthe SF SPCA.

> All of your posts have been stating over and over that no-kills indeed kill.
> You made a very bold and untrue statement about Sun Valley and the Arizona
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> word is the one the only one and those that disagree with you are either
> stupid or ignorant.

Call these shelters and talk to their ward manager or staff vet.  I can
guarantee she has a vial of euthanasia solution ready to use and a
stock pile in the back.  In fact, just to prove you wrong, I just
called Sun Valley and spoke to the receptionsit.  They *do* euthanize
animals because of health reasons.  They do not euth due to behavioral
issues because they preselect animals by doing a two-page check sheet
to ensure the animal has no behavioral problems.  Call them yourself if
you do not believe me.

So what Sun Valley does, in effect, is it takes adoptable animals only,
thus sentencing all the others left behind to death.  Nice.

> You made a statement that euthanizing feral cats is an effective way of
> dealing with them which is not true. Euthanizing will not stop feral cats
> from breeding and is also expensive.

Read your last sentence.  A dead cat cannot breed.

> Also when you kill a feral cat one or
> two others will move in to take that cat's place.

You have still removed an animal from the population.

> TNR is the best and only
> way to effectively deal with the situation. It has been proven as fact.
>
> You have called me naive and an idiot. Is name calling the only way you can
> make your point? Apparently so.

Just making observations.  With one phone call (which I had to do
because they are not honest on their website) I have proven that Sun
Valley is a kill Shelter.  So is AAWL: From the  Arizona Animal Welfare
League website (http://www.aawl.org/about/faqs.shtml):

Q: What does it mean when we say AAWL is a "No Kill" shelter?
A: "No kill" is a phrase commonly used in today's animal welfare
environment, and we want to be very clear about what our choices are
and how our decisions are made. As an organization, we aim to lead the
community in reducing euthanasia of adoptable animals, including those
in our own shelter and dogs and cats in other animal shelters.
Essentially, when we say we are a no kill shelter, we mean this:

The AAWL does not euthanize for space or for time, or as a means of
overpopulation control. We do not euthanize animals in our care that we
determine are adoptable animals.

******However, we are sometimes faced with situations in which we
conclude that euthanasia is our most humane option, such as when an
animal requires medical treatment that goes beyond our resources,
exceeds our ability to humanely provide comfort or pain management, or
has a condition that puts other shelter animals or workers at risk. We
might also choose euthanasia when an animal has negative behaviors,
such as unmanageable aggression towards other dogs, or aggression
towards people that goes beyond our ability to correct, especially if
that behavior presents a safety concern to a potential adopter or to
the community. We do not feel it is responsible to place a dangerous
animal in the community or to put shelter animals, staff or volunteers
- or visitors to our facility - at risk. We also do not feel it is
responsible to imply that we would.******

There are very few organizations with the money and facilities to
humanely keep animals that are ill or unsafe around people. AAWL is not
designed to function as a long-term sanctuary for animals, and we focus
our shelter resources on providing temporary care for animals until we
can find them permanent adoptive homes."

This is *EXACTLY* what I have said time and time again in this thread.
Are you going to shut up now?

>You are losing ground so now you have to
> take the child's way out.

No, you are talking out of your a.s, and I have just proven so.

> I guess I'll just put you on ignore since you are
> obviously only in this discussion to name call and bully.

I have now *proven* that you are an idiot and have no idea what you are
even talking about,  in front of thousands of Usenet readers.
Congratulations.

-L.
friesian@zoocrewphoto.com - 17 Jan 2006 03:22 GMT
> Wake up Animal Planet. It's time to start covering the no-kills. They may
> not have the budget but their work deserves some credit.

I think it is better that they stick with the public facilities that do
put down animals.

Why?

Because these programs are good for educationg the public. When they
see a dog get rescued, brought back to health, and then put down
because there is no room or it can't pass the temperment test - well,
that is what we are really facing, isn't it?

Why would we want to gloss over the problem? We need a reality check.
Cats and dogs are being killed every day for lack of homes as well as
abuse. People need to see this.

If they featured "no-kill" shelters, what would we see on the program?
People bringing in their pets to drop them off? Adoption day at the
local pet store or cat show?

Shelters do a lot of great work, and I agree that we should support
them. But we need to get people's attention. We need to show them some
good stories but also some bad stories. The ones that get people
willing to change.

Check out your local craigslist pet section. Every day, you can see
animals being sold or given away because they owner is moving, having a
baby, or is suddenly allergic. And then there are the tons of people
looking for a stud, advertising a stud, or promoting their  new litter
or kittens or puppies. Most of these people have never heard of testing
eyes, heart, or hips. They have no idea that THEY are the problem.

Every litter created out of ignorance is the same as sending an equal
number of cats or dogs to the local shelter, kill or not. every kitten
they place means another that dies somewhere for lack of a home.

You want to make a difference? Start educating the public. Respond to
those ads. Speak up. On my local list, I respond to the breeders and
ask if they have done the tests. Do they know the pedigree of their dog
or cat? Do they know the health of the animals listed in that pedigree.
Do they realize that their 6 kittens will prevent 6 cats from getting a
home? etc.

It's easy to ignore the problems if we don't see them. I am very
greatful the the shelters, ALL of them. But we need to put out the bad
stories, the ones that get people feeling angry and guilty enough to
take action.

If I were to add a program, I would like to see stories of animals
purchased from breeders who had health and temperment issues from
irresponsible breeding. My current sheltie came from a backyard
breeder. She was 4 years old when she was rescued. They were keeping
her to breed her, and hadn't done so yet because they only had one
male, her father. She was outside in a kennel by herself, never
socialized with people or other dogs. She should never have been kept
for breeding. She was undersized, had poor conformation, prick ears,
and not that great a coat. And once we got her, we learned she had poor
vision and an oversized heart. So, health problems too. This was one
messed up dog. It took well over a year to get to "almost normal". And
it doesn't take much to set off the old fears. Most people, had they
adopted this dog would have dumped her at the shelter in less than a
week. She could not walk on smooth surfaces such as linoleum and hard
wood floors. She couldn't do stairs or doorways. She freaked in a
kennel and on a leash. She was afraid of the dark (barked in the middle
of the night), and she was not housebroken. Most people can't deal with
a dog like this.

My first sheltie was adopted from a shelter. She was turned in as a
public nuisance. She was an awesome dog that just needed a better home.
She also had a health problem. She went blind at age 9 because of a
common genetic fault. If breeders tested and worked to eliminate these
problems, they wouldn't be so common. I can't believe how many people
told me to put her down and get a new dog.

If the average person could see what happens to thes dogs and cats,
they wouldn't be so quick to breed them. A lot of people just don't
know better. They need to be educated.
cybercat - 17 Jan 2006 03:37 GMT
> > Wake up Animal Planet. It's time to start covering the no-kills. They may
> > not have the budget but their work deserves some credit.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> because there is no room or it can't pass the temperment test - well,
> that is what we are really facing, isn't it?

[...]

> If the average person could see what happens to thes dogs and cats,
> they wouldn't be so quick to breed them. A lot of people just don't
> know better. They need to be educated.

Well-said, Meghan.
Cat Protector - 17 Jan 2006 03:50 GMT
Only one problem with that. The public needs to see the no-kills in action.
It is a lot more than drop offs. They need to see the faces of the animals
that get left behind because people move without their animals. They need to
see the shelters that rescue animals from the euthanasia list. They need to
see the no-kills working on half the budgets that those that euthanize do.
They need to see the lengths that they have to go through in order to raise
money. They need to see the adoption events. They need to see the volunteers
at these no-kill shelters that actually talk to an adopter one on one about
the cat's needs. Sun Valley is a great example of this. You can actually
interact with the cat you are going to adopt and also find out the history
of the animal as well as what they are like.

It may not make for great TV for some but I actually think the volunteers at
no-kill shelters and organizations are the unsung heroes and deserve to be
recognized. It reminds me of truck drivers. Most people who go to the
supermarket don't realize how that canned food or product got there. They
just see the item and the price and that is all they care about. They don't
think about how it got on the shelf for them to buy. If not for the truck
drivers, many would not have that item to buy. Same analogy can be used for
the no-kills.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

> Because these programs are good for educationg the public. When they
> see a dog get rescued, brought back to health, and then put down
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
> they wouldn't be so quick to breed them. A lot of people just don't
> know better. They need to be educated.
friesian@zoocrewphoto.com - 17 Jan 2006 08:35 GMT
> Only one problem with that. The public needs to see the no-kills in action.
> It is a lot more than drop offs. They need to see the faces of the animals
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> They need to see the lengths that they have to go through in order to raise
> money.

Are you here to promote a particular shelter? I see most of the
shelters doing a great job with the resources they have. I support a
local no-kill shelter. I certainly have nothing against them. But I
know that they are "no-kill" because they have the ability to turn away
animals they don't think they can place, or they simply don't take any
more in when they are full or past their budget. They know their limit
and do the best they can with what they have. I don't see how that
makes them superior to a kill shelter who has a larger budget *BUT* is
required to take in every animal, regardless of adoptibility.

It happens to be a kill shelter that picked up my mom's dog when she
got loose a few years ago. The truck pulled in with her only a couple
minutes after my sister checked to see if she had been brought there.
The driver ran back out, caught up with my sister a few blocks away,
and waved her over. My mom's dog was home only 2 hours from when she
escaped.

We actually got that dog because the local purebred rescue group knew
we were looking for a rescue dog, and knew we could handle behavior
problems since we had done well with Jenny. Rather than go pick up the
dog, get her spayed, and train her to improve her behavior, they saved
money by calling us. It would actually have been cheaper for us to wait
for them to do all the work because their adoption fee was less than it
cost us to get her spayed.

> It may not make for great TV for some but I actually think the volunteers at
> no-kill shelters and organizations are the unsung heroes and deserve to be
> recognized.

I agree with that. It might be nice to show some clips of interviews
with shelter workings and hear some of their stories. The lady I have
worked with has had people bring in cats because they had worms or
fleas. They were ready to dump a cat for that. But I don't see how a
weekly program on that would get viewers, and you need to keep people
watching to educate them. People will watch the current programs
because it is the cops style. You get to see some of these people
punished. And with a regular shelter, they can't do that, so that would
never be in the program.
Cat Protector - 17 Jan 2006 18:08 GMT
No but I have mentioned quite a few no-kills as examples of deserving to be
recognized. I know I would rather support no-kills first. I also know that
animals that haven't had the best attitudes actually have been rehabilitated
at a no-kill. I rescued one cat that was obviously abused and then dumped by
his humans who then moved away and left him outside. On top of that he was
declawed. Sudden movements set him off but he did show signs of a sweet
side. Nonetheless, I got him to a no-kill shelter who not only took him in
but rehabilitated him and he eventually found a loving home.

I think no-kills need to be recognized for their hard work and the media
needs to start supporting that effort. Some have gotten a little recognition
but not enough.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com


> Are you here to promote a particular shelter? I see most of the
> shelters doing a great job with the resources they have. I support a
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> punished. And with a regular shelter, they can't do that, so that would
> never be in the program.
-L. - 17 Jan 2006 18:38 GMT
> No but I have mentioned quite a few no-kills as examples of deserving to be
> recognized. I know I would rather support no-kills first.

Why?  because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy that it doesn't kill
animals, right?

You are a fool.

> I also know that
> animals that haven't had the best attitudes actually have been rehabilitated
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I think no-kills need to be recognized for their hard work and the media
> needs to start supporting that effort.

The truth is, the media cares less about "no kill" shelters because
they know it's a lie.  They would rather portray the truth about the
animal overpopulation problem, which is that animals die every day
because people are irresponsible.  That breeding directly results in
animals dying.  THAT is what the public needs to see.  Not some whining
suburban housewife blathering on and on about how much "good' she is
doing because she picks and chooses adoptable cats from death row and
warehouses them until they are placed - or not.  

-L.
PawsForThought - 17 Jan 2006 18:07 GMT
> Only one problem with that. The public needs to see the no-kills in action.
> It is a lot more than drop offs. They need to see the faces of the animals
> that get left behind because people move without their animals.

Prettying up the picture for these idiots is not going to help, imo.
No, the public needs to see the faces of the animals that get
euthanized.  They need to take the camera in the euthanasia room so
these irresponsible, selfish people see what they are doing.

Lauren
Cat Protector - 17 Jan 2006 18:21 GMT
How is that prettying the picture up? I think it is sad when people leave
animals behind to fend for themselves because they move or because they get
dumped because a human claims a baby is on the way. That is not a pretty
picture to me. The public deserves to see the no-kills in action. They
deserve to see how hard these volunteers work. They also need to see the
animals at no-kills which have been in the system finally get adopted. I
don't know about you but I like to see positive stories regarding rescue.
Animal Planet has well covered those that euthanize and mention it happens
more times than I can count. But happy endings are also worthy of the
coverage.

As for taking a camera into the euthanasia room for all the irresponsible
humans to see I am not sure that will change their thinking. Most who drop
off an animal at a shelter known for euthanasia have very little regard for
the animal and are often told this might happen if the animal is not
adopted. In fact I have heard of some people saying that it is ok with them.
These same people are often ones who will turn the other way when they
witness acts of animal cruelty.

I think if we cover the no-kills it might just show these insensitive people
who dump their animal off at a shelter that another human found your animal
worthy to adopted. Positive stories can be just as effective as negative
ones.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

> Prettying up the picture for these idiots is not going to help, imo.
> No, the public needs to see the faces of the animals that get
> euthanized.  They need to take the camera in the euthanasia room so
> these irresponsible, selfish people see what they are doing.
>
> Lauren
PawsForThought - 18 Jan 2006 17:29 GMT
> How is that prettying the picture up? I think it is sad when people leave
> animals behind to fend for themselves because they move or because they get
> dumped because a human claims a baby is on the way. That is not a pretty
> picture to me. The public deserves to see the no-kills in action. They
> deserve to see how hard these volunteers work. They also need to see the
> animals at no-kills which have been in the system finally get adopted.

Why, so they don't feel so bad that they dumped their pet?  My point
was that hopefully by seeing the horrible aspects to shelters, perhaps
these people might think twice before they dump an animal at a shelter,
know what I mean?
Cat Protector - 19 Jan 2006 09:33 GMT
Actually the look on the animal's face says it all. My point is that even
no-kills have stories to share and should have that equal chance on air to
educate the public. BTW, do you honestly think those who don't dump their
animal off at a shelter known for euthanizing actually will feel bad about
it? Most who do it don't really care.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com


> Why, so they don't feel so bad that they dumped their pet?  My point
> was that hopefully by seeing the horrible aspects to shelters, perhaps
> these people might think twice before they dump an animal at a shelter,
> know what I mean?
cybercat - 17 Jan 2006 18:28 GMT
> > Only one problem with that. The public needs to see the no-kills in action.
> > It is a lot more than drop offs. They need to see the faces of the animals
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> euthanized.  They need to take the camera in the euthanasia room so
> these irresponsible, selfish people see what they are doing.

Hard as this sounds, you are right. The sad thing is there are lots of
people who will see it and will not care.
Cat Protector - 17 Jan 2006 19:27 GMT
I too think taking them in the euthanasia room would be somewhat effective
but I think showing someone's animal finally getting adopted by a loving
family after spending plenty of time at a no-kill can be equally effective.
They can see the face of this animal as being sad after being abandoned by
the very human who was supposed to take care of them. I saw this on the face
of a cat that HALO took in. The card read that the cat had been in their
care because the human moved away and would not take the cat with them. The
look on this cat was very sad and my heart really went out to him/her.

I think an effective tool would be for a camera to follow one cat from
dump-off by a human on camera (yes actually get the human on camera to show
how irresponsible they are and tell why they are doing it) to the cat
finally getting adopted. No-kills are a perfect platform because they can
see everything the cat goes through. They'll see the expression of the face.
They'll see how the volunteers care for them in the cattery until finally
one day, they get adopted.

A positive story about a no-kill shelter can be just as an effective tool in
gaining public support as ones that euthanize. If you continue to focus
stories on the ones that euthanize then no-kills will suffer. They need
public donations just a heck of a lot more than ones that euthanize do. Many
cats in those no-kill shelters definately have stories to tell and I am sure
the volunteers do as well. No-kills also work with the cats so they
definately can provide more information on the nature of the cat than one
that euthanizes simply because the volunteers work and play with the animal
every day.

I remember when I adopted my Isis from the Humane Society. All they had for
her was a card on the window of her cage telling what area she was picked up
from, her basic description (some of which they got wrong) and a process or
tag number. Yes, she was labled just a number and was given a paper collar
for around her neck. She had been at that shelter for 5 days at least before
I adopted her so time was not on her side. When I saw her, she meowed at me
and rubbed up against the glass as if she had known me all of her life. I
too felt a bond to her instantly and knew I'd be taking her home. When I
inquired about her to one of the workers all they could say was "you're the
first person she has taken to since we brought her in." Other than that they
didn't know anything else about her.

When I went to Sun Valley (which is no-kill) to do a show about cats, I was
amazed at how detailed each of the cats info was. They had a bulletin board
also with each cat's picture and tag number and the volunteers also were
able to tell me about each cat, how they were and other tidbits. They all
had tag numbers but the cats also had names as well. All of those cats had
some pretty heart wrenching stories as well as to how they ended up there
too. Some cats had been their a long time as well. They even had one cat
that was semi-feral. All of those cats made for good TV time because each
one of them had some pretty sad stories.

Signature

Cat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs!
www.panthertekit.com

> Hard as this sounds, you are right. The sad thing is there are lots of
> people who will see it and will not care.
-L. - 17 Jan 2006 19:44 GMT
>They need
> public donations just a heck of a lot more than ones that euthanize do.

Since they handle a fraction of what the open intake shelters do, this
is false.

-L.
-L. - 17 Jan 2006 18:50 GMT
> Prettying up the picture for these idiots is not going to help, imo.
> No, the public needs to see the faces of the animals that get
> euthanized.  They need to take the camera in the euthanasia room so
> these irresponsible, selfish people see what they are doing.
>
> Lauren

One of the independant stations in Indy did this and caught major crap
for it.  It aired on local TV stations - the public was outraged, not
because of euthanasia, but because they dared to televize it.

I think the media should show the path of an animal in the door of a
shelter and out the other - either back out the front door with a new
owner or out the back, via the dead pile.  They should show everything.
The people who entertain themselves by visiting shelters for no
reason, the workers who try to keep favored animals off the euth list,
the people who apply to adopt and are denied and why, those who are
approved to adopt and why,  the workers who work shifts in the
euthanasia room, the animals that are killed and why they are killed -
all of it.  They should have to follow workers around to the cages in
the morning as they pick and choose which animals to have to die today.
 Then they might get an idea why "just one litter' isn't a good idea.

-L.
abRokeNegRo - 18 Jan 2006 20:12 GMT
> > Prettying up the picture for these idiots is not going to help, imo.
> > No, the public needs to see the faces of the animals that get
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> One of the independant stations in Indy did this and caught major crap
the cages in
> the morning as they pick and choose which animals to have to die today.
>   Then they might get an idea why "just one litter' isn't a good idea.
>
> -L.

YES there are practices of death in all cat shelters
but you can't make rules based on the exceptions

damn

fuckit now, im tired of hearing about it

what i am hearing is anger!

yes

Im hearing anger that has nothing to do with a freagin cat

you got the big house, from what I read a beautiful child
and you're sittin up here acting like you have lost your mind

and it is an act

i can't help ya