Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / January 2006
Animal Planet Heroes Should Cover No-Kills
|
|
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
|
|