 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Rescue / February 2004Non-euthanizing groups
A few questions: How do shelters that don't euthanize keep the pets? Do they cut off the amount of pets they can take in once they reach a certain point? Are pet shelters that don't euthanize preffered over ones that do? Thanks, Marty > A few questions: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks, > Marty Generally, "no-kill" facilities are limited enrollment, which means that they do not accept every animal that walks in the door. Or it means that no "adoptible" animal is euthanized, and the criteria of "adoptibility" can be so strict as to make 7 out of my 8 be considered "unadoptible". And, all limiting enrollment into a "no kill" facility does is push the job of euthanasia off onto the facilities that do have open enrollment and have to accept all animals (like a municipal shelter). It doesn't elminate euthanasia, just shifts the location and statistics where it occurs. Sometimes, it leads to more animals being dumped on the roadside if there is no other facility that can take them. The real answer isn't trumpeting "no kill" facilities, but spaying and neutering all intact animals (free if need be) until there is *no* "surplus" pet population. Sunflower > Sometimes, it leads to more animals being dumped on the roadside if > there is no other facility that can take them. Actually, what's happened is that some cowardly rat bastards dump kittens--some with their queen, others on their own--near a known feral colony, totally disrupting the established population and burdening the caregiver with an almost impossible task. I know because this just happened to me a couple of weeks ago. Practically my entire established population has disappeared since the abrupt introduction of at least two different litters. I have contact with a great many people during the day, and I can find nobody willing to foster these animals, even after I trap them. All the local humane/rescue organizations are in the same fix. I'm fostering a full boat myself right now and I almost caused a divorce between one of my supporters and her husband over this. Luckily, the husband fell in love with the obviously tame orphan--a sweet natured tuxedo kitten--and they're keeping it, so the story has a happy ending...sort of...I can no longer rely on her for keeping any more ferals I trap). So, once again, I'm on my own. Without foster homes, I've stopped trapping. The kittens are simply too small for altering, clinics won't accept them. My choices are simple: trap and euthanize now or wait until they're bigger and then TTVAR them and support them as ferals. But I'm by no means certain that they will survive. These animals began their life in the warm environs of someone's home. I don't know that they've got the survival skills necessary, and from what I've seen of their interactions with the grown ferals remaining, they are at a severe disadvantage. They're more afraid of me than they are of the few grown cats--who treat them very badly indeed, sometimes quite brutally. There's nothing I can do for them. The whole experience makes me want to give up, to leave this place and never return. I miss my old ferals so much. It's been so long since I've seen them. I last saw Stubby a week ago last Sunday night. I imagine terrible things have happened to them. How can people allow this to happen when it is SO easy to prevent? I can tell you this: if I do continue doing this work, I'm not naming any of them ever again. > > Sometimes, it leads to more animals being dumped on the roadside if > > there is no other facility that can take them. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > I can tell you this: if I do continue doing this work, I'm not naming If you can't find a vet to perform the juvenile/spay neuter then maybe your vets need some education as to why this is a safe and much easier proceedure for the animals. At the CHAMP conference in St. Louis in July the HSUS was running a tape on juvenile spay/neuter explaining it's benefits and showing a side by side comparison with the surgery on an older animal. They are willing to mail out copies of the tape to rescue groups who are trying to get their vets to perform the proceedure. It's worth the time to request the tape to give to several of your local vets. The biggest issue in juvenile spay/neuter is the monitored recovery, and many clinics don't like to allocate the personnel to deal with offering oral glucose to the animals and also eyedroppering water to them until they are able to eat a light meal and then go home. And, many vets just don't want to deal with "parts" that small. But, juvenile spay neuter is the only way to manage a feral colony and I hope that you can interest at least one vet in helping you with that. Sunflower > any of them ever again. >> Sometimes, it leads to more animals being dumped on the roadside if >> there is no other facility that can take them. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >I can tell you this: if I do continue doing this work, I'm not naming >any of them ever again. I understand and feel your pain. Several years ago when I was feeding 13 ferals I was able to pet and hold two of the older ones. Living in a condominium, this caused problems because there are so many people who don't like cats. I personally would rather feed a feral and keep it healthy than let them scrounge for whatever they could find. The "management" trapped them and turned them over to the county -- so that was the end of the group I was feeding. I never thought of what it meant for a non-kill shelter. You have some really good points but regardless I applaud the shelters that have this rule bc I believe the killing of any animals is wrong and I've been a vegetarian for 13 years trying to save some lives any way i can.... I just wish the shelters were able to have more animals in there capacity. -- > > A few questions: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Sunflower > I never thought of what it meant for a non-kill shelter. You have some > really good points but regardless I applaud the shelters that have this rule > bc I believe the killing of any animals is wrong and I've been a vegetarian > for 13 years trying to save some lives any way i can.... I just wish the > shelters were able to have more animals in there capacity. I'll continue to applaud the shelters that euthanize, and the people that work most directly with the animals that may or may not be there again the next day, or after their weekend, or after a well earned vacation. It takes a lot more courage and strength to work under such conditions than it does to work in a facility where a person can close oneself off to the reality of the overpopulation problem. You support the shelters that euthanize? That in term says that you support the practice of euthanasia to clear space in a shelter. I think that is terrible. I also have to disagree with your position that those in no-kill shelters shut themselves off to the reality of the over-population. The shelter workers at no-kill facilities are very much aware of the problem and should be congratulated for their hard work. It takes more guts for them to work there than those who work at shelters who just kill off the animals to save space. Many of the no-kills have volunteers who foster the cats in their own homes, spend time with the felines, feed the cats, and of course press harder to get the ones that have been in the shelter system for far too long, adopted. No-kills will have my respect since it takes more to save a life than to take it away.  SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > I'll continue to applaud the shelters that euthanize, and the people that > work most directly with the animals that may or may not be there again the > next day, or after their weekend, or after a well earned vacation. It takes > a lot more courage and strength to work under such conditions than it does > to work in a facility where a person can close oneself off to the reality of > the overpopulation problem. >You support the shelters that euthanize? That in term says that you support >the practice of euthanasia to clear space in a shelter. I think that is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >too long, adopted. No-kills will have my respect since it takes more to save >a life than to take it away. The shelters that euthanise also have dedicated volunteers who frequently foster animals. Caring is not only for "no-kill" shelters. What do the "no-kill" shelters do when they are completely full and there are no more foster families availible? The staff and volunteers at both kinds of shelters are sadly aware of pet overpopulation and they strongly support spay and neuter. The volunteers feed, care for, and foster just like the "no-kill" shelters. No one ever will "kill off the animals to save space." I normally don't critisize posters for their opinion, but that is a terrible thing to have said. It is totally untrue and insulting to the dedicated people at those shelters. Just what do you think should be done when a shelter is 100% out of space and 100% out of foster families and all the other shelters are also? And what do you think should be done with the animals that are in pain and cannot be saved? What do think we should do with animals that are too dangerous to be adopted, or even fostered when all the behavior specialists say there is no hope for rehabilitation? What would you do with a dog that has killed other dogs, bit multiple people over a period of time, and has now severly injured a child. Do you want to foster a pit bull that has been trained to kill and is out of control? How do your "no-kill" shelters deal with these issues? Please answer these questions, this is not an arguement, I want to know your side of this. Fan, I admire your posting on the subject of euthanasia and "no-kill" shelters. Do you work in a public shelter or a private shelter that assumes the responsibility of euthanasia as necessary? Sharon Talbert Friends of Campus Cats >Fan, I admire your posting on the subject of euthanasia and "no-kill" >shelters. Do you work in a public shelter or a private shelter that >assumes the responsibility of euthanasia as necessary? > >Sharon Talbert >Friends of Campus Cats I have volunteered several hundred hours at a private shelter for over two years. In that time, I have seen perfectly healthy cats and dogs euthanised. Everyone, absolutely everyone, there hates when that happens, but there are no viable alternatives sometimes. When you are out of space to the point of housing animals in people's offices, out of foster families, and all the other shelters are out of space, what is the alternative? I respect the work that the "no-kill" shelters do, but I have zero respect for those who look down their nose on the shelters who do euthanise when there are no alternatives. The local city shelter will euthanise any animal that has not been adopted in x number of days. That should be unacceptable, but there are too few of us to change the city's policy. > I have volunteered several hundred hours at a private shelter for over > two years. In that time, I have seen perfectly healthy cats and dogs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of foster families, and all the other shelters are out of space, what > is the alternative? The alternative for some "no-kills" I know about: Refusal of all but the cream of the crop Acceptance of only "adoptables" from the immediate area Euthanasia of the "unadoptables" Transfer of the surplus animals to a public shelter for euthanasia Tethering of suplus animals in alleyway behind shelter Sad but true. > I respect the work that the "no-kill" shelters do, but I have zero > respect for those who look down their nose on the shelters who do > euthanise when there are no alternatives. Ditto all over the place. And of course "no-kill" must logically be accompanied by "kill." I recently communicated with a public shelter employee who actually referred to her shelter as a "kill shelter." The local city shelter will > euthanise any animal that has not been adopted in x number of days. > That should be unacceptable, but there are too few of us to change the > city's policy. Not necessarily that there are too few of you, but that there are too many unwanted pets pouring into the shelters. And, sadly, more than ever pouring into (or attempting to, anyway) the so-called "no-kill" shelters. People are assuming these private shelters are a safe haven for their throwaway pets. Sharon Talbert Friends of Campus Cats > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > I respect the work that the "no-kill" shelters do, but I have zero > respect for those who look down their nose on the shelters who do > euthanise when there are no alternatives. Not to be argumentative, but I have zero respect for many shelters, including many kill facilities, in particular, our local public shelter, which claims it is striving to become a no-kill facility. This group is not striving to become anything, except more burocratic(spelling?). The head of this facility actually works to NOT get the animals adopted. I am not the only rescue person who has made this comment. It is sickening the number of animals that this place (and others, I am sure) kills in one day because of the idiotic ideas: 1. Not enough space. I have walked in there several days when they claimed on their reports they did not have space -- 15 unused cages in adoption (accounting for cages that are vacant when an animal is seeing the vet). 8 unused cages in stray-wait/lost-and-found. This is the most pathetic and inexcusable excuse. 2. Too many inappropriate judgements about nonrehabable temper. Someone with no training goes in and sticks a pen in the cats faces to see what their reaction is -- a stranger sticks a pen in my face and I am going to spit or hiss or swat or what have you, and I am not even a cat. Inappropriate procedures carried out by an unqualified employee. 3. The killing of supposedly unadoptable cats who would actually be adoptable. How do they kill the animals, anyway? They won't tell me, or anyone else I have spoken with. Do they do a heart stick? Do they sedate the animal first? How well are the vet assistants trained? Is this their first job? Who actually screened this person's background and personality to make sure someone does not get a job there just for the joy of kiling an innocent cat, dog, rabbit, or whatever? 4. The person who runs the shelter tells me that I cannot be in line to adopt a 17 year old Siamese if the rescue groups are full -- they would rather "euthanize" (they really like to use that word) her instead of "playing games" with me and letting me adopt her if the rescue group is full or only wants kittens. 5. The person who runs the shelter looks at me and asks me why I want to adopt an old animal, an animal with fe leuk, a handicapped animal, a supposedly nonrehabable animal, instead of one of the perfectly healthy cats that they have "in the next building". What can I say -- if I choke her they will never let me back on the facility grounds (maybe I should, the animals would be better off without her). I have been around long enough to realize that killiing excess pets is unavoidably necessary, and in some cases it is better than letting them wander the street to suffer persecution and abuse by disturbed members of the public at large, etc, etc. BUT -- My rage comes because the facility is not run well, they actively try to NOT adopt the animals, especially the cats, and when I do adopt an animal from there they loose the paperwork, claim that they need to neuter a male who had been previsouly neutered (I talked to the vet who did it and had the papers faxed to me); don'f follow their own policy about making special arrangements to pickup an animal when I have to work late; they take a kitten who spilled her water all over herself, do not dry her off, and put her in a cage where the cold air conditioning will blow on her and she has no box to hide in; they don't tell you that when you try to adopt a cat who has been cleared for the adoption building that you must specifically tell them beforehand that you will accept a cat with fe leuk. They killed the sweet, sociable, adoptable-temperamented cat without even asking if I wanted him if he had fe leuk. It did not occur to me to ask about this or reject him because he had fe leuk - after all he had been cleared for adoption. I could go on for days on this subject. Killing excess pets because there are no other alternatives is one thing, but this situation is made so much worse and so much more tragic when the facility it not run well and the animals are the ones who pay the price for human stupidity, power games and inefficiency; and it is made so much more pathetic and down right mean, hateful and cowardly when they insist on using the word "euthanize" when an animal is NOT injured, in mental distress, old, or too sick. They should at least live up to the distinction between the words, and use "kill" when destroying excess pets just because they are excess pets. And that is just the local facility -- what about the one in your town? The one two counties over? In the next state? Disorganization and corruption are no reasons for the murder of innocents. Michelle A. "The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The question is not can they REASON, nor can they TALK, but can they SUFFER?" -- Jeremy Bentham >> I respect the work that the "no-kill" shelters do, but I have zero >> respect for those who look down their nose on the shelters who do [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] >The question is not can they REASON, nor can they TALK, but can they SUFFER?" >-- Jeremy Bentham You make some very good points here. I have had to do business with many organizations who employ incompetent people. Some of them seem to have a goal of taking a good idea and proving that it can not work. It is even worse when the organization is a non-profit. It is worse still when peole and/or animals are hurt by the incompetence. When I was first starting out in the business world, I would have advised you to talk to the shelter director. You could find out why the decisions were made and ask them to make the changes that you suggested to make things better. After years of doing just that, I have found it too often totally ineffective. I have come to believe that most organizations that are incompetent are not going to change. This is because it starts at the top and filters down. Even if the person on top is not a bad business person, themselves, they employ bad people and then don't independently check up on them. There is little that anyone can do about these situations and it is frustrating. I wish I had something helpful to say, but this is a common, but terrible situation. The only way this is going to change is if enough of us band together to make it change. Good luck ever seeing that happen. > It is sickening the number of animals that this place (and others, I am sure) > kills in one day because of the idiotic ideas: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unused cages in stray-wait/lost-and-found. This is the most pathetic and > inexcusable excuse. Most shelters are petrified of bad press. If this is the case (and please be sure they're claiming to be euthing for space while these cages are open and the numbers aren't coming from another time of year when it might be valid, if sad), bring it to the attention of the local news. > 2. Too many inappropriate judgements about nonrehabable temper. Someone with > no training goes in and sticks a pen in the cats faces to see what their > reaction is -- a stranger sticks a pen in my face and I am going to spit or > hiss or swat or what have you, and I am not even a cat. Inappropriate > procedures carried out by an unqualified employee. Are you sure this is an untrained person? Is this the only time the employee has dealt with this specific animal? Are the employees basing their opinion or decisions on -other- employee's dealings with this specific animal? We've developed a feline behavior consultant, who takes calls on various behavioral issues and now does most of the running of the feral program (so even those wildly aggressive ferals can find homes - or barns - outside of the city limits, and the rehab-able "ferals" can be worked with by feral volunteers and eventually placed in sometimes indoor only homes, sometimes indoor-outdoor homes). > 3. The killing of supposedly unadoptable cats who would actually be adoptable. > How do they kill the animals, anyway? They won't tell me, or anyone else I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > someone does not get a job there just for the joy of kiling an innocent cat, > dog, rabbit, or whatever? Wisconsin requires certification to actually perform the euthanasia. With aggressive animals (or sometimes just unmanageable), they're given intramuscular premix. It isn't the prettiest thing, but if we could handle them safely, they'd likely be up for adoption. If they're handleable, it's a simple IV injection. Staff does not get certified without having been employed at the shelter for a significant length of time (I was there for six months), and the director of animal care is very choosy about who goes up for it (let's just say that there is at least one employee who is entirely unsuited for euthanasia or for supervisor-ship, and she'll never be up for it). > 4. The person who runs the shelter tells me that I cannot be in line to adopt > a 17 year old Siamese if the rescue groups are full -- they would rather > "euthanize" (they really like to use that word) her instead of "playing games" > with me and letting me adopt her if the rescue group is full or only wants > kittens. Again, try the media. Public outcry and anger may accomplish what you cannot on your own. > 5. The person who runs the shelter looks at me and asks me why I want to adopt > an old animal, an animal with fe leuk, a handicapped animal, a supposedly [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Disorganization and corruption are no reasons for the murder of innocents. Please catalog these offenses as well as you can and take it to the media in your area. If this is a humane society, please contact American Humane. If they have a board of directors, please contact them. Shelters that do the things you describe give every other shelter a terrible reputation. I don't know how you came by this information about no-kills but mine says something different. When the no-kills have space here is what I know about. No-kills accept cats from other shelters (thus eliminating your cream of the crop theory) to spear them from euthenasia. No-kills have fostering programs so when they are filled to capacity some of the cats are taken into private homes to be fostered. No-kills have accepted cats from other areas besides their own. I know this to be true because one of them did take in a cat that I rescued and I was in a different city. No-kills mean exactly that. They do not kill and will do everything they can to find a cat a good and loving home. I find it interesting that you state how experienced you are but totally give mis-information when it comes to no-kill shelters. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com "Sharon Talbert" <stalbert@u.washington.edu> wrote in message > > The alternative for some "no-kills" I know about: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >I don't know how you came by this information about no-kills but mine says >something different. When the no-kills have space here is what I know about. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I find it interesting that you state how experienced you are but totally >give mis-information when it comes to no-kill shelters. Cat Protector neglected to answer some questions and concerns that I had about a previous post before repeating some of the same statements that I questioned a few days ago. It was implied that only no-kill shelters have true concern for animals. That is totally untrue and insulting to the dedicated people who work and volunteer there. I again ask you "What do think we should do with animals that are too dangerous to be adopted, or even fostered when all the behavior specialists say there is no hope for rehabilitation? What would you do with a dog that has killed other dogs, bit multiple people over a period of time, and has now severly injured a child. Do you want to foster a pit bull that has been trained to kill and is out of control?" You have the right to say anything that you want to here, but I would ask you to be more honest and to reply to the questions that I asked before. What is done with out-of-control animals who are dangerous? What about ones who are dying and in pain? You say they are never euthanised, but I cannot believe that is the truth. Does anyone believe there are enough no-kill shelters with unlimited funds who can take in every animal that is offered to them or find them another shelter or foster? The no-kills in my area certainly don't have that luxury. How is my saying I support no-kill shelters insulting to them? I don't get it. As for animals being too dangerous to be adopted, I am not sure if that is possible since I believe most if not all animals can be rehabilitated. Animal Cops which was a show on Animal Planet showed that they can. I don't believe those animal behaviorists who say there is no hope. There is always hope. BTW, I wish you would not put words in my mouth. I never said dangerous animals aren't euthanized. In fact I never even mentioned dangerous animals. This whole thread has been those who euthanize vs those that don't. I don't believe in the practice. The only time a cat should be put to sleep is when they are in so much pain for them due to illness that it would be very hard for them to go on. The animal I also believes chooses the time they wish to leave this plane just as we humans do. It is called free will and free choice. As for unlimited funds for no-kill shelters, most rely on donations and some also go to great lengths to foster. You seem to have this vision that no-kills are false and are not as good as those that euthanize. That is pure hogwash in my book. No-kills mean just that. They do not kill. I think every shelter should be no-kill. At least then every cat could have a place to go and have double the chance of getting adopted. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > Cat Protector neglected to answer some questions and concerns that I > had about a previous post before repeating some of the same statements [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- Just curious if anyone happened to see the HBO special called "Shelter Dogs"? W How is my saying I support no-kill shelters insulting to them? I don't get it. As for animals being too dangerous to be adopted, I am not sure if that is possible since I believe most if not all animals can be rehabilitated. Animal Cops which was a show on Animal Planet showed that they can. I don't believe those animal behaviorists who say there is no hope. There is always hope. BTW, I wish you would not put words in my mouth. I never said dangerous animals aren't euthanized. In fact I never even mentioned dangerous animals. This whole thread has been those who euthanize vs those that don't. I don't believe in the practice. The only time a cat should be put to sleep is when they are in so much pain for them due to illness that it would be very hard for them to go on. The animal I also believes chooses the time they wish to leave this plane just as we humans do. It is called free will and free choice. As for unlimited funds for no-kill shelters, most rely on donations and some also go to great lengths to foster. You seem to have this vision that no-kills are false and are not as good as those that euthanize. That is pure hogwash in my book. No-kills mean just that. They do not kill. I think every shelter should be no-kill. At least then every cat could have a place to go and have double the chance of getting adopted. -- Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > Cat Protector neglected to answer some questions and concerns that I > had about a previous post before repeating some of the same statements [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > As for animals being too dangerous to be adopted, I am not sure if that > is possible since I believe most if not all animals can be rehabilitated. > Animal Cops which was a show on Animal Planet showed that they can. Animal Cops has had sadness and overly aggressive animals as well as specific-aggressive animals that have been successfully worked with and adopted out. This is aggression related to food, or toys, or rawhides. SPCAs and humane societies are not in the business of putting human-aggressive or severely dog aggressive animals into public homes. Besides that, we certainly do not see every single case that comes across the humane officers' desks, and as it's on Animal Planet, they're -going- to focus more on the cases that have positive endings with very little focus on animals that are euthanized for behavioral issues. There are laws in some cities, probably some states, that prohibit certain breeds (Animal Cops, specifically, because the officers mention that Detroit doesn't allow pit bulls, iirc). Not all of these animals can be sent to other facilities. >I don't > believe those animal behaviorists who say there is no hope. There is always > hope. You never met the german shepherd that lunged whenever someone walked by his cage... or looked in the window. You never met the pit bull that tried to go through the fence to get to another dog. > I think every > shelter should be no-kill. At least then every cat could have a place to go > and have double the chance of getting adopted. How does that work, exactly? I live in a minor metropolitan area. If we use every cage in our building and reach max capacity for the multiple rooms, right now that only gives us... just shy of room for 200 cats. Once kitten season starts, we have nowhere near enough space. We have room for approximately 100 cats in foster care... and once we're into kitten season, we still have nowhere near enough space. If we held every incoming cat until they were adopted, that means we would take in no surrenders (because by law, we have to take in strays and hold them for seven days, but this would also mean none of the strays could possibly be euthanized)... which means that animals would be dumped on the side of the road to be hit by cars, contract disease, get into various poisons, get attacked by wild animals or stray dogs, and potentially otherwise suffer a horrible fate. If you want this dream of no-kill shelters badly enough, then turn your house into one, take in strays off the street, take in the cats with litterbox problems from botched declaws, take in the hyperthyroids and the renal failure cats, take in the ringworm positives, take in the cats that attack other cats on sight, take in the ferals and the calici cats and the chronic upper respiratory cats. (snip) > take in strays off the street, take in the cats with litterbox > problems from botched declaws, take in the hyperthyroids and the renal > failure cats, take in the ringworm positives, take in the cats that > attack other cats on sight, take in the ferals and the calici cats and > the chronic upper respiratory cats. Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying the conditions you describe above make killing these cats justifiable? Kill cats because they're strays? Because of improper elimination? Mananageable or treatable health problems, like hyperthyroidism, ringworm, URI? Why do you list ferals in there between DISEASES? > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > treatable health problems, like hyperthyroidism, ringworm, URI? Why do > you list ferals in there between DISEASES? In a shelter that's overrun with cats and does euthanize, it's the cats with obvious and/or chronic issues that are often the first to be put down. We see a lot of litterbox problem cats where the owner has made no attempt to change the situation or find a solution; every now and then, the owner legitimately has tried everything possible for them (going to the vet, changing litterbox location, changing litter, bigger boxes, not using liners, getting rid of covers, adding boxes, using Feliway, what have you) and nothing has worked; these animals are generally put down. Many shelters euthanize for positive ringworm cultures because it's highly contagious and unsightly to the public and a horror to cure; we used to, we bought and converted a trailer to treat these animals now, and dozens have gone out and come back in after three negative cultures. Many shelters euthanize ferals because they don't have the resources (in personnel, volunteers, or experience) to deal with them; we have a program to which our incoming ferals go, where trained volunteers work with them, and eventually they are vaccinated, altered, tested, and find homes, indoor or outdoor as their personality allows. My point was that Cat Protector gives no indication of fostering these sorts of animals himself. It sounds as though he volunteers at a no-kill shelter, and however much those animals need socialization, he can preach no-kill until he's lost his voice, but if he's not fostering special needs animals himself, he's preaching out his a.s. Everyone who works or volunteers at a shelter dreams of the day when people will wake up and spay and neuter and keep their pets indoors (or at least come and claim them when HO picks them up, for pete's sake). Until overpopulation isn't a problem anymore, however, some shelters will have no choice but to euthanise, and it's generally the animals in the above list that go first. No one enjoys it, it's never easy. But it's still necessary. Ringworm may be contagious but it is treatable. Why destroy a cat simply because of that. You say many shelters euthanize due to positive tests but are you including the no-kills in saying that or just the ones that euthanize? As for ferals there are some shelters which actually test, vaccinate, spay/neuter, and then release. The ones that can be adopted are often worked with and rehabilitated because they often were borderline feral. As for special needs animals that are FELV or FIV positive, I would be happy to foster them but my two cats are what is deemed as healthy (I am not saying this to be high and mighty but this is how shelter and rescue workers see cats without the illness). FELV and FIV positive cats can't be mixed with already healthy cats but they can live with other cats who have the ailment. I use this as an example because I have no idea what you consider special needs cats. As for the need to euthanize there is no need to do it unless the animal is so hurt and in pain that they can't be treated medically. As for spay/neuter and the whole overpopulation program there are still going to be people out there who fail to get the message. But I think the key to winning the battle is through constant education. I know on the adoption end at some shelters you can't adopt a cat unless they are spayed or neutered. When I adopted my cat Isis they would not allow me to take her home until this was done. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > In a shelter that's overrun with cats and does euthanize, it's the cats with > obvious and/or chronic issues that are often the first to be put down. We [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > animals in the above list that go first. No one enjoys it, it's never easy. > But it's still necessary. > Ringworm may be contagious but it is treatable. Why destroy a cat simply > because of that. You say many shelters euthanize due to positive tests but > are you including the no-kills in saying that or just the ones that > euthanize? If they're truly "no kill," they wouldn't be euthanising for ANY reason... including for mercy reasons, for poor health or whatnot. If they're not euthing aggressive animals, they shouldn't be euthing ringworm positives. I was personally referring to shelters that admit to euthanasia, or have policies in place about ringworm positive animals. > As for ferals there are some shelters which actually test, > vaccinate, spay/neuter, and then release. The ones that can be adopted are > often worked with and rehabilitated because they often were borderline > feral. Yes. You might have noticed that I said my shelter does exactly that. And I quote: "Many shelters euthanize ferals because they don't have the resources (in personnel, volunteers, or experience) to deal with them; we [my shelter] have a program to which our incoming ferals go, where trained volunteers work with them, and eventually they are vaccinated, altered, tested, and find homes, indoor or outdoor as their personality allows." > As for special needs animals that are FELV or FIV positive, I would be happy > to foster them but my two cats are what is deemed as healthy (I am not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unless the animal is so hurt and in pain that they can't be treated > medically. Special needs: epileptic, diabetic, early stage renal disease, early stage hepatic lipidosis, FIV+, FeLV+, ringworm+, IBD, semi-feral (only in need of socialization, really)... though half a dozen other personality or behavioral issues could likely qualify for 'special needs.' If you have a bathroom or a bedroom with a secure door, CP, then you have the capability to foster FIV or FeLV+ cats, along with any other special needs animal. I'm sure you're quite aware that neither disease is passed by one cat breathing in another cat's direction. I have a pair of brown tabbies in my bathroom, for example. One of them has an ulcerated eye and would, at the shelter, literally lie in her own urine out of fear. She wouldn't eat unless food and water were put directly in front of her. In my bathroom, I can hear her brother playing with a jingle-toy, and she came out to use her litterbox and then get attention during only her second day. This weekend, they're getting moved into the bedroom so that I can take two semi-feral kittens with URI that will need medication at least twice daily plus very necessary socialization. I didn't like the idea of a cat peeing all over my bathroom, but I gave her a second chance, and she'll get adopted if I have to keep her in foster care until someone expresses interest or she can get an office or a place at a satellite multiple cat center. If she had continued to lie in her own urine and never move and never eat, she would have been euthanised. It wouldn't have been for any physical illness, but for the mental deterioration. > As for spay/neuter and the whole overpopulation program there are still > going to be people out there who fail to get the message. But I think the > key to winning the battle is through constant education. I know on the > adoption end at some shelters you can't adopt a cat unless they are spayed > or neutered. When I adopted my cat Isis they would not allow me to take her > home until this was done. ALL of our animals are altered before they go home. This includes rabbits, and some of the local vet students are also neutering rats for us. We offer decreased redemption fees (or in some cases, waive the fees altogether) if the owner will allow us to alter their pet if they cannot afford the redemption fee on its own. It's been suggested that when people give up litters of kittens, we offer to spay the mother and waive the surrender fee. It -does- all come down to education, but how much educating is getting done when it's just arguing back and forth and there's never any agreement? You have yet to meet my cat Isis. She knows how to open doors or I'd foster the special needs cats. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > Special needs: epileptic, diabetic, early stage renal disease, early stage > hepatic lipidosis, FIV+, FeLV+, ringworm+, IBD, semi-feral (only in need of [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > It -does- all come down to education, but how much educating is getting done > when it's just arguing back and forth and there's never any agreement? >You have yet to meet my cat Isis. She knows how to open doors or I'd foster >the special needs cats. I hesitate to interject in this, lest I be accused of trying to hasle you, but.... For under $100, you can have a "handyman" install childproof locks on every door in your house. For a LOT less, you can do it yourself. I've seen your web site, you are a resourcefull person and I'm certain you could handle this task. That is a compliment. Did you ever stop to think I might live in an apartment? You have to get special permission for changes like that. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > I hesitate to interject in this, lest I be accused of trying to hasle > you, but.... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >Did you ever stop to think I might live in an apartment? You have to get >special permission for changes like that. My suggestion was simply in case you had not considered that option. Many people would not have thought of it. I don't think your hostle response was appropriate. Even though you and I have a strong disagreement on another thread, I was trying to be nice. Just curious...DO you live in an apartment and if so, has the apartment manager refused to let you put childproofing on the doors? Also, there is childproofing that can be done without any permanent modification of the door so no manager is going to deny that type of device. I think I am just going to killfile you. It seems that posts after post you want to know every bit of people's lives. So just drop this already. This is beating a dead horse. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > My suggestion was simply in case you had not considered that option. > Many people would not have thought of it. I don't think your hostle [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >I think I am just going to killfile you. It seems that posts after post you >want to know every bit of people's lives. So just drop this already. This is >beating a dead horse. Here we go again, why can't you discuss issues honestly? I will be very short and to the point here...That is a total, bare faced lie. You stated the reason why you couldn't do what you say is the right thing to do, I offered a suggestion for overcoming the problem, you changed the subject and were nasty, I offered a suggestion of how to overcome the new reason that you just added, you say that is butting in. Post any quote by me that proves that I "want to know every bit of people's lives" as you say. In this case, I ONLY countered your excuse for talking the talk and refusing to walk the walk. In another discussion with you I asked if you had any real experience with what you were expousing or was it just theory and you danced around the issue several times before giving an extremely vague answer. >You have yet to meet my cat Isis. She knows how to open doors or I'd foster >the special needs cats. Oh, CP, come on. You could buy a latch for the door. You could foster a special needs cat who isn't contagious and integrate him/her with the other cats. If you're really willing to foster, there's a way. >How is my saying I support no-kill shelters insulting to them? I don't get >it. I said that you are implying that ONLY people in the "no-kill" shelters care about animals and that those in "kill" shelters care little about animals. You also imply that "no-kill" have foster programs and the "kill" shelter do not. Both these statements are totally untrue and that is what I said is insulting. You also stated "It takes more guts for them to work there than those who work at shelters who just kill off the animals to save space." That is a direct quote. How is it any more noble to work in one kind of shelter than the other? Aren't both doing the best they can to help animals? That is another part of what I felt was insulting to those in shelters that do euthanise when necessary. >As for animals being too dangerous to be adopted, I am not sure if that >is possible since I believe most if not all animals can be rehabilitated. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >dangerous animals aren't euthanized. In fact I never even mentioned >dangerous animals. I have seen the television program that you referred to. I can't watch it too often because it is so depressing to see what horrible things that humans sometimes do. Even on the show, animals sometimes need to be euthanised. I would bet that a much higher percentage of the animals in those cities suffer a fate much worse than that program shows. They are probably sparing us because it is so sad. In one of the cities shown, they euthanise 100% of the pit bulls that they get in. >This whole thread has been those who euthanize vs those >that don't. I have spent so much energy on your posts because you have implied that everything and everyone at no-kill shelters is good and everything and everyone at the other kind is bad. Thus my statement that you insulted those dedicated people at the other shelters. Those of us who support euthanasia, when necessary, hate it with a passion. It sometimes makes me cry to even think of it and not much does that. It is a fact of life that it is sometimes better than the alternatives. That is reality. I wish, as you do, that it were never necessary. As long as it is the (much) lesser of the two evils, I support it when necessary. >I don't believe in the practice. The only time a cat should be >put to sleep is when they are in so much pain for them due to illness that >it would be very hard for them to go on. The animal I also believes chooses >the time they wish to leave this plane just as we humans do. It is called >free will and free choice. That confuses me, do you mean that they simply die when it is their time? We all know examples of an animal suffering in pain when there is no hope left. Yes, they eventually die, but why prolong the suffering when the quality of life is gone? Simply so we can say "I didn't do it, God or nature or whatever you believe in, did it?" >As for unlimited funds for no-kill shelters, most rely on donations and some >also go to great lengths to foster. You seem to have this vision that >no-kills are false and are not as good as those that euthanize. That is pure >hogwash in my book. If that were what I believe, it would be hogwash. I know that all private shelters have too little funds to do their job. They BOTH go to great lengths to foster, not JUST the no-kills. That is another example of something that I find insulting to those of us who support the other shelters. I respect both kinds equally. I can not respect either of them telling lies and half truths to hide reality. >No-kills mean just that. They do not kill. I think every >shelter should be no-kill. At least then every cat could have a place to go >and have double the chance of getting adopted. We are now back to the terminally ill and in pain. Euthanise or wait for a painfull, drawn out death. Which is worse? I am the one mentioning dangerous animals. That is because I believe that some should be euthanized. Which dangerous animals should be rehabilitated? I will admit that many animals can be rehabilitated with many hundreds of hours of work. Does it make sense to rehabilitate one pit bull by spending many hundreds of hours with it? There are scores of other animals that would take relatively little time to rehabilitate. Most shelters have a limited number of person-hours and money to spend on all the animals. Which makes more sense, many hundreds of hours on one animal or several hours on hundreds of animals? What do they do with those that are too time consuming to rehabilitate? What would they do with an animal that has a long history of unprovoked attacks on humans and has just torn a little child to pieces with zero provocation? LetÂ’s say that you were the director of a "no-kill" shelter. You just accepted the above animal. You are now above 100% capacity as determined by your space, financing, and government silences. You are understaffed because you have only enough funds to care for the animals that you already have. All fund raising sources and volunteer program are already at maximum, there are no more "patrons" to call on. Your foster program is totally full with many animals on the waiting list. There are no other shelters with space available. You have twenty animals that need rehabilitation at an average of 100 person-hours each. You can allocate ten person-hours per week on rehabilitation. The government has told you that if you add one more animal to your home or shelter that you will be fined 10 Euros or 10 USD for each animal for every day that you have them. That same threat applies to each of your foster people. Now, what do you do with that animal that your experts all agree will take 1000 person-hours to rehabilitate, at the very least? They also tell you that they will not guarantee the animal will ever be safe. It certainly can't be trusted with children so it will never be safe off a leash. Do you keep this animal in a cage for a year to wait its turn in the rehab program? That certainly is inhumane and the animal will certainly go kennel crazy if you tried that. Do you put this animal at the front of the line in rehab, thus delaying all the other animal's turns? After you make that decision, you find a client at your door with five animals that he can't take care of any more because they have parvo and he doesn't want to waste his hard earned money on a vet. Besides, parvo is deadly and very contagious. Remember, you have no space, NONE, there are no other shelters, there is no more foster care available and you can not take the animals home. What would you do in this example? This is what both kinds of shelters face every day. They both deserve respect. Are you trying to start a flame war or something? I didn't imply anything but I am saying I support no-kills which seems to be a crime in your book. So I stated that it takes more guts to work in a no-kill than one that does. It is easy to euthanize to make space but it takes a truly caring place to go the distance by keeping the cat alive and giving them a huge chance to find a good and loving home. You seem to have this noble vision that kill shelters are better than no-kills and that the no-kills really don't do much to help the cats. You are wrong on that one. No matter what words you want to put in my mouth by implying this and implying that, shelters do not need to euthanize. If an animal is pain and suffering with no hope of making it that is one thing. But I do believe in saving feline lives here so simply saying it is ok to euthanize to save space is pretty disgusting. The Humane Society here in Phoenix is one such organization that euthanizes cats to save space. On the other side of the coin they have what is called the "New Hope" program which tries to get cats up for adoption to other shelters which are no-kill. I still don't support their euthanizing animals though. It is my hope that so many people adopt cats from the Humane Society that they'll consider going no-kill. Maricopa County Animal Control here in the Phoenix Area is trying to move towards no-kill but they recently have had a changing of the guard over there so let's hope that person doesn't go backwards. As for your private shelter scenario of donations that is somewhat of a falsehood. Some actually get federal assistance and grants from private businesses. The Humane Society is one such sheleter that receives more aide than a lot of shelters including the no-kills. They also have a Public Relations Department and have the advertising muscle that a lot of no-kills don't. Yes, a lot of the people there at the Humane Society are paid while no-kills often rely on volunteers. No-kills will always have my respect because of how hard they work to give a cat a second chance at life. As for what I would do if I was a director of an animal shelter, what would I do if I was full up? That's easy, I'd foster the animals and wouldn't be afraid to ask for help. As for rehab of an animal who you claim has just torn a little child to pieces which wasn't provoked. I have this feeling you think children are innocent and would never provoke an animal to attack. 9 times out of 10 the child probably did something to provoke the animal like pulling their tail, chasing them, or teasing them. Should the animal be put to sleep? Hell no! They should be rehabilitated. With all your support for euthanasia I bet you also believe in declawing cats right? I don't support the practice myself and believe every cat should keep their claws. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > I said that you are implying that ONLY people in the "no-kill" > shelters care about animals and that those in "kill" shelters care [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > So I stated that it takes more guts to work in a no-kill than one that does. > It is easy to euthanize to make space No. It's not. Perhaps it would be for you, but for the rest of thinking and feeling humanity, it's a terrible part of the job. > but it takes a truly caring place to > go the distance by keeping the cat alive and giving them a huge chance to > find a good and loving home. > As for rehab of an animal who you claim has just > torn a little child to pieces which wasn't provoked. I have this feeling you > think children are innocent and would never provoke an animal to attack. 9 > times out of 10 the child probably did something to provoke the animal like > pulling their tail, chasing them, or teasing them. Should the animal be put > to sleep? Hell no! They should be rehabilitated. Children should never be left unattended with an animal, period. Granted, many of the little buggers don't pay attention to the warnings of adults and often deserve the nips and scratches they get. Yes, in some situations it's as easy as "don't have kids, feed the dog in a separate room, and don't touch the dish until he's done." But despite what you seem to think, there -are- dogs that are trained to attack with little or no provocation. There -are- dogs that will redirect their aggression at the owner that happens to walk by and pat Fuzzy at just the wrong moment. Dogs displaying that sort of behavior are often complained about to the authorities, and sometimes taken from owners who don't care about the safety of their neighbors. In some places, severe bites require euthanasia by law as the animal is considered a danger to the public (or the three strikes rule). > With all your support for euthanasia I bet you also believe in declawing > cats right? I don't support the practice myself and believe every cat should > keep their claws. That doesn't deserve a response. Assume away, CP, but in this case, what they say about assumption only applies to you. Come on Kalyahna, everything you have said has supported euthanasia as a means to save space. I am against it so you aren't going to change my mind. As for declawing you say that it doesn't deserve a response so one can gather you support it and just don't want to say so publically. I am against it myself. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > > So I stated that it takes more guts to work in a no-kill than one that > does. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > That doesn't deserve a response. Assume away, CP, but in this case, what > they say about assumption only applies to you. > Come on Kalyahna, everything you have said has supported euthanasia as a > means to save space. I am against it so you aren't going to change my mind. > As for declawing you say that it doesn't deserve a response so one can > gather you support it and just don't want to say so publically. I am against > it myself. We can agree to disagree on euthanasia, CP, unless you start claiming again that no-kill workers care more and work harder than those who work for shelters that euthanise. As for declawing? I left it out for the same reason as Fan did. It has no relevance to the discussion of euthanasia. Still, you gathered wrong. If you read posts beyond those in which you participate, you'd have learned months ago that I've become emphatically anti-declaw. >Are you trying to start a flame war or something? Absolutely not, but I cannot let some of these false statements go, especially the ones that say the people at the regular shelters are somehow less than the ones at the no-kill shelters. That is the same thing I said in my last post. My concerns are not personal, they are simply because of those statements. Actually, I visited your web site and have to say that I was impressed with what I read of you and your ideals. > I didn't imply anything >but I am saying I support no-kills which seems to be a crime in your book. I respect the people at no-kill shelters also. I just don't respect them any more than I respect the others. I'm sorry that I cannot agree that you implied nothing. >So I stated that it takes more guts to work in a no-kill than one that does. >It is easy to euthanize to make space but it takes a truly caring place to >go the distance by keeping the cat alive and giving them a huge chance to >find a good and loving home. That is one point that we disagree on very stongly, it does not take MORE guts to work in one kind of shelter than the other. They are both very difficult to handle, emotionally. By stating that only one kind of shelter is "truely caring" you imply that the people at the other kind shelters are not truely caring. This could not be further from the truth for most private shelters. >You seem to have this noble vision that kill >shelters are better than no-kills and that the no-kills really don't do much >to help the cats. You are wrong on that one. If you read my statements, you will see that I VERY clearly state that both are equal in their nobility. NO difference in most private shelters that I have seen. Granted, that is an extremely small percentage of those around the world and it does NOT apply to government owned shelters. >No matter what words you want to put in my mouth by implying this and >implying that, I have attempted to be very fair and to use direct quotes from you when appropriate. There were many more direct quotes, but that makes a long answer even longer. >shelters do not need to euthanize. If an animal is pain and >suffering with no hope of making it that is one thing. By my definition, that is euthanizing. Is part of the problem that our definitions of the term are quite different? >But I do believe in >saving feline lives here so simply saying it is ok to euthanize to save >space is pretty disgusting. The Humane Society here in Phoenix is one such >organization that euthanizes cats to save space. I agree with you 100%. As I have asked you, several times, and you have not answered...what do you do when you and your fosters and the other shelters are completely out of room? By the way, my statements apply to dogs and other animals also, not just cats. >On the other side of the >coin they have what is called the "New Hope" program which tries to get cats >up for adoption to other shelters which are no-kill. The shelter that I volunteer at has an agressive adoption program. We can not give animals to any local no-kill shelters because they are always full and they have enough "intakes" to keep them full. We anticipate that will not change in the next few years. >I still don't support >their euthanizing animals though. It is my hope that so many people adopt >cats from the Humane Society that they'll consider going no-kill. Maricopa >County Animal Control here in the Phoenix Area is trying to move towards >no-kill but they recently have had a changing of the guard over there so >let's hope that person doesn't go backwards. Again, we agree 100% on that. I have repeatedly stated that I hate euthanasia, but it is sometimes the better of the alternatives. Most, if not all the people associated with my shelter agree with that. Let me be perfectly clear, AGAIN; "NO ONE WANTS TO EUTHANISE", but it is a necessary evil in some cases. >As for your private shelter scenario of donations that is somewhat of a >falsehood. Some actually get federal assistance and grants from private >businesses. How are grants and donations different? I consider then the same. There are some federal grants out there, but they are very difficult to get because of the competition. >The Humane Society is one such sheleter that receives more aide >than a lot of shelters including the no-kills. They also have a Public >Relations Department and have the advertising muscle that a lot of no-kills >don't. Yes, a lot of the people there at the Humane Society are paid while >no-kills often rely on volunteers. No-kills will always have my respect >because of how hard they work to give a cat a second chance at life. My shelter gets donations from private businesses and individuals. We also get donations of food, medication, supplies, etc. from their manufacturers. We don't get regular government money, but we do get some grants and some funds from individual governments to pay for services to those governments. We accept animals from these government agencies because they do not have their own shelter and we are paid for that. We have employees that do PR and advertising and building maintenace and repairs, etc. That is because we are large enough to support that financially. We also have a large volunteer program. We receive several thousands of animals per year and that takes a lot of person power to do. The no-kills in this area are much smaller and have fewer employees, but why is that important? What is your point, I don't understand? Do you see anything wrong with us having someone to do PR and advertising? That same person also arranges special events and does several other tasks. >As for what I would do if I was a director of an animal shelter, what would >I do if I was full up? That's easy, I'd foster the animals and wouldn't be >afraid to ask for help. In this senario, it was stated that there is no more room in the foster program so your answer is not a solution. This is an important point, because it really does happen. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, it is just that if one were to eliminate negative aspects of the problem, there would no longer be a problem. Cat Protector, please answer the senario as it was stated. Feel free to tell us why you feel the way you do about your answer. My goal here is to help everyone understand the facts of the situation. That is difficult because of the emotional aspects of it, but it is necessary to truely understand. We are all, no-kill and regular shelters, in a money and resource crunch. Unless you have a solution to that, these situations will come up. What practical choice is there when all the resources are expended? >As for rehab of an animal who you claim has just >torn a little child to pieces which wasn't provoked. I have this feeling you >think children are innocent and would never provoke an animal to attack. 9 >times out of 10 the child probably did something to provoke the animal like >pulling their tail, chasing them, or teasing them. Should the animal be put >to sleep? Hell no! They should be rehabilitated. Yes, children can be even worse than adults and the adults can be pretty bad. Yesterday, a child was poking at and teasing a dog until I discovered what was happening and put an end to it. His father just stood there yelling at the dog. Idiots. I have denied adoption to a few people whom I felt would be bad pet owners. I have also denied adoption of specific animals to specific people. Those are often because of a mismatch involving children. Ask the rehabilitation people if they would spend hundreds of hours on an animal that had bit multiple people over the years. How many of these animals will they work with at one time? Will you find funding to have us ship those animals to these people? I am willing to commit to making the arrangements for this to happen if you find the people and the funds. You also did not answer my question about allocating all your resources to one animal to rehabilitate rather than several ones that were not as bad. Please answer that. It is much easier to talk about one animal every few months than about several hundred per year, as we have here. >With all your support for euthanasia I bet you also believe in declawing >cats right? I don't support the practice myself and believe every cat should >keep their claws. Now I have to repeat your question "Are you trying to start a flame war or something?" This issue is complex enough without bringing in a red herring like decalwing. That is for another discussion, as is the issue of letting cats outdoors, specific breeds, e.g. pit bulls, selective breeding, ferals, and other very contraversial issues. Absolutely no disrespect is ment by this question...Do you volunteer at a shelter? If so, tell us about how they handle the problems that we are discussing. If not, I suggest that you spend a few hundred hours in one to get a more practical view of things. Theory is great, practice is great, but both together are more than the sum of the parts. My views have changed since I have volunteered. There are things that I didn't realize at first. You will see that the "drop out" rate for volunteers is increadibly high. Part of that is because it is a very stressful job, emotionally. I believe that I am the senior member of the adoption volunteer group since I have made it through two years. That is quite unusual. I am going to have to say we have to agree to disagree. I for one don't like the practice of euthanasia unless there is no chance to save the animal medically. I don't see why a perfectly healthy animal has to be put down in the name of space. I hope that every cat has a chance for a good and loving home. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > > >Are you trying to start a flame war or something? [quoted text clipped - 194 lines] > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >I am going to have to say we have to agree to disagree. I for one don't like >the practice of euthanasia unless there is no chance to save the animal >medically. I don't see why a perfectly healthy animal has to be put down in >the name of space. I hope that every cat has a chance for a good and loving >home. CP, I detailed a lot of points in my last post on this subject that I asked you to answer. I believe that the answers to them are important, they were not simply reteric. With all due respect to you, you have failed to answer some of these questions that I have asked of you several times. When I asked how you would handle the really hard, but practical issues that we are facing at our shelter, you failed to answer. My reason for going into so much detail, and for pressing on this issue is that you said some very hurtfull things about people who work in the "kill" shelters. As one of those people, I felt insulted by those false statements and implications. That is why I'm making a big deal out of this. I readily admitted when you were correct, to do any less would be dishonest. You have had time to verify with your local shelters whether the statements that I disputed are correct or not. You owe it to us to either retract what you said, or to correct the statements that were wrong. Included in this is: 1. the implication that only people who work with "no-kill" truely care about the animals, 2. Only "no-kill" shelters have a foster program, 3. Only "no-kill" shelters have a strong volunteer program, 4. There is NEVER a reason to euthanize ANY animal, 5. It is practical and possible to rehabilite ALL animals and euthanizing any for behaviorial problems, no matter how severe, is NEVER warranted, Those who don't agree with are just lazy. 6. "no-kill" shelters never turn away animals because they are full. A lot of people read this newsgroup and they deserve to know the truth. As I said, I actually do volunteer at a shelter; I see the issues, it is not just theory to me. My knowledge on this is not just reading what people in the newsgroup say, I see it first hand. If you don't volunteer, will you at least spend a couple of hours calling your local private shelters to find the truth? I already answered them in a previous post. Why answer it again? I won't be pressed into retracting statements simply because you don't like them or because you didn't want to listen to someone else's answer. As for me not volunteering that is incorrect. I have been involved with rescue for several years in a more behind the scenes roll. If I didn't believe in the groups I supported I never would have developed relationships with them. I don't know how you could feel insulted by what I had to say? Not everyone is going to agree with your position. I feel you have misjudged me here. All I have said and I guess I must repeat is that I have a lot of respect for no-kills because they don't feel the need to destroy an animal in order to save space. I find it kind of hard to swallow that you feel I implied that I simply dismissed those who work in kill shelters but you certainly seemed to downplay those who work for no-kills which I find kind of insulting but I still must stand by my defense of those who work in no-kill shelters. You seemed to post that those who work in shelters that euthanize have a much tougher job than those who work in no-kills. I said you were wrong and posted my reasons. Now you seem hell bent on trying to beat an apology or a retraction out of me simply because I defended the no-kill workers. You also seem to want to put words in my mouth that I either never said or are twisting them. I give kudoes to anyone who helps to save our feline friends but I don't think euthanasia is the right course of action as you seem to infer it is. To euthanize to make additional space for incoming animals is wrong in my book. Every cat deserves the chance at a good and loving home. I am working hard to achieve that goal in my area. In fact I have even taken in rescues including one I adopted. My other cat was adopted from the Humane Society which is a shelter that euthanizes but they have put together some new programs and are now trying to work with other shelters in the Phoenix area to get animals adopted. As much as you have stated that I never answer your questions, I have. I'll state it clear again. I don't believe in euthanasia to make space for incoming animals. Fostering animals in your home, or partnering/networking with other shelters is the best route for not only rehabilitation but also increases chances for the animal to be adopted. Also animals would not have to be euthanized to save space. I have no idea what kind of shelter you are working at but it seems this may be something your directors may have missed. BTW, since you seem stuck on the medical issues there are groups out there that rescue cats with special needs especially if they are FELV and FIV positive. If you had done your homework you would see these are two fatal diseases in cats. Should these types of cats be put down because they have medical needs? Nope. In fact with correct treatment, they can live long and healthy lives. I don't know what else you really want me to say but I think you and I should just agree to disagree. Of course I posed a question to you about declawing but you seemed to have avoided it. But of course your attitude about avoiding it pretty much gave me it. A lot of people may have read this newsgroup, but last time I checked not everyone shared your opinion. Should they have to retract everything they say as well? In my opinion, I think everyone here has probably had a different opinion whether they volunteered at a shelter or not. As one user pointed out there are good shelters and bad ones. Luckily, I have gotten to know and work with the good ones but I have read and seen horror stories about the bad ones. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > CP, I detailed a lot of points in my last post on this subject that I > asked you to answer. I believe that the answers to them are important, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >I already answered them in a previous post. Why answer it again? Because you did not answer them, reread the posts. I even pointed out, in one of the answers, that you used a "solution" that was specifically not available. I asked you to give a solution that is viable. You did not reply. >I won't be >pressed into retracting statements simply because you don't like them or >because you didn't want to listen to someone else's answer. WHAT? I asked you to retract the ones that are incorrect AND hurtfull. An example is that workers and volunteers ONLY at the no-kill shelters care about their animals. >As for me not >volunteering that is incorrect. I have been involved with rescue for several >years in a more behind the scenes roll. If I didn't believe in the groups I >supported I never would have developed relationships with them. I applaud that, however this is the first time that you have said it. Each time I asked you if you had actual volunteer or work experience, you did not answer. Why didn't you say this before and why are you still being so vague about it? Are we talking about a couple of hours a year or at least 20 hours a year? >I don't know how you could feel insulted by what I had to say? Not everyone >is going to agree with your position. I feel you have misjudged me here. All >I have said and I guess I must repeat is that I have a lot of respect for >no-kills because they don't feel the need to destroy an animal in order to >save space. As do I. The difference is that I also have a lot of respect for those who work in all private shelters. As I have stated repeatedly, I think they are equally noble in their desire to help the animals. Do you think the ones in the no-kill shelter are more noble because it is a no-kill shelter or not? There is a classic line in a classic book, Animal Farm. The animals have revolted and they are now forming a society where all animals, including humans and non-humans, are entirely equal. Then the pigs state something like "All animals are equal, but pigs are more equal than other animals." Such reteric is clearly implying that one group is better than the other. Why don't you simply state "I respect the employees and volunteers who truly care for the animals?" You have repeatedly made it clear that you think those at no-kill shelters are automatically better than the ones at other private shelters. It is only that difference that I argue against. >I find it kind of hard to swallow that you feel I implied that I simply >dismissed those who work in kill shelters but you certainly seemed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >tougher job than those who work in no-kills. I said you were wrong and >posted my reasons. I have not said, nor implied that the ones at either kind of shelter are in any way better than any other. I went out of my way to point out that I consider them entirely equal. How is that downplaying anyone? When did I ever even suggest that it is harder to work in one kind of shelter vs another? If this is true, point out quotes by me that say this. >Now you seem hell bent on trying to beat an apology or a >retraction out of me simply because I defended the no-kill workers. You also >seem to want to put words in my mouth that I either never said or are >twisting them. Again, I simply repeated what you said, often in a direct quote. I challenge you to post quotes, from me, that said that workers at no-kill shelters are even a tiny bit less dedicated, caring, etc. How are you defending the people at the no-kill shelters? What did I say against them? Post quotes by me that say this or we must conclude that you are simply trying to divert attention. If you can find any quotes, I will instantly and sincearly appologe for that because it is untrue and my saying it would be insulting to the fine people who work at the no-kill shelters. I have nothing but respect for what they are doing. The only thing that I am against is saying incorrect things that downplay the role of people at EITHER type of shelter.Their level of caring is NOT related to the euthanasia issue. >I give kudoes to anyone who helps to save our feline friends but I don't >think euthanasia is the right course of action as you seem to infer it is. >To euthanize to make additional space for incoming animals is wrong in my >book. Every cat deserves the chance at a good and loving home. You have yet to give me an answer on how we can deal with the situation where there is zero room left in our shelter, zero room in other local shelters, zero room left in the foster program, and zero room left for employee/volunteer fosters. There comes a time when there is NO more room in my part of the state, at any shelter or foster program, during kitten/puppy season. What alternative is there? I have asked you this several times and you have not give me an answer that accepts the fact that all the resources are at zero. You simply have said to use the foster program or other shelters. Well, they too are at (or over) 100% capacity. When I asked for another solution because that was stated as not available, you remained mute. >I am working >hard to achieve that goal in my area. In fact I have even taken in rescues >including one I adopted. My other cat was adopted from the Humane Society >which is a shelter that euthanizes but they have put together some new >programs and are now trying to work with other shelters in the Phoenix area >to get animals adopted. As I said the last time you pointed this out, I applaud your effort and that of the shelters in your area. CP, this is not personal. I have nothing against you. As I have said before, there are things about you that I admire. I just can't accept statements that the people at no-kill shelters are in any way more caring, noble, understanding, etc. I also cannot accept there there is a solution to our very practical problems, when you say there is and we are simply not trying hard enough. >As much as you have stated that I never answer your questions, I have. I'll >state it clear again. I don't believe in euthanasia to make space for >incoming animals. Fostering animals in your home, or partnering/networking >with other shelters is the best route for not only rehabilitation but also >increases chances for the animal to be adopted. Also animals would not have >to be euthanized to save space. And when I pointed out that your answer was not possible because the foster program can not accept any more animals and the other shelters are in the same situation, you did NOT reply. I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but either I misses some of your posts or you did not reply. I have also not seen a reply to my question of the vicious animals. You HAVE skirted around it by saying that no animal is ever beyond rehabilitation. You remained mute when I questioned that and asked you about a very plausable senerio. Some of your writings say that you have contacts that would be willing to accept animals that we consider not able to be rehibilitated with our resourses. I volunteered to become involved with a program to ship our animals to those people. You have not even mentioned my proposal. If was a sincere one, not theoretical. You hate euthanasia so much, why didn't you reply to that offer? There are certain breeds that are routinely euthanized in some cities, they could be saved. Also the ones who have killed or mauled other animals and/or humans. Ditto the ones with diseases that are not practical to treat. These animals can be saved by this program. Why didn't you reply to this offer? > I have no idea what kind of shelter you are >working at but it seems this may be something your directors may have >missed. As I have stated, numerous times, we have a strong foster program, we go out of our way to reach out to other shelters in the area, and we have a strong volunteer program. We are also involved in community education, outreach, pet therapy, etc, but that is not part of this discussion. Ditto, the fact that we at the leading edge for a specific program to rehabilitate certain kinds of animal problems. >BTW, since you seem stuck on the medical issues there are groups out >there that rescue cats with special needs especially if they are FELV and >FIV positive. If you had done your homework you would see these are two >fatal diseases in cats. Now you are getting way too personal. "If you had done your homework" has nothing to do with this discussion. I happen have some knowledgeable about FELV and FIV, why would you say otherwise and why is that significant in this discussion? I also know a bit about ringworn, fleas, various intestinal parasites, ear mites, nausia, kennel cough, parvo, and URI, to name a few. I have discovered cases of some of these that the veterinary staff has missed because they can sometimes be hard to spot. This has nothing to do with this discussion and only serves to divert attention from the issue at hand, it is a red herring. > Should these types of cats be put down because they >have medical needs? Nope. In fact with correct treatment, they can live long >and healthy lives. I agree with you that in some cases it is practical to treat certain medical conditions. However, with some, it is not practical when you are at full capacity, to treat an animal with a very small chance of survival if it means turning away some with no health problems. A puppy with advanced parvo is not a good risk to treat when there are ten puppies a day coming in the door and only nine people want to adopt them. I use this example because more people know about the unique aspects of parvo than many other diseases. We can get around 75 animals a day, not all of them are going to be adoptable. I keep asking and you keep not answering...what do you do when everyone is out of space? You keep evading this question. >I don't know what else you really want me to say but I think you and I >should just agree to disagree. Of course I posed a question to you about >declawing but you seemed to have avoided it. But of course your attitude >about avoiding it pretty much gave me it. I did respond to it by saying that the question had nothing to do with this discussion. Why would you have mentioned it if not to divert attention about what we are really talking about? If the question was at all related to this subject, I would have felt an obligation to answer it. In a similar vein, I would not have answered questions about my race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, political view, or weight, to name a few. I have thoughts on how to best introduce cats, litterbox issues, food, vegitarianism, choice of gender for animals, choice of owners for animals, and many many other issues. None of which have any place in this discussion. I did answer your question by clearly stating that this is an improper question. >A lot of people may have read this >newsgroup, but last time I checked not everyone shared your opinion. Should >they have to retract everything they say as well? In one, or more, of my posts, I made it very clear that I was asking you to appologise because of your statements or implications that people at the "kill" shelters are uncaring, or even simply less caring. Related to that is the statement or implication that ONLY no-kill shelters have good foster and volunteer programs. Also your implication that the shelters euthanize animals because they really don't care for the animals so it makes no difference to them. Most EU techs do care a lot and implying otherwise makes a very difficult job even more difficult. By the way, you never did admit that it is sometimes more humane to euthanize an injured animal than to prolong suffering that will lead to a slow painfull death. I asked you to clearify this, several times, and you remained mute. If others had said that, I would have given them the same facts that I gave you and asked them to verify those facts. I would have asked them to retract their statements once they verified that their facts were, indeed, incorrect. >In my opinion, I think >everyone here has probably had a different opinion whether they volunteered >at a shelter or not. As one user pointed out there are good shelters and bad >ones. Luckily, I have gotten to know and work with the good ones but I have >read and seen horror stories about the bad ones. This is completely true except for one important point; if you have not spent the hours in a shelter, you are just repeating theory that othes have said. Only by being there, over time, can you understand what is going on. I do accept as an alternative to actually being there, to read some unbiased professional writings on both sides of the issue. I hope that I will not have to repeat this again, but you just don't get it that there are good shelters that euthanise. To characterize a shelter as bad simply because they do, is wrong. To characterize a volunteer or employee as ANY less caring because they work in one kind of shelter vs the other is also wrong. To say that working in a shelter that euthanises is easier because they kill is also wrong. That is exactly what you do and it is what I think you are completely wrong about. I chose to volunteer at a shelter that does euthanasia because they are the one, in this area, that does the most for the animals. Their volume is probably a hundred times the volume of the number two private shelter in the area. I hate it that they euthanize any adoptable animal, but I have no viable alternative. I have asked you for one, and have received none. You simply repeat that we should foster them, or send them to other shelters. You cannot accept that these programs are full. There is no room. There is no money to build more facilities. That is what I found insulting. I don't think my view is difficult to understand. Lets ask the others in this group...How many of you think that a person who works in a shelter that sometimes euthanizes is automatically less caring than one who works in a "no-kill" shelter? How many of you think that euthanizing shelters can not possibly have a good foster or volunteer program? I promise that I will not say anything against anyone who says they agree or disagree unless they badmouth the people at one shelter vs another. I would just as strongly disagree with anyone who says a "no-kill" shelter is bad because they don't believe in euthanizing. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message