There were emergency meetings galore. Delaware County did contract with another county in the end. Now the Humane League of Lancaster county, who has eight contracts, is doing the same, saying either meet our demands to service No Kill or go elsewhere. There is no elsewhere to go. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pets/LanCo-shelter-joins-no-kill-movement-critics-say-trend-will-harm-pets.html
The Humane League of Lancaster County announced today that it will become a "no kill" facility in February, joining a trend let by the Delaware County SPCA which stopped its open admission policy earlier this year.
Sounds great, huh? Not so much so when you consider the consequences. The City of Lancaster has the state's largest concentration of licensed and unlicensed commercial dog breeders. Many questions now arise as to why these two No Kill agencies would want to place animals in danger by putting cities at risk for being able to have animal control and/or a shelter? Also why would No Kill also want to back away from policing the issue of puppy mills? Could it be placing enough pressure on these contracted cities to provide for No Kill in their shelter will mean less funding available to raid the cruelty of puppy mills? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/topanimalrights/does-no-kill-support-cruel-puppy-mill-businesses
Tom Hickey, a member of the state Dog Law Advisory board, was quoted in the above article as saying that people hear the term no kill and they think it's a good thing. There is a deliberate deception behind the use of this term. It was originally to distinguish private limited/closed admission shelters from the open door/public shelters. Somewhere along the line, it has become the term used for deceiving the public into a false sense of a solution.
Hickey goes further to state, aside from the abandoned animal problem that will arise from a closed admission shelter, it may lead to taking animals to animal euthanasia factories. There the animals are held for only 48 hours and offered no adoption services. This can be a consequence of adopting No Kill.
"This means no one will have anywhere to go with these animals," Connie Kondravy, co-founder of the Organization for Responsible Care of Animals, told the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal. "It's going to be like animals running in the streets. It's absolutely insane. I've been in this business for 30 years, and I never thought I'd see this day." Lancaster County continues to have a pet overpopulation problems, she said.
BUT according to the No Kill philosophy there is no pet overpopulation problem. Does this philosophy give them justification for these actions of putting hundreds, thousands of animals in jeopardy? The answer from the Humane Society does little to answer this question other than pay lip service. And this philosophy has shown it's lack of concern for public safety and health before. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/no-kill-movement-menace-public-safety
"Pet owners will need to take responsibility for their pets, and pet lovers will need to support life-saving programs throughout the community," the League said.
Another version was provided by http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/763160_Humane-League-of-Lancaster-County-to-become--no-kill--shelter.html
Under a bold headline — "The Humane League of Lancaster County is Going No-Kill!" — the email says the shelter's leadership has made this decision "to assure the best use of resources and to continue protecting the welfare of our community's pets."
Could there be a hidden agenda, an agenda to force cities to accept No Kill even when they can't afford it or want it? This quote from the President of the Humane League certainly speaks to that as a possibility. http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/763925_Change-to--no-kill--shelter-signals-cutbacks-at-Humane-League-of-Lancaster-County.html
"But it has long been a goal of the League to make Lancaster County "a no-kill community," Massey said." And to do that this agency is willing to allow animals to run the risk of abandonment and suffering. It appears that they are taking advantage of bad economy knowing that these cities can't afford to rush out to build shelters. And neither can these cities support the amount of funding necessary to be No Kill. What is the priorities of No Kill, helping the animals or forcing the movement even when it is not in the best interest of anyone?
A recent case in California in Fresno County where the Central California SPCA (CCSPCA) would rather see the animals housed in tents in a morgue parking lot. The CCSPCA notified the County of Fresno that they would no longer contract with them, leaving the money strapped county to scrambled for accommodations for animals who arrive daily. http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/09/22/3003092/fresno-county-turns-morgue-into.html.
And they turn and walk away. Is putting animals in jeopardy of cruelty, abandonment, suffering the best use of resources? Do they honestly think that this is in the best interest of animals, much less the community? Is this your vision of the term of No Kill? Is it humane to turn them away? Is there any humanity in No Kill? It's okay to pick who lives and who dies, but it is not okay to make the ones you turn away suffer.