Quantcast
Animal Rights

When Animals Die in Shelters: Who Really Kills Them?

article image

We have become a nation whereby people just don't want to accept the responsibility of the consequences of their actions. For every action there is a reaction.

There is a movement in this country that is deceptive at best and is causing animals unnecessary suffering. This movement is the "No Kill" (NK). The term alone is deceiving. If you aren't for No Kill, then you must be for killing, is how the public perceives it with the use of this term. Roger Caras, longtime President of the ASPCA, called No Kill a hoax, something that hurts shelters and he was right.

Thus far, it has been a miserable failure. Claiming to have 27 open door shelters, but these shelters are turning owners away during their time of need. In this economy, it is rubbing salt into the wound of those who have lost their jobs, their homes, their lives and need to surrender their pet.

This movement, by turning away owners, results in more strays on the streets, the last thing we need. San Antonio, TX found that out the hard way when they declared No Kill. It is estimated that there are more than 100,000 animals on their streets. On a regular basis, "No Kill" shelters are busted for cruelty. They are overcrowded and riddled with disease. Frankenstein only cared about his creation being alive, and that describes NK, they are alive but suffering horribly.

We all know the manta of the No Kill movement is that the shelters are kill crazy, all the people who work in shelters want nothing more than to start their day killing animals. That does sound ridiculous but there are plenty of people who actually believe that it is the choice of the shelters to kill, not a dirty job that the irresponsible public has bestowed upon shelter employees.

The No Kill movement also justifies itself by saying that the public is guilt free, it is not the public's fault that animals are in the shelters and certainly not the public's fault that animals are dying in the shelter. NK goes to outermost limits of madness by proclaiming that there is no pet overpopulation. Our shelters are full, strays running in the streets and dead ones lying beside the road and NK says there is no problem?

Yes, there is a problem. First there is a question, why are animals dying in the shelters? Is it because employees enjoy killing animals, hearing their cries give the employees pleasure? Hardly. Shelter employees are the most put upon people in the world. When asked why they took the job, the answer always is to help the animals. A shelter director once said that a sure sign of her success on the job would be if there was no longer a need for her job.

Another shelter director stated that he loved his job with one exception, assigning an employee for the euthanasia room. It is immoral to blame these employees. We should be thanking them for cleaning up behind us, the public. We should be grateful that there are people with the strength to do the job. Does NK push the public toward the shelters? Hardly. Condemnation of shelters, telling people they will see dead animals and murders is not the way to get the public into the shelters to adopt.

Next weekend there is a push to hold demonstrations at shelters by the followers of NK. Is this a good idea, or will it mean more animals die in the shelters? It means more will die and the blood of those dead animals will be on the hands of the demonstrators, the followers of NK. 

When a man is told his family will see dead animals, experience rudeness from people who kill animals, will see neglect of animals, do you think this man will place his family in such a position to see all of this? It will never happen. That man will not go to the shelter, he will not save the life of a shelter animal, he will run right into the waiting arms of a "rescue". Who is telling all of this to that man? The very rescues that benefit from that man running from the shelter. Could there be a hidden agenda at work here?

All rescues refer to themselves as being No Kill. What that means is they are able to pick and choose, picking only the "adoptable" ones and leaving the rest to be taken to the shelter, the "unadoptable" ones. There is a double standard at work here. Animals in the shelters are often times the "rejects" of these rescues. Adoptable to a rescue means a cute, fluffy pet, usually from the owner, and usually with a donation attached. Shelters can't pick and choose, they take any and all, adoptable and unadoptable. There's where the difference lies.

We are still having to euthanize for time and space in our shelters. Space is the most valuable commodity of a shelter, without it, they would have to turn away animals. Turning away animals means that those animals will be abandoned on our streets. There they can suffer many different fates, getting hit by a car, tortured by neighborhood punks, eating poison, attacked by coyotes, in other words, inhumane ways of dying. We should not have to kill for space if the rescues would step up to the plate and take out the animals in danger of dying.

There are all kinds of rescues, some good, some bad, some hoarders, some perverts. Rescue means one thing and only one thing, saving lives. The shelters are still euthanizing for time and space, so where are these "rescues"? Killing for time and space could stop if rescues truly lived up to their titles and would take the animals out. Instead, they go into a shelter, many rescues never see the inside of a shelter, and cherry pick, leaving the least adoptable, the old, the big one, the black ones to die. A report from a major animal control agency plainly shows that small dogs are rarely euthanized in the shelters except for medical or aggression. This cherry picking by rescues only leaves the "unadoptable" pets in the shelter for the public. There is a double standard of the rescues verses the shelters, always has been, and probably always will be. 

So who really is responsible for the animals dying in the shelters? Is it the shelters who only collect the animals off the streets or is it the rescues who are leaving them in the shelters? It's time for NK to clean house. NK and rescues need to realize that they are the ones failing the animals in the shelters. It's quite simple, really, you can't kill 'em if they ain't there. So it is time for rescues to take them out and stop the euthanization. If an animal dies in the shelter, it is the failing of rescues to save it. The shelters provide a haven, but it is the job of rescue to save the lives. NK is placing all the responsibility on the shelters without looking at itself as the responsible party when it comes to saving lives.

NK and the humane community is at fault, they are not the ones pulling the trigger, but they are the ones with the blood on their hands. Demonstrating in front of a shelter about bad things only pushes away the people who can save lives. Telling the public that they are not at fault so the public can continue with their bad ways of allowing oops litters is killing animals. You won't save shelter animals lives this way. The way to save their lives is to tell the public how great a shelter is.

The public has never come running to the shelters because of demonstrations and condemnations. Has NK given thought that this negative publicity generated by NK followers is causing the rise in euthanasia? If NK hasn't thought about it, then it is past time that it does. Shelters aren't killing in as much as the humane community following NK is with their propaganda. When animals die in shelters, it is the failing of the humane community, in particular those who followed NK. Visit your local shelter, adopt a pet, and save a life.

Get More:

Comments

Jean Clelland-Morin's picture

I see only a negative in a

I see only a negative in a witch-hunt against the "no-kill cultists". NotBornYesterday, you need to direct your efforts towards those who are guilty - and if you read my original comment (to which you dared to read me the riot act) I plainly said it was the public that needs to be educated. I have NEVER said anything negative about shelter operations. I signed off on no gassing. I have given my opinion about the human-perpetuated animal-holocaust on just about any site you can name. And showing the horror-images must be part of the public education. "Never Again" If you don't see, you don't know. If you don't know....it will continue. I repeat, you can find a jillion postings if you type in my name and it is the mindless egoistic and sick public I have targeted. I'm not going to waste anymore time on this site. I obviously will not get the apology I deserve. // Jean Clelland-Morin

NotBornYesterday's picture

Jean, you wanted to show the

Jean, you wanted to show the world, throw it in their faces and that is the point. Showing the horror images is exactly what you should not want done, it pushes the public further away from the shelters and more animals die. You don't want education, you want revenge. Education would be telling people how wonderful shelters are, encouraging them to go. Vengence is wanting to hurt the public, turning them against the shelters. You don't deserve an apology at all for wanting to push the public away and more shelter animals have to die, you deserve something else for that morbid thinking.

Jean Clelland-Morin's picture

I have been giving the

I have been giving the opinion for about 3 years (since before I left San Antonio): that there needs to be a TV media blitz with the images of the animal-holocaust. The public needs to be slapped in the face. The last video I watched was An Act of Dog Project. I was already depressed over what I had seen and heard. This video finally crushed me. / I am a 6-afternoons-a-week volunteer at the local animal shelter here in France. This is a no-kill facility - and I am still heartbroken by what I know. In the U.S., the animal-holocaust is unbelievable. My only grandchildren are feline and canine - all rescued from the cruel streets of San Antonio. Last I read, S.A. was "down" to euthanizing 25,000 animals a year!! Get the innocent off death row! TV media blitz with the horror images! The blind must be made to see!!!

NotBornYesterday's picture

I do agree that the public

I do agree that the public needs to be slapped in the face, but not for the reasons that you subscribe to. You subscribe to "No Kill". You are one of those who condemn the shelters to the public, tell the public that they are not to blame, and then scream when adoptions go down and euthanasia goes up. Do you not see the interchange here, Jean? Do you not see the role that you are playing in increasing that euthanasia, the "holocaust" as you call it? Do you have so much faith in man kind as to think a man will load up his family and take them where they will see this "holocaust"? What planet are you on? It ain't gonna happen. Now realize that this movement you subscribe to has blood dripping from it and I don't appreciate your adding to the problem with your fanatical, cultish views. Animals are dying because of this cult, wise up, you are part of that. The last thing we need is to show horror images and drive that man into the waiting arms of a rescue, but not into the shelter to save a life. How dare you!

Jean Clelland-Morin's picture

NotBornYesterday. How dare

NotBornYesterday. How dare YOU!!! You are picking on the wrong guy. I am a 6-afternoons-a-week shelter volunteer. I am not picking on shelters. I am targeting irresponsible, mindless and sick "humans" who are perpetuating the animal-holocaust. And I posted an opinion today on what I consider the base of the holocaust: faulty parenting. Too many use physical force to apply their rules. Too many use ridiculing and humiliation to "control" their children. Then we wonder why they commit suicide or sick acts against the powerless and voiceless. The blind must see!!!! Get off my back and get a life by going after the real criminals. // Jean Clelland-Morin

NotBornYesterday's picture

You said you volunteer in a

You said you volunteer in a no kill shelter right? You use the terms used by "No Kill" such as holocaust, right? Then if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it is a duck. Volunteering at a "No Kill" shelter doesn't mean you are a saint, by any means. Volunteering at a shelter that still has to euthanize for time and space would make you a saint, not at a no kill shelter. Which animals need the volunteers the most - those shelter animals that will die, not the ones already saved. The blind that needs to see is those such as yourself and the harm you do with voicing a mindless opinion that pushes the public away from adopting. And where does that public end up, right in the waiting arms of a "No Kill" shelter? Can you say "HIDDEN AGENDA" there Jean?

Bullybob's picture

Personally I come from a

Personally I come from a manufactoring background. When to much inventory gets in front of a slow moving machine you get to much work in process. Which is exactly what is wrong with shelters and rescues. To many dogs breed and then discarded and not enough adopters. I found it intersting that a vet had been bitten in a Pittsburg shelter and was complaining about it. My vet seems to take getting bite in stride and indicates its part of the job. Since I do own pit bull type dogs I would like to ad that he was never bitten by one of my dogs. Our shelter has a dog handling class and volunteers are rated on their dog handling ablity. So a green dot volunteer handles greed dot dogs ( the easiest). Yellow dots and are a step up. The blue and red dots are only handled by senior volunteers or the staff. There are shelters that receive funding but quite a few run on donations or a benefactor. I would say shelter and rescues need to work togehter. Many times our shelter looks for a rescue for a dog with medical problems and sometimes with behavior problems. I have volunteered now for about 5 years in a shelter.. I handle mostly pit bull type dogs, unless there is a rotti or GSD that I like comes in. I have had some good nips from excited dogs but never anything serious. People should realize the behavior of a dog in a shelter which is high stress is different than the behavior that the dog exhibits in a home situation. Things like food agggression or toy aggression are evualted at the shelter and told to the prespective adopter or the adoption is denied if the staff feels the people would not be responsbile enough.

puppyfostermom's picture

There are absolutely

There are absolutely statements made in the article that generalize. There are exceptions. Sadly, though a lot of it is true. I was in Joplin after the tornado for 5 days and not one large dog left the building. Rescuers left with small dogs, puppies and kittens. Not one large dog. I did not sleep the last night I was there. Of course, I left with three large dogs and did not have one open foster home. I still have one of the dogs, five months later.

NK is also overused. I have been at conferences where we applauded shelters at 94% and they called themselves NK. Sounds like they are killing 6% to me! When I am asked if we are a NK rescue, I always say we only euthanize for terminal illness when our vets give us no hope for survival. (Distemper, PDA, Diaphragmatic hernia in small puppies, etc.)

NK also means that many dogs will live for months or years in shelters. Sad.

Unless neutering becomes widely available at low cost, we will always have a problem of pet overpopulation that leads to euthanasia. Does it matter where a pet comes from, rescue, shelter or NK facility?

NotBornYesterday's picture

Let me thank you FosterMom,

Let me thank you FosterMom, for taking those big dogs. I am a big dog person myself and don't mind taking them in my rescue. I rarely take the little ones out because the other rescues do that, those that are left from the cherry picking. It does take more work to adopt them, considerably more work, but I didn't get into rescue for my convenience. I do apologize if you think it generalized.

Spay/neuter is the major part of developing a solution. Instead of focusing on adoptions, rescues need to step forward and participate more in preventing the influx. Many things they can do. Offer financial aid to the low income pet owners. I do that but find that many times these owners don't have transportation so I provide that as well. Offer free obedience training to those who adopt from shelters for better owner retention. Offer financial aid for vet bills, again for owner retention. Many low income seniors desperately need this for a pet that is often times their only family. One thing I do is go to the Neighborhood Watch group meetings and do a presentation on "Are you doing all you can to keep your neighborhood safe?" With that I present the safety factors of altering your pet. Females in heat attract males. Male dogs after that one in heat are dangerous and if the kids come between him and the female, well, you know what can happen. Unaltered males are over 6 times more likely to become aggressive. And so forth. It is an absolutely great way to reach people face to face to present s/n. I get so many that want help in that direction, plus they talk to their neighbors. Takes a lot of time because just in my area there are 200 groups. We need to start thinking out of the box for things we can do other than adoptions. I've been asked more than once why I go through so much for one cat or one dog. I never see just one, I see all they can produce. So in my book each cat I take the trouble to get altered saves 430,000 other lives. I think about the future unlike "No Kill" which is stuck in the present.

The point of the article is that if we don't have enough rescues, if those rescues don't have the capacity to clear out the animals due for euthanization, then don't condemn the shelters to the public. Our only hope is to get the public to go into shelters and adopt.

Only about 10% of pets are acquired from open door shelters. The last thing shelters need is to be condemned to the public, we need the public to see the shelters as a wonderful place, whether they are or aren't, so that the public will want to go there. To do otherwise just kills more animals. Keep up the good work you do and I hope the best for those lucky big dogs you were so kind to take in.

puppyfostermom's picture

The group I am with does TNR,

The group I am with does TNR, S/N, rescue, provides dog food for elderly people and on reservations and does education. We are trying to do it all but obviously can't keep up. I firmly believe that to be in Animal Welfare you have to be against suffering, not death. Most of the animals we take are not euthanized by injection. Many are shot or worse. Our big TNR project has so many starving 1 lb. kittens that will freeze to death soon. That is much more horrible than euthanasia by injection in a shelter or vet office. People protesting at "kill" shelters should be spending their time more effectively. I do rescue 365 days a year and tell people about every shelter in our area. I have never turned people away from adopting from a shelter and never will. (my best girl Trixie is a shelter gal herself!) There are bad apples in every walk of life. Thanks for pointing it out.

NotBornYesterday's picture

Fostermom, bless you for this

Fostermom, bless you for this statement, "I firmly believe that to be in Animal Welfare you have to be against suffering, not death." The "No Kill" movement turns a blind eye to the suffering and I have a problem with that. I too do rescue 365 days a year. It is typical that I have a dog or two from the streets in my car when I arrive at my office in the mornings. It seems to never end. I always say that there are far worse things that can happen to an animal than a needle prick at the shelter. And I think I have seen them all. Maybe if some of these "No Kill" cultists could see what I have seen, they wouldn't be on that bandwagon. This piece was devoted to those bad apples. Maybe I need to do another one about the good rescues only, the ones who live on this planet and not the Nathan Winograd moon.

Jean Clelland-Morin's picture

NotBornYesterday. The local

NotBornYesterday. The local shelter here in France happens to be no-kill. I do my e-comments on U.S. sites for the simple reason that I feel morally compelled to fight for the powerless and voiceless. And please tell me what is wrong with wanting to see the day (not likely for me - I'm 74) when there will be no need for shelters because "humans" will stop their mindless, egoistic exploitation of the innocent?!!! This is a goal. If you think it's unrealistic, tant pis! How dare you. How dare you. Am I not against suffering?!!! How dare you! Picking a fight with an animal activist. How dare you!!! And for you and the human species, euthanasia of healthy beings is OK?!! Is death OK for the innocent? Get a life!!!!!!!

NotBornYesterday's picture

How dare you to think that

How dare you to think that the way to accomplish what you want is by showing the public pictures of dead animals in barrels as if this will spur them into coming into the shelters to adopt? This has the opposite effect, it pushes the public even further away, right into the arms of the rescues that are showing those pictures of dead animals. To condemn shelters to the public is a death sentence for the shelter animals and if you do this, then the fault lies on you. Don't yell about the innocent when you are the one contributing to their deaths with rants and raves about shelters. There is a time and place to condemn shelters and it is never open and public. What you always do is paint a wonderful picture to the public of a place they will want to go to and who wants to go to a place where they will see dead and dying animals?

Bullybob's picture

I do not agree with a needle

I do not agree with a needle prick.. the dogs know what is going to happen. I was with both of my girls when I had to PTS. The first one moaned and rolled her head like what is in me. The second one was sedated and took a long time to pass. You make it sound like getting a flu shot where you and I do not know if it is painful or not. Sure its better than a gas chamber.. but there is no turning back from the ultimate decision.

NotBornYesterday's picture

You don't think that there

You don't think that there are far worse things that can happen to animals than a needle prick in the shelter? Then you haven't seen what I have seen. If you had those experiences, you certainly would understand that statement and agree with it.

NotBornYesterday's picture

So you agree with the

So you agree with the inhumanity of being abandoned, is that what you are saying?

Bullybob's picture

I would not say that either.

I would not say that either. I think that breeding needs to be cut down signficanly of all breeds and types of dogs. Some areas now have low cost spay and neuter. Our shelter has dogs that have stayed there for over a year and they do fine... This is a problem with no easy solution.

NotBornYesterday's picture

http://www.opposingviews.com/

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/pit-bulls-will-more-adoptions-end-shelter-killings

Leann's picture

Where do these claims come

Where do these claims come from? Did you attempt to fact-check at all before you made them? Cherry-picking? Really? I've been doing breed rescue for over ten years, and anyone who steps foot in my living room and meets the fosters that I have or goes to one of our adoption events would hardly call what we do "cherry-picking." My group rarely gets healthy dogs from shelters; instead, we take the ones the shelters can't adopt out, whether for health or behavioral reasons. Our "Refuge" program was created specifically for those dogs, and in the past six months alone, our small foster program has taken 15 dogs from Chicago Animal Care & Control, only one of many shelters we work with, and the breakdown of those dogs was - 1 senior with renal failure, 1 senior with a severe eye injury, a "family" of three seniors (mother, father and son) the youngest of whom is 10, 2 with severe upper respiratory infections, 1 12 year old with what turned out to be glaucoma, 1 with broken pelvis/hip/leg, 1 unable able to walk because of back injury, 2 who had bitten staff and so were considered unadoptable to the public and 3 who had been in the adoption ward but not found homes and were in danger of euthanasia if not taken by rescue.

Seriously? How is that cherry-picking? Because they are Shih Tzu and Shih Tzu mixes, not labs or pitbulls? A life saved is a life saved, and there are many other rescues around the country like us who take the seniors/sick/unadoptables. Are we on the No Kill bandwagon? Absolutely not but the responsibility falls on the PUBLIC who refuse to take responsibility for the animals they allow to reproduce and then dump at shelters, rather than getting their pets spayed/neutered. Until THAT is the target and the public starts taking an active role in stemming the overwhelming pet overpopulation problem, there aren't going to be enough rescues or adopters to save them all, healthy or not.

NotBornYesterday's picture

Read the article again, I do

Read the article again, I do say there are good rescues, maybe you are one of them, I don't know. I do agree with you on it is the responsibility of the public, but that is to stop the influx. "No Kill" takes this responsibility off the public and that only makes our jobs as rescuers even more difficult.

Your last sentence is the heart of the article actually. The point being that there aren't enough rescues to save them all. If we can't handle the job because there aren't enough, then why would these "No Kill" rescues continue to demoralize, degrade shelters to the public? First they tell the public they aren't responsible, then they tell the public, basically, to not go to shelters. When they do that, it puts the responsibility on us to get them out. I am glad that your rescue found the light, and thank you for your work. If only there were more with your mindset.

Leann's picture

I did read your article, have

I did read your article, have read it several times. You make sweeping generalizations about rescues that are simply not true.

You wrote -

"Rescue means one thing and only one thing, saving lives. The shelters are still euthanizing for time and space, so where are these "rescues"? Killing for time and space could stop if rescues truly lived up to their titles and would take the animals out. Instead, they go into a shelter, many rescues never see the inside of a shelter, and cherry pick, leaving the least adoptable, the old, the big one, the black ones to die. A report from a major animal control agency plainly shows that small dogs are rarely euthanized in the shelters except for medical or aggression. This cherry picking by rescues only leaves the "unadoptable" pets in the shelter for the public. There is a double standard of the rescues verses the shelters, always has been, and probably always will be."

Maybe that's the case where you are, but I've been doing rescue in Illinois/Indiana/Wisconsin/Florida for a long time, and while I do see a bit of what you're saying, it's hardly the rule when it comes to rescues. And as far as small dogs being pulled from shelters more often, well, the sad fact is that they are easier to find homes for, period. With apartment buildings/condo associations, etc. adding pet size/weight limits more and more often to incoming tenants, it's becoming more difficult to find places that will let people take larger dogs. Adoptions are down, the number of animals needing homes is greater than ever because people are giving up their animals right and left, and those that do have them but who are forced to rent, etc., are often bound by tenant "rules".

It is a complex issues and hardly one that can be laid at the feet of rescues. In order to save dogs, we have to take ones that we have a chance to get adopted. The number of "spots" we have to take dogs is finite, and filling those spots with unadoptable animals does nothing to help the other dogs needing out of the shelters. So groups like mine try to take a combination of dogs - ones that can be adopted relatively quickly and continue bringing in adoption fees to help with the costs of the medically unadoptable ones we bring in.

Personally, I find the No Kill movement absurd and agree that to blame shelters because they have to kill animals is ridiculous. But it is just as absurd to point the finger at rescues who are doing their best to help save as many as we can and find homes for them. Are there bad rescues? Without a doubt, yes, but you are doing a huge disservice to all of those who are out there every day pulling shelter dogs by making these sweeping generalizations, as well. You wrote - "Killing for time and space could stop if rescues truly lived up to their titles and would take the animals out." We ARE taking the animals we can out, but unless the economy rallies and more homes open up, we can't take more if we don't find homes for the ones we already have. And unless the public starts getting behind the need for spay/neuter and stops adding to the already choked animal overpopulation problem, nothing is going to change.

NotBornYesterday's picture

Leann, I am also a rescuer.

Leann, I am also a rescuer. And I agree with you, good comment. This article was not to condemn those like yourself who realize the shelters can't do it all. It was meant for those who follow the philosophy of "No Kill". Those are the ones who are actually killing the shelter animals. This piece is a condemnation of those rescues who scream "No Kill", demonstrate in front of shelters and cause the public to turn away. Those rescues have their own hidden agenda, not the good rescues that go about their work and show respect for the poor shelter employees who have to tolerate being called murderers. Keep up your good work, you sound like the kind of rescuer that they all should be, realistic as to your capabilities and those of shelters.

ILoveBuddy's picture

I am a volunteer at a local

I am a volunteer at a local animal rescue. I read the article & found it very poorly written with no substantiation for its claims. Basically it says "Shelter = good" and "Rescue = bad". Shelter employees do the job for love, they hate euthing the animals - I would have sworn stories have been circulated within our rescue about shelters putting down animals before the holidays or even just to make their work burden easier...or maybe I'm "misremembering". Or animals being euthed right out from under us when they knew a rescue was taking a dog...

And don't shelters get public funding as opposed to rescues like ours that depend wholly on whatever private funding we can find? I can hardly blame rescues for trying to pull adoptable dogs when they still have to deal with the bottom line regarding medical bills. I guess they're implying that shelters only have the "dregs" while we rescues take all the good dogs. They should meet some of the "more adoptable dogs" we've rescued, like Buddy who is in a wheelchair, or blind Romeo, or 3-legged Reni, or deaf Pongo and Josh...it's a long list. And the more dogs we pull, the more room in those shelters for people to dump their unwanted pets.

Truly an awful article, but not surprising when the first article at the top of the page exclaimed that pit bulls are 6 times more likely to attack their owners than other breeds? It is a shame that the "They call me Daniel" FB page decided to publish this article thereby giving it some sort of credibility.

NotBornYesterday's picture

You're entitled to your

You're entitled to your opinion based on your experiences. However, mine have been quite different. Note in the article that I said some good rescues, maybe you volunteer for a good rescue, I don't know. However, I do know more rescues that never take a shelter dog than rescues who do go to shelters. I do rescue and have done it for years. And truly I can appreciate a lovely bedtime story like you present but it doesn't change the fact that "No Kill" is destroying the shelters while the rescues stand with waiting arms for the public that is being pushed away. In fact it is probably an example of what this piece is about, rescues condemning shelters which makes the public run the other way.

Do shelters need reform, yes they do. What they don't need is people demonstrating negatively at the shelters causing the public to turn away and thus more animals die and repeating vicious rumors. I'm surprised that you haven't picked up on that because the piece is pretty adamant about that fact. We are rescues, we are the ones that save lives, shelters are not rescues, so it is our responsibility and we are failing in that responsibility. And if we can't hold up our end then how do you expect "No Kill" to work? If we can't do our share, live up to our title, then shut up about "No Kill". Yes, I stand by the rescues share the burden of killing animals in the shelters.

NotBornYesterday's picture

Talk about timing. Seems the

Talk about timing. Seems the ASPCA issued a piece on "Extremist Agendas" (No Kill). Although they did remove it, no doubt from pressure from these extremist agenda folks, aka "No Kill". But this link does show it was up. http://cruelcrazybeautifulworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ASPCA-extremist-agenda.jpg

And here is what was contained in it. The Tactics of the Extremist Agenda Step 1: Establishing a Proxy

A member of a community will begin to adopt the talking points of the Extremist Agenda, using aggressive and divisive language to describe the state of that community’s animal welfare organizations.

Step 2: Creating a Local Organization

The proxy forms an organization (i.e. “No Kill Austin/Louisville/Houston/Philly) that will act as the local brand for the Extremist Agenda and begin to use social networking to expand.

Step 3: Engaging in Local Politics

The no-kill organization lobbies local public officials and candidates regarding the existing euthanasia rates at the municipal shelter. In most cases, there does exist public attention to the need to reform the sheltering system to increase lifesaving.

• The proxy organization will get involved in local elections, providing questionnaires and financial support to candidates perceived as sympathetic to the Extremist Agenda.

Step 4: Slandering Existing Animal Welfare

The Extremist Agenda slanders the existing shelter director and any local humane organization that is deemed to be sympathetic to the status quo. The aim of the slander is to put enough pressure on the director to step down (which is often achieved).

Step 5: Installing a Puppet Regime

A new “compassionate” director sympathetic to the Extremist Agenda is put in place through effective lobbying. The Extremist Agenda organization will often advocate a candidate with little or no experience who will essentially do as they are told.

Step 6: Saving Face when the Agenda Fails

The Extremist Agenda displaces blame when the program becomes unsustainable by blaming either their own director or local public officials for not backing them sufficiently.

Step 7: Slandering Media

Attacking unfavorable media is commonplace for the Extremist Agenda when a story runs that questions any component of implementing overnight solutions while demonizing hardworking animal welfare organizations.

Yep, that pretty well describes it. One more needs to be added and that is the intimidation tactics used by Nathan Winograd to silence the ones who want to speak against his program. You can see those on his blog, I won't provide a link for his morbid, hate filled blog. Most people engaged in helping shelter animals are rescues, which are non profits. They can't afford to be called animal murderers, it would destroy their donor base. So they remain silent, going about their work to save shelter animals. How immoral can it be to try to hurt the very people trying to save lives?

NotBornYesterday's picture

Just in.

Just in. http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/11/04/vet-raises-concerns-about-aggressive-dogs-up-for-adoption/

This is NK for ya, no concerns about pit bulls, NK pit rescues lying through their teeth about them. Well, this vet is speaking the truth of how these "No Kill'ers" are putting us in danger and they don't think anything of it.

Bullybob's picture

Each dog should be evaulated

Each dog should be evaulated indivdually.. period. If the dog is truly a menanace it should be PTS.. however just because a dog is a pit bull type dog they should be evaluated on their own merit.

Concerning the vet that got bite.. a muzzle goes a long ways. Shelters are extremely stressful to a dog. I have seen and owned dogs that were close to insane in a shelter but once in a home a great companion.

The solution lies in greatly reducing the breeding of all dogs.. 3 to 4 million put to sleep per year.

NotBornYesterday's picture

If a dog is stressed in the

If a dog is stressed in the shelter, what will happen when suddenly the dog is thrust into a new home, a new environment, strangers. That should be the ultimate stress out. If they can't handle the shelter, can they handle the stress of all that? Stress is telling sign that the dog will probably have problems. We all know about fear biters and typically it is this type, one that can't handle the stress of the shelter. They probably can't handle the stress of being adopted either. I've seen too many people try with those types of dogs and rarely does it work out.

NotBornYesterday's picture

I disagree, pits have passed

I disagree, pits have passed regular temperament tests only to go on to attack. Trouble is there is not a temperament test just for pits and there needs to be, separate from the regular testing. Pits should be harder to get from rescues and shelters, not easier, because they demand more from an owner as far as responsibility than any other breeds. All gripping type dogs demand experienced, insured owners, not to be given to first time dog owners. This is what happens all together too often.

I go to shelters almost daily and see many more dogs who are actually having a good time, not stressed, than those who are. Now I am talking open door shelters, not a private shelter. Since pits are euthanized at a much higher rate than other breeds, they posed a significant problem to shelters. The vet that was bitten is concerned about the "pimping" of dogs, particularly pits, as lovable nanny dogs is wrong, totally wrong. Instead of doing the right thing by limiting adoptions of pits to only the very most qualified, these types of rescues are lying about pits and that only adds to the problems with pits. That was the message the vet was trying to get across. She read on the card how wonderful this pit was, and like any normal person who would read that, she took the rescue at their word. Guess their word was not to be trusted and that is the problem. All these types want to do is move 'em out, they lie, do whatever they can to do that with no regard for the consequences of those lies.

Close x
Don't Miss Out! |
Like us on Facebook?