Non-euthanizing groups

[Marty]

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

[Sunflower]

"Marty" > wrote in message
m...
> 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

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

[Sharon Talbert]

All shelters and rescue orgs that foster face the same dilemma and come to
their own conclusions on what to do when presented with more animals than
they can possibly accommodate.

The so-called "no-kills" fill up quickly and become "no-accepts," turning
away all but the most "adoptable" animals. These shelters tend to be
nonprofits or privately funded who are not obligated to accept animals
they don't want. The animals rejected by the so-called "no-kill" shelter
go on to the city or county shelters (who are mandated to accept every
animal in their jurisdiction, regardless of available space) or are simply
abandoned. These publicly funded shelters then must kill animals unlikely
to find homes to make room for new arrivals.

I would venture to guess than a well operated conventional (public)
shelter saves more or at least as many lives as the so-called "no-kill"
facility. How many animals die in the process is a responsiblity shared
by both institutions; it's just that the "no-kill" gets to dodge the act
and the public shelter is stuck holding the bag (the one with a dead cat
in it).

And of course the ultimate responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders
of irresponsible pet owners.

Sharon Talbert
Friends of Campus Cats




On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Marty wrote:

> 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
>

[Kalyahna]

"Sharon Talbert" > wrote in message
. washington.edu...
> The so-called "no-kills" fill up quickly and become "no-accepts," turning
> away all but the most "adoptable" animals. These shelters tend to be
> nonprofits or privately funded who are not obligated to accept animals
> they don't want. The animals rejected by the so-called "no-kill" shelter
> go on to the city or county shelters (who are mandated to accept every
> animal in their jurisdiction, regardless of available space) or are simply
> abandoned. These publicly funded shelters then must kill animals unlikely
> to find homes to make room for new arrivals.
>
> I would venture to guess than a well operated conventional (public)
> shelter saves more or at least as many lives as the so-called "no-kill"
> facility. How many animals die in the process is a responsiblity shared
> by both institutions; it's just that the "no-kill" gets to dodge the act
> and the public shelter is stuck holding the bag (the one with a dead cat
> in it).

Shelters that euthanise are forced to be creative and find solutions where
it can. We're installing a Special Needs Annex (commonly called the ringworm
trailer) to treat the sudden multitude of cats that have come up positive
with the fungus, where policy used to be euthanasia. We've also just gotten
permission from the Board to do some rearranging and construction on a very
new building to create more multiple rooms for adult cats (we have somewhere
in the area of 140 cages in the building, with the original playroom capable
of housing a maximum of 16 cats, I think) along with a new isolation room.
We offer a feral program for rehabilitation or alter-and-release. We have a
huge foster program that still hasn't been large enough to accomodate this
summer's influx of cats. No matter how big the organization, though, it
seems like the problem just gets bigger... or at least no smaller. It's a
line of work that makes one feel bipolar, for all the joy and depression
that happen routinely.

> And of course the ultimate responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders
> of irresponsible pet owners.
>
> Sharon Talbert
> Friends of Campus Cats

[Kalyahna]

"Shaggin" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

[Cat Protector]

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.

--
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
"Kalyahna" > wrote in message
...

> 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.
>
>

[Fan]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:54:35 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>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.

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.


----== 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 =---

[Kalyahna]

"Cat Protector" > wrote in message
news:gpXTb.29217$L_4.27930@okepread01...
> You support the shelters that euthanize?

I work for one, and am a certified euth tech.

>That in term says that you support
> the practice of euthanasia to clear space in a shelter.

No. It doesn't. It means I support the euthanasia decisions of my
supervisors and coworkers. This means, as Fan said, repeat bite cases,
terminally ill cases, and cases of outstanding aggression. VERY rarely are
animals ever pulled for space, and when that comes up, it is STILL the sick
or injured or aggressive animals that are euthanized. This is because we
function as a county shelter. We MUST take in strays and hold them through
the stray period, we MUST take in protective custody animals. We have no
choice, and sometimes that means my supervisors have to make terrible
choices when we have no more foster homes and no more cages.

> 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.

I don't doubt they work hard. It was a generalization on my part, and for
that I apologize. However, it can be held as true in specifics, as you, at
least, seem to think that only no-kills do any good for the animal
population. Which is blatantly false, and you know it.

It takes more guts for them to
> work there than those who work at shelters who just kill off the animals
to
> save space.

CETs rate higher for compassion fatigue than nurses in emergency rooms. Not
because we feel guilty for what we do, but because we're dealing with
emotions on a staggering scale. You seem to assume that shelters that
euthanize enjoy it or take pride in it. You know how we sleep at night?
Because a pit bull who bit a child in the face cannot bite anyone else, that
a cat who aggressively attacks other cats and bites people repeatedly will
scar no other cats and no other people, that a tumor-infested rat will be at
peace. And when my cats grow old and start to fail (not for another 10+
years, if I have my way), I will schedule appointments at my humane society
and hold them while they go to sleep. I will KNOW the effectiveness of the
methods used, and I will know that whoever does the injection understands my
grief and grieves with me. Contrary to what you seem to think, I have NEVER
worked with more compassionate and generously spirited people.

Many of the no-kills have volunteers who foster the cats in
> their own homes,

Really? I foster. Every full time employee in the kennel department who is
capable of it fosters. One of them has a litter of kittens and a blind dog
as fosters, and two dogs of her own. Another has two cats, both of which
she's adopting. One of them does reptile rescue. One of them does rabbit
fostering. One of them fosters semi-ferals. We ALL foster for space reasons.

> spend time with the felines,

The front office comes to us with recommendations for placement, or to ask
where a certain cat is. My supervisors listen when we mention petrified cats
that are coming around, the foster coordinator takes seriously our
suggestions for adult cats in need of foster care.

feed the cats, and of course
> press harder to get the ones that have been in the shelter system for far
> too long, adopted.

Really? You think so? So THAT's why we had that whole Top Ten thing... and
the radio and TV spots... and the satellite centers in a local pet store
chain...
So sorry that any euthanizing shelters with which you've had contact were
****ty conveyor belts of dead animals. But those shelters aren't everywhere.
And they sure as hell don't employ myself or my friends.

No-kills will have my respect since it takes more to save
> a life than to take it away.

Ah. We're all dead inside. Uncaring and terrible people. *sarcasm* You do my
job for a week, friend, and we'll see how much you find it takes.

-Kal

[Sharon Talbert]

Kal, I hope you stay with this newsgroup and that you never allow your
voice to be stilled. I admire the work of most private shelters and
always will, but I am very sorry the blurry term of "no-kill" was ever
invented. Better for all facilities to agree to "low-kill" (with an
actual definition of the term to work from) and for private and public
shelters to work together toward a common goal: that of educating the
public to spay and neuter and to adopt for life.

Sharon Talbert
Friends of Campus Cats

[Sharon Talbert]

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

[Kalyahna]

"Sharon Talbert" > wrote in message
ashington.edu...
>
> Kal, I hope you stay with this newsgroup and that you never allow your
> voice to be stilled. I admire the work of most private shelters and
> always will, but I am very sorry the blurry term of "no-kill" was ever
> invented. Better for all facilities to agree to "low-kill" (with an
> actual definition of the term to work from) and for private and public
> shelters to work together toward a common goal: that of educating the
> public to spay and neuter and to adopt for life.
>
> Sharon Talbert
> Friends of Campus Cats

Thank you, Sharon, for your continued support. Interestingly enough, in
reference to your last comment, on February 21st of this year, we're having
an event called Mardi Paws. This is our first event to focus on cats, and
with our staff vets and volunteer vets (and much, much volunteer
assistance), we're hoping to spay and neuter over 100 cats from outside
sources: breed rescues, other shelters, and low cost assistance program
surgeries. It'll be an exciting day for all of us!

[Fan]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:55:27 -0800, Sharon Talbert
> wrote:

>
>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.


----== 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 =---

[Sharon Talbert]

Glad to hear of your Mardi Paw! Does your shelter have a website, by the
way?

Sharon Talbert
Friends of Campus Cats

[Sharon Talbert]

>
> 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?
>

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 =---
>

[RedRiver35]

> 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

[Cat Protector]

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.

--
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
"Sharon Talbert" > wrote in message
>
> 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 =---
> >

[Fan]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:37:33 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>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.

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.


----== 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 =---

[Fan]

On 07 Feb 2004 10:40:45 GMT, (RedRiver35) wrote:

>
>> 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

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.


----== 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 =---

[Cat Protector]

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
"Fan" > wrote in message
...

> 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.
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[Wendy]

Just curious if anyone happened to see the HBO special called "Shelter
Dogs"?

W
"Cat Protector" > wrote in message
news:SmlVb.39197$L_4.29384@okepread01...
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
"Fan" > wrote in message
...

> 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.
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[Kalyahna]

"Cat Protector" > wrote in message
news:SmlVb.39197$L_4.29384@okepread01...
> 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.

[Kalyahna]

"Cat Protector" > wrote in message
news:OfaVb.39127$L_4.11548@okepread01...
> 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.

And they can't choose to take perfectly adoptable animals and still leave
the sick and less friendly animals for other shelters to deal with? Their
acceptance of cats from other shelters doesn't eliminate the
cream-of-the-crop theory by any means.

> No-kills have fostering programs so when they are filled to capacity some
of
> the cats are taken into private homes to be fostered.

Really? So do many euthanizing shelters, including mine. In fact, I have a
pair of brown tabbies in my bathroom. I just adopted a long-term foster.

> 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.

Here's an example of how bad this winter has been. Admitting in our building
has fifteen cages. We make sure that three are open every night for incoming
cats or rabbits from the humane officers. We had six open the other night.
Our doors open to the public at noon. By two in the afternoon, every cage
was filled, and there were five carriers on the floor.
For the vast majority of shelters, by the time we have any open cages, so do
the other nearby shelters. We DO take in dogs from other shelters, space
permitting, including banned breeds from other cities.

> 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.

His experience isn't the same as yours, perhaps, but that makes it no less
valid or true. You just don't like it because the picture isn't as pretty as
you hoped.

[Kalyahna]

"RedRiver35" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

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
> 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?

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
> 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.

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.

[Fan]

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 00:16:01 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>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.
>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.

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?

Let’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.


----== 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 =---

[Cat Protector]

Actually some no-kills take in FELV, and FIV positive cats. In fact I know
of a couple locally that take in special needs cats.

--
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
"Kalyahna" > wrote in message
...

> And they can't choose to take perfectly adoptable animals and still leave
> the sick and less friendly animals for other shelters to deal with? Their
> acceptance of cats from other shelters doesn't eliminate the
> cream-of-the-crop theory by any means.
>
> > No-kills have fostering programs so when they are filled to capacity
some
> of
> > the cats are taken into private homes to be fostered.
>
> Really? So do many euthanizing shelters, including mine. In fact, I have a
> pair of brown tabbies in my bathroom. I just adopted a long-term foster.
>
> > 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.
>
> Here's an example of how bad this winter has been. Admitting in our
building
> has fifteen cages. We make sure that three are open every night for
incoming
> cats or rabbits from the humane officers. We had six open the other night.
> Our doors open to the public at noon. By two in the afternoon, every cage
> was filled, and there were five carriers on the floor.
> For the vast majority of shelters, by the time we have any open cages, so
do
> the other nearby shelters. We DO take in dogs from other shelters, space
> permitting, including banned breeds from other cities.
>
> > 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.
>
> His experience isn't the same as yours, perhaps, but that makes it no less
> valid or true. You just don't like it because the picture isn't as pretty
as
> you hoped.
>
>

[Cat Protector]

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.

--
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
"Fan" > wrote in message
...

> 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.
> >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.
>
> 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?
>
> Let'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.
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[frlpwr]

Cat Protector wrote:

(snip)

> 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.

I agree, unless there is a physiological reason for the aggression.
When shelters say an animal cannot be rehabilitated, what they mean is
they don't have the time, energy or will to devote to the task of
gaining a fearful animal's trust.

I understand shelter resources are limited. What I don't understand is
a shelter's refusal to allow rescue groups to take the "unrehabilitable"
animals because they are "too dangerous". There are such things as
liability waivers. My feeling is that some shelter directors don't want
others to succeed where they have failed.

(snip)

[frlpwr]

Kalyahna wrote:
>
(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?

[frlpwr]

Kalyahna wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> And they can't choose to take perfectly adoptable animals and still
> leave the sick and less friendly animals for other shelters to deal
> with? Their acceptance of cats from other shelters doesn't eliminate > the cream-of-the-crop theory by any means.

Yes, it does. No-kill facilities and rescue groups "accept" (your own
word) the animals public and private kill shelters choose to release.
No-kill shelters and rescues take animals declined by public shelters,
animals scheduled to be destroyed. They don't walk past cages shopping
for the best and brightest and the shelter has no obligation to give
them the animals they want.
>
> > No-kills have fostering programs so when they are filled to capacity > > some of the cats are taken into private homes to be fostered.
>
> Really? So do many euthanizing shelters, including mine. In fact, I
> have a pair of brown tabbies in my bathroom. I just adopted a
> long-term foster.

There are good and bad euthanizing shelters. The public shelter in San
Francisco has a kitten fostering program that is the envy of every
no-kill and rescue group in the area.

But please know that a shelter is only as good as its policies allow.
Some shelters will not support volunteers willing to foster neo-nates.
San Mateo county shelter euthanizes any kitten not eating on its own.
Other shelters draw the line at eyes open. Our SF shelter fosters
little ones no bigger than over-sized peanuts.

(snip)
>
> Here's an example of how bad this winter has been. Admitting in our
> building
> has fifteen cages. We make sure that three are open every night for
> incoming cats or rabbits from the humane officers. We had six open the > other night.
> Our doors open to the public at noon. By two in the afternoon, every
> cage was filled, and there were five carriers on the floor.
> For the vast majority of shelters, by the time we have any open cages, > so do the other nearby shelters. We DO take in dogs from other
> shelters, space permitting, including banned breeds from other cities.
>
The San Mateo county shelter has night-drop boxes, metal-doored,
cage-like lockboxes, kind of like a night deposit slot at the bank.
During kitten seasons, assholes drop litters of neo-nates into these
torture chambers. They're so tiny, they fall through the grates and, as
the mechanized cages retract, they're crushed. The shelter has not
bothered to modify the design of these nightdrops. I guess they figure
the kittens are dead meat anyway. Saves them the trouble of doing
intake paperwork.

Like I said, a shelter is only as good as its policies.

[Kalyahna]

"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> Kalyahna wrote:
> > And they can't choose to take perfectly adoptable animals and still
> > leave the sick and less friendly animals for other shelters to deal
> > with? Their acceptance of cats from other shelters doesn't eliminate >
the cream-of-the-crop theory by any means.
>
> Yes, it does. No-kill facilities and rescue groups "accept" (your own
> word) the animals public and private kill shelters choose to release.
> No-kill shelters and rescues take animals declined by public shelters,
> animals scheduled to be destroyed. They don't walk past cages shopping
> for the best and brightest and the shelter has no obligation to give
> them the animals they want.

If there are good and bad euthanizing shelters, then that applies equally to
no-kills. For every no-kill that takes a sick or special needs animal, I
imagine there's a no-kill that will take in only healthy animals, or ones
with no history of behavioral problems.

> There are good and bad euthanizing shelters. The public shelter in San
> Francisco has a kitten fostering program that is the envy of every
> no-kill and rescue group in the area.
>
> But please know that a shelter is only as good as its policies allow.
> Some shelters will not support volunteers willing to foster neo-nates.
> San Mateo county shelter euthanizes any kitten not eating on its own.
> Other shelters draw the line at eyes open. Our SF shelter fosters
> little ones no bigger than over-sized peanuts.
>
> (snip)

Ours has just been altered, basically to allow the option to experienced,
willing fosterers, to take on the newborns and the ones needing considerably
more care. We didn't really have that option before, and I've learned this
past year that I'm not up for it, but several other employees make fantastic
itty-bitty foster parents.

> The San Mateo county shelter has night-drop boxes, metal-doored,
> cage-like lockboxes, kind of like a night deposit slot at the bank.
> During kitten seasons, assholes drop litters of neo-nates into these
> torture chambers. They're so tiny, they fall through the grates and, as
> the mechanized cages retract, they're crushed. The shelter has not
> bothered to modify the design of these nightdrops. I guess they figure
> the kittens are dead meat anyway. Saves them the trouble of doing
> intake paperwork.
>
> Like I said, a shelter is only as good as its policies.

That, frankly, is creepy, disgusting, and wrong. Humane agents have keys
into the building here so that they can get in and place the animals
directly into a cage. They do the paperwork themselves. We do get people who
abandon animals in crates or carriers outside the building (one woman tied
her dog to the back door and left a note with information on the dog, along
with her phone number), but it's actually (thankfully) quite rare.

[Kalyahna]

"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> Kalyahna wrote:
> >
> (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?

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 ass. 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.

[Kalyahna]

"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> I understand shelter resources are limited. What I don't understand is
> a shelter's refusal to allow rescue groups to take the "unrehabilitable"
> animals because they are "too dangerous". There are such things as
> liability waivers. My feeling is that some shelter directors don't want
> others to succeed where they have failed.

Sometimes the rescues refuse to take an animal because of the animal's
temperament. Most rescues have other in-house animals and cannot, therefore,
take an animal with a history of aggression.

[Kalyahna]

"Cat Protector" > wrote in message
news:tSWVb.39653$L_4.7723@okepread01...
> 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.

[fan]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:55:39 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>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.


----== 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 =---

[fan]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:40:45 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:

>Cat Protector wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> 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.
>
>I agree, unless there is a physiological reason for the aggression.
>When shelters say an animal cannot be rehabilitated, what they mean is
>they don't have the time, energy or will to devote to the task of
>gaining a fearful animal's trust.
>
>I understand shelter resources are limited. What I don't understand is
>a shelter's refusal to allow rescue groups to take the "unrehabilitable"
>animals because they are "too dangerous". There are such things as
>liability waivers. My feeling is that some shelter directors don't want
>others to succeed where they have failed.
>
>(snip)
>
Good point. Perhaps it is because our legal system, has held people
liable even if they obtained a "release." Some people are so afraid of
such stupid legal decisions that they err on the side of protecting
their organization.

It is sad, but you cannot risk a million dollar lawsuit.


----== 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 =---

[fan]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:40:47 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:

>Kalyahna wrote:
>>
>(snip)
>>
>> And they can't choose to take perfectly adoptable animals and still
>> leave the sick and less friendly animals for other shelters to deal
>> with? Their acceptance of cats from other shelters doesn't eliminate > the cream-of-the-crop theory by any means.
>
>Yes, it does. No-kill facilities and rescue groups "accept" (your own
>word) the animals public and private kill shelters choose to release.
>No-kill shelters and rescues take animals declined by public shelters,
>animals scheduled to be destroyed. They don't walk past cages shopping
>for the best and brightest and the shelter has no obligation to give
>them the animals they want.
>>
>> > No-kills have fostering programs so when they are filled to capacity > > some of the cats are taken into private homes to be fostered.
>>
>> Really? So do many euthanizing shelters, including mine. In fact, I
>> have a pair of brown tabbies in my bathroom. I just adopted a
>> long-term foster.
>
>There are good and bad euthanizing shelters. The public shelter in San
>Francisco has a kitten fostering program that is the envy of every
>no-kill and rescue group in the area.
>
>But please know that a shelter is only as good as its policies allow.
>Some shelters will not support volunteers willing to foster neo-nates.
>San Mateo county shelter euthanizes any kitten not eating on its own.
>Other shelters draw the line at eyes open. Our SF shelter fosters
>little ones no bigger than over-sized peanuts.
>
>(snip)
>>
>> Here's an example of how bad this winter has been. Admitting in our
>> building
>> has fifteen cages. We make sure that three are open every night for
>> incoming cats or rabbits from the humane officers. We had six open the > other night.
>> Our doors open to the public at noon. By two in the afternoon, every
>> cage was filled, and there were five carriers on the floor.
>> For the vast majority of shelters, by the time we have any open cages, > so do the other nearby shelters. We DO take in dogs from other
>> shelters, space permitting, including banned breeds from other cities.
>>
>The San Mateo county shelter has night-drop boxes, metal-doored,
>cage-like lockboxes, kind of like a night deposit slot at the bank.
>During kitten seasons, assholes drop litters of neo-nates into these
>torture chambers. They're so tiny, they fall through the grates and, as
>the mechanized cages retract, they're crushed. The shelter has not
>bothered to modify the design of these nightdrops. I guess they figure
>the kittens are dead meat anyway. Saves them the trouble of doing
>intake paperwork.
>
>Like I said, a shelter is only as good as its policies.


Could you contact the newspapers with the information about the "drop
boxes?" That would make a very embaressing story about the shelter.
This is an intolerable situation.

We commonly get people dropping off animals at our door at night.
There is no one there to accept them. Why not give the animal a chance
and drop it off during business hours, we are open in the evenings
too.

The policies are made by people, not nature. The shelter is therefore
only as good as its people. They shouldn't be allowed to hide behind
the "policy" because they can change it.


----== 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 =---

[fan]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:09:50 -0600, "Kalyahna" >
wrote:

<snip>

>Humane agents have keys
>into the building here so that they can get in and place the animals
>directly into a cage. They do the paperwork themselves. We do get people who
>abandon animals in crates or carriers outside the building (one woman tied
>her dog to the back door and left a note with information on the dog, along
>with her phone number), but it's actually (thankfully) quite rare.
>
Our problem is the public. They just drop off the animal, no cage, no
collar, no note, nothing. We make it easy to drop them off with us,
but some people will not much to help.


----== 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 =---

[Sharon Talbert]

>
> But please know that a shelter is only as good as its policies allow.
> Some shelters will not support volunteers willing to foster neo-nates.
> San Mateo county shelter euthanizes any kitten not eating on its own.
> Other shelters draw the line at eyes open. Our SF shelter fosters
> little ones no bigger than over-sized peanuts.
>

And that's what I find most disturbing about the "no-kill" label. There
is no standard as just what that means, even from one shelter to another,
let alone a national or even state-wide (or federal nonprofit) standard.

Sharon Talbert
Friends of Campus Cats

[Cat Protector]

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.

--
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
"Kalyahna" > wrote in message
...
> "Cat Protector" > wrote in message
> news:tSWVb.39653$L_4.7723@okepread01...
> > 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.
>
>

[Cat Protector]

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.

--
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
"fan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:55:39 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> > wrote:
>
> >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.
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[Cat Protector]

I too understand how some shelters are limited budgetwise and possibly
timewise but I do believe there may be other rescue groups out there willing
to rehabilitate what supposedly is a troubled animal. I am not sure about
your shelter directors analogy but it seems plausable. I do know that some
rescue groups here in the Phoenix area do rescue cats and other animals on
the euthanasia list. There is also the New Hope program that either the
Humane Society or Maricopa Animal Control has where they send healthy
animals that have been at their shelter longer than normal to others in the
Phoneix area to give them that chance for adoption. I'd say that is one step
closer to ending euthanasia to save space. Whether a shelter is kill or
no-kil, every cat deserves a good and loving home.

--
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
"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...

> I agree, unless there is a physiological reason for the aggression.
> When shelters say an animal cannot be rehabilitated, what they mean is
> they don't have the time, energy or will to devote to the task of
> gaining a fearful animal's trust.
>
> I understand shelter resources are limited. What I don't understand is
> a shelter's refusal to allow rescue groups to take the "unrehabilitable"
> animals because they are "too dangerous". There are such things as
> liability waivers. My feeling is that some shelter directors don't want
> others to succeed where they have failed.
>
> (snip)
>
>

[Cat Protector]

That is pretty bold to say most rescues. I know quite a few shelters in the
Phoenix area that have taken in troubled animals and rehabilitated them. I
rescued one cat who was all **** and vinegar and even the slightest movement
set him off. He also had moments of sweetness. I gave him the name Ali,
because just like the famous boxer, he moved like a butterfly and stung like
a bee. Sun Valley Animal Rescue took him in, rehabilitated him and now Ali
has a good and loving home and the people who adopted him absolutely love
him.

--
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
"Kalyahna" > wrote in message
...

> Sometimes the rescues refuse to take an animal because of the animal's
> temperament. Most rescues have other in-house animals and cannot,
therefore,
> take an animal with a history of aggression.
>
>

[Cat Protector]

I hate when people just dump the animal and drive away. It shows how low
they are. They also probably don't realize that it is animal cruelty. I
remember hearing one story from the Humane Society where a guy tied up a dog
outside in the summer heat in front of the shelter and drove off. In the
latest sick act a cat was thrown out in a backpack on a busy roadway. A
passing motorist saw a cat's head sticking out of it and contacted Glendale
Police who in turn called the Humane Society. The cat had suffered major
head trama and thus had to be put sleep. Seeing that story made me sick! I
hope they catch the person that did it.

--
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
"fan" > wrote in message
...

> Could you contact the newspapers with the information about the "drop
> boxes?" That would make a very embaressing story about the shelter.
> This is an intolerable situation.
>
> We commonly get people dropping off animals at our door at night.
> There is no one there to accept them. Why not give the animal a chance
> and drop it off during business hours, we are open in the evenings
> too.
>
> The policies are made by people, not nature. The shelter is therefore
> only as good as its people. They shouldn't be allowed to hide behind
> the "policy" because they can change it.
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[Fan]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:38:09 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>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?


----== 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 =---

[Cat Protector]

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.

--
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
"Fan" > wrote in message
...

> 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?
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[Cat Protector]

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.

--
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
"Kalyahna" > wrote in message
...

> 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 ass. 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.
>
>

[Fan]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:37:12 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>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
>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.
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.



----== 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 =---

[Cat Protector]

Why do you persist? I stated my case and my position yet you still feel you
need to badger me. Time and time again I gave the facts but you didn't seem
to be getting it. I have given the facts of my position stated several times
where I was involved in rescue and even gave some examples of my position
especially in regards to euthanasia. I will not retract what I have said
simply because you insist I should. I answered all of your questions so why
not drop this matter and move on?


--
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
"Fan" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:37:12 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> > wrote:
>
> >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
> >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.
> 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.
>
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[Kalyahna]

"Cat Protector" > wrote in message
news:ew_Wb.41190$L_4.3704@okepread01...
> 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
> 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.

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?

[Kalyahna]

"Cat Protector" > wrote in message
news:hIYWb.41175$L_4.10251@okepread01...
> That is pretty bold to say most rescues.

At least I didn't say "all rescues."

> I know quite a few shelters in the
> Phoenix area that have taken in troubled animals and rehabilitated them.

We work with more animals than we used to, particularly dogs. Our canine
behavior consultant is working wonders with Gentle Leader programs, and our
more experienced volunteers work with "issue" dogs, on food aggression,
dominant behavior, poor manners, etc.

Our feline behavior consultant takes calls from new owners and existing
owners and works her ass off to prevent people from bringing in their cats
in the first place.

My comment about rescues was in regards to the fact that -generally
speaking,- many breeders also do rescue (which is why it's called BREED
rescue). Breeders, generally speaking, have other animals of that specific
breed. Some of them are shown, some of them are prize winners. Would you
take a dog into your home that had a history of attacking other dogs and
thus put at risk your own animals? Would you take in a dog with a history of
attacking and killing cats?

[Kalyahna]

"Cat Protector" > wrote in message
news:PtYWb.41172$L_4.25962@okepread01...
> 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.

[Cat Protector]

You have yet to meet my cat Isis. She knows how to open doors or I'd foster
the special needs cats.

--
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
"Kalyahna" > wrote in message
...

> 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?
>
>

[Fan]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:19:03 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>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.


----== 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 =---

[Fan]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:29:15 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>Why do you persist?

Because I thought that if I pointed out to you, that your incorrect
statements were insulting to some very caring people, that you would
be man enough to say that those statements were not what you meant. I
was wrong that you would do this. I'm sorry that I wasted so much time
trying to help you see how untrue and nasty that was. You choose to
state untruths and that is why I persisted. That was a waste of time.

>I stated my case and my position yet you still feel you
>need to badger me.
Badger? I believe that I gave you information that you could have used
to rethink your hurtfull statements. Instead, you kept trying to
interject other issues to cloud the original one when it had not been
resolved.

>Time and time again I gave the facts but you didn't seem
>to be getting it.
No, you gave your thoughts and opinions, not the facts. For example,
you have continually stated that people who work on no-kill shelters
are above those who work in other shelters. That is NOT fact, I have
actually seen it and you have not. Also, you keep stating that ALL
animals can be rehabilitated, no matter what. When I gave examples on
ones that probably were not practical to rehibilitate, you either
refused to reply or changed the subject.

> I have given the facts of my position stated several times
>where I was involved in rescue and even gave some examples of my position
>especially in regards to euthanasia.
Right!, like the one that says you would be so happy to foster sick
cats, but your cat can open doors. (Note: That was done in another
post.) I just replied to that one by saying that for an extremely
small amount of money, you can "cat proof" and "child proof" all your
doors. Your statement is just a flimsy excuse to not "put your money
where your mouth is."

I do understand that you say you are against euthanasia yet you
repeatedly refused to answer the question about what to do with an
animal that is dying a painfull death and it can not be saved.

You kept saying that ALL animals can be rehibilitated, no matter what
their problem is. When I gave you examples of ones that many shelters
will not deal with, you AGAIN failed to reply.

>I will not retract what I have said
>simply because you insist I should. I answered all of your questions so why
>not drop this matter and move on?

I have never asked you to retract what you said because I "want" you
to. I have asked you to retract the statements that are both untrue
and hurtfull to some fine and dedicated people. That is, was, and
always has been my goal. Other discussions were because you tried to
muddy the waters and justify your statments.

It is time to end this discussion. I stand my my position that you are
refusing to answer several questions. One has just to re-read the
posts between you and I to see that your refusal to answer is
consistant. I have refused to answer only the statements that you
designed to rally people against me by getting personal. My last post
pointed out more than one question that you have never answered.

You have refused to reply to my repeated offer to help develop a
program for getting special needs animals to those people that you
insist you know can rehabilitate them. If you really cared about those
animals, you would have jumped at the chance to actually save them
instead of simply talking about it.

You have refused to reply to my repeated question of what we can do
when we are out of room at our shelter, foster program, other area
shelters, etc. These are real life issues, not just the theory that
you seem to be saying.

I thought you would be honest enough to answer those, but your only
reply is to keep saying that you have answered them. You have not and
I will not waste bandwidth on a person who keeps saying he did
something, but it isn't there to see. I expected much more from you.

I only asked you to retract the hurtfull things that you said about
people who work in shelters where they admit to euthanasia. That is
really the jist of my arguements. You have repeatedly stated that
those at no-kills are more caring than the people at other private
shelters. I have also said that you imply that private regular
shelters do not have foster and volunteer programs. That is quite
simply and plainly an out and out lie when it comes to most private
shelters. You have repeatedly failed to even reply to that issue.

I have no respect for a person who misleads people by telling such
lies. I have tried to keep my posts to you respectfull, honest, and on
the issue we were discussing. I have tried not to get personal, but
this post is an exception to that. You have not reciprocated and I
will no longer continue this because of that fact.


----== 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 =---

[Cat Protector]

I am not going to apologize for stating facts that you don't want to hear.
I'd just suggest you just drop it and move on. It is pointless to beat a
dead horse simply because you insist on forcing someone to share your views.

--
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
<Fan> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:29:15 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> > wrote:
>
> >Why do you persist?
>
> Because I thought that if I pointed out to you, that your incorrect
> statements were insulting to some very caring people, that you would
> be man enough to say that those statements were not what you meant. I
> was wrong that you would do this. I'm sorry that I wasted so much time
> trying to help you see how untrue and nasty that was. You choose to
> state untruths and that is why I persisted. That was a waste of time.
>
> >I stated my case and my position yet you still feel you
> >need to badger me.
> Badger? I believe that I gave you information that you could have used
> to rethink your hurtfull statements. Instead, you kept trying to
> interject other issues to cloud the original one when it had not been
> resolved.
>
> >Time and time again I gave the facts but you didn't seem
> >to be getting it.
> No, you gave your thoughts and opinions, not the facts. For example,
> you have continually stated that people who work on no-kill shelters
> are above those who work in other shelters. That is NOT fact, I have
> actually seen it and you have not. Also, you keep stating that ALL
> animals can be rehabilitated, no matter what. When I gave examples on
> ones that probably were not practical to rehibilitate, you either
> refused to reply or changed the subject.
>
> > I have given the facts of my position stated several times
> >where I was involved in rescue and even gave some examples of my position

> >especially in regards to euthanasia.
> Right!, like the one that says you would be so happy to foster sick
> cats, but your cat can open doors. (Note: That was done in another
> post.) I just replied to that one by saying that for an extremely
> small amount of money, you can "cat proof" and "child proof" all your
> doors. Your statement is just a flimsy excuse to not "put your money
> where your mouth is."
>
> I do understand that you say you are against euthanasia yet you
> repeatedly refused to answer the question about what to do with an
> animal that is dying a painfull death and it can not be saved.
>
> You kept saying that ALL animals can be rehibilitated, no matter what
> their problem is. When I gave you examples of ones that many shelters
> will not deal with, you AGAIN failed to reply.
>
> >I will not retract what I have said
> >simply because you insist I should. I answered all of your questions so
why
> >not drop this matter and move on?
>
> I have never asked you to retract what you said because I "want" you
> to. I have asked you to retract the statements that are both untrue
> and hurtfull to some fine and dedicated people. That is, was, and
> always has been my goal. Other discussions were because you tried to
> muddy the waters and justify your statments.
>
> It is time to end this discussion. I stand my my position that you are
> refusing to answer several questions. One has just to re-read the
> posts between you and I to see that your refusal to answer is
> consistant. I have refused to answer only the statements that you
> designed to rally people against me by getting personal. My last post
> pointed out more than one question that you have never answered.
>
> You have refused to reply to my repeated offer to help develop a
> program for getting special needs animals to those people that you
> insist you know can rehabilitate them. If you really cared about those
> animals, you would have jumped at the chance to actually save them
> instead of simply talking about it.
>
> You have refused to reply to my repeated question of what we can do
> when we are out of room at our shelter, foster program, other area
> shelters, etc. These are real life issues, not just the theory that
> you seem to be saying.
>
> I thought you would be honest enough to answer those, but your only
> reply is to keep saying that you have answered them. You have not and
> I will not waste bandwidth on a person who keeps saying he did
> something, but it isn't there to see. I expected much more from you.
>
> I only asked you to retract the hurtfull things that you said about
> people who work in shelters where they admit to euthanasia. That is
> really the jist of my arguements. You have repeatedly stated that
> those at no-kills are more caring than the people at other private
> shelters. I have also said that you imply that private regular
> shelters do not have foster and volunteer programs. That is quite
> simply and plainly an out and out lie when it comes to most private
> shelters. You have repeatedly failed to even reply to that issue.
>
> I have no respect for a person who misleads people by telling such
> lies. I have tried to keep my posts to you respectfull, honest, and on
> the issue we were discussing. I have tried not to get personal, but
> this post is an exception to that. You have not reciprocated and I
> will no longer continue this because of that fact.
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[Cat Protector]

Did you ever stop to think I might live in an apartment? You have to get
special permission for changes like that.

--
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
<Fan> wrote in message ...

> 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.
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[Cheryl]

Fan wrote in on 13 Feb
2004:

> 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?

Absolutely not. I know some at our local animal control and they go the
extra distance with most of the time no reward, but I think this whole
argument is silly. First, you are arguing with CP. He doesn't comprehend
things very well. I think he is "challenged". The other thought is that
he just doesn't express what he really wants to say very well. The second
reason I don't care to get involved in an argument like this one is because
the only real solution to overpopulation is mandatory neutering. But until
that happens, there will always be healthy adoptable animals put to death
for no fault of their own other than being born. It's not a pretty fact
and I think CP just can't comprehend the real world and the sadness in it.

That said, I am reading this because I feel for you and for Kalyahna, and
everyone who does what you do and faces what you have to face each day.
It's never enough and that is the sad fact.



--
Cheryl

Trapped like rats. In a chia-pet.
MIB II

[Fan]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:24:27 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>
>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.


----== 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 =---

[Fan]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:23:14 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>I am not going to apologize for stating facts that you don't want to hear.
>I'd just suggest you just drop it and move on. It is pointless to beat a
>dead horse simply because you insist on forcing someone to share your views.

I simply ask anyone to read my posts, especially the last one. That
clearly states why this statement of yours is not even close to the
truth.


----== 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 =---

[Fan]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:16:46 -0600, Cheryl
> wrote:

>Fan wrote in on 13 Feb
>2004:
>
>> 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?
>
>Absolutely not. I know some at our local animal control and they go the
>extra distance with most of the time no reward, but I think this whole
>argument is silly. First, you are arguing with CP. He doesn't comprehend
>things very well. I think he is "challenged". The other thought is that
>he just doesn't express what he really wants to say very well. The second
>reason I don't care to get involved in an argument like this one is because
>the only real solution to overpopulation is mandatory neutering. But until
>that happens, there will always be healthy adoptable animals put to death
>for no fault of their own other than being born. It's not a pretty fact
>and I think CP just can't comprehend the real world and the sadness in it.
>
>That said, I am reading this because I feel for you and for Kalyahna, and
>everyone who does what you do and faces what you have to face each day.
>It's never enough and that is the sad fact.

Thank you for your opinion. I happen to agree with you, but I would
also have appreciated even if I did not.

Another thing that helps is to volunteer at a shelter. There are
helpful tasks that ANYONE can do. We have people of all ages, all
skills and several disabilities who all are valuable to us. For
example, if you are bedridden, you can still make phone calls to
followup on adoptions.


----== 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 =---

[Cat Protector]

It seems all you want to do is insight a flame war. Give it up already and
move on.

--
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
<Fan> wrote in message ...

> I simply ask anyone to read my posts, especially the last one. That
> clearly states why this statement of yours is not even close to the
> truth.
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[Cat Protector]

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.

--
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
<Fan> wrote in message ...
> 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.
>
>
> ----== 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
=---

[Fan]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:23:18 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>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.


----== 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 =---

[Sherry]

>You have yet to meet my cat Isis. She knows how to open doors or I'd foster
>the special needs cats.
>
>--
>Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of

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.