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
=---