A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat rescue
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Non-euthanizing groups



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 9th 04, 01:50 AM
Kalyahna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #22  
Old February 9th 04, 01:57 AM
Kalyahna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #23  
Old February 9th 04, 02:19 AM
Kalyahna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #24  
Old February 9th 04, 04:03 AM
Fan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 =---
  #25  
Old February 10th 04, 02:21 AM
Cat Protector
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.




  #26  
Old February 10th 04, 02:55 AM
Cat Protector
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

=---


  #27  
Old February 10th 04, 03:40 AM
frlpwr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)


  #28  
Old February 10th 04, 03:40 AM
frlpwr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?


  #29  
Old February 10th 04, 03:40 AM
frlpwr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #30  
Old February 10th 04, 04:09 AM
Kalyahna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
feed Nutro? Tamara Cat health & behaviour 90 November 19th 03 01:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.