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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"-L." wrote in message ... "Joe Pitt" wrote in message ... I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees 'euthanized' and it softens what is happening in their minds. It's not good and it's not right, and I certainly wish it never had to happen. But death by lethal injection is more *humane* than death on the streets, death by prolonged disease, death by dog or other predator, being hit by cars, or shot or maimed by a human. It is even preferrable to prolonged life in a cage. No, it isn't euthanasia, in the proper meaning of the word, but it is better than the alternatives. -L. That should read the possibility of death on the streets etc. The cat may not agree with you but it makes people feel better. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Wendy" wrote in message ...
"-L." wrote in message ... "Joe Pitt" wrote in message ... I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees 'euthanized' and it softens what is happening in their minds. It's not good and it's not right, and I certainly wish it never had to happen. But death by lethal injection is more *humane* than death on the streets, death by prolonged disease, death by dog or other predator, being hit by cars, or shot or maimed by a human. It is even preferrable to prolonged life in a cage. No, it isn't euthanasia, in the proper meaning of the word, but it is better than the alternatives. -L. That should read the possibility of death on the streets etc. Cats on the streets die sooner or later. Most of them sooner. -L. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Wendy" wrote in message ...
"-L." wrote in message ... "Joe Pitt" wrote in message ... I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that is SICK. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure to spay and neuter their parents. The general public sees 'euthanized' and it softens what is happening in their minds. It's not good and it's not right, and I certainly wish it never had to happen. But death by lethal injection is more *humane* than death on the streets, death by prolonged disease, death by dog or other predator, being hit by cars, or shot or maimed by a human. It is even preferrable to prolonged life in a cage. No, it isn't euthanasia, in the proper meaning of the word, but it is better than the alternatives. -L. That should read the possibility of death on the streets etc. Cats on the streets die sooner or later. Most of them sooner. -L. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"-L." wrote in message
m... Cats on the streets die sooner or later. Most of them sooner. -L. Last I heard, cats in homes die sooner or later, too. Come to think of it, humans do, too :-)! rona -- ***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the inconvenience!*** |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"-L." wrote in message
m... Cats on the streets die sooner or later. Most of them sooner. -L. Last I heard, cats in homes die sooner or later, too. Come to think of it, humans do, too :-)! rona -- ***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the inconvenience!*** |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe Pitt" wrote in message
. .. I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that is SICK. It's still ending their life before the natural bodily functions would have stopped on their own. It's killing, either way. The point is the prevention of further suffering, and this DOES include aggressive animals that would otherwise sit in a kennel. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure to spay and neuter their parents. Yes, a large part of it has to do with the lack of spaying and neutering. But damned near as much of it has to do with irresponsible people who dump their pets on overcrowded shelters for trivial reasons (moving, new baby, too big, no time, etc). A lot of shelters apparently have a reputation for euthanizing strays as soon as their legal holding period is over. NOT every shelter does this. The general public sees 'euthanized' and it softens what is happening in their minds. I see postings that say you adopted the day before the animal was due to be euthanized. Tell people you adopted just before the animal was due to be KILLED. And continue to let people think that killing animals is the sole purpose of shelters and humane societies. One of my coworkers was out a month or so ago, and someone struck up a conversation with her, asking what she did for a living. When she replied that she worked for the humane society, he asked, "Oh, so you kill animals for a living?" THAT --IS-- the general attitude of the public. By the way, not every shelter still uses the time-limit criteria for euthanasia. On a more personal note (which explains why this subject is so intensely irritating), as a certified euthanasia tech, I helped with my first euth today. Four of them, actually. A pit who had attacked two cats, an ancient husky with severe handling issues, an absolutely petrified pit, and a chow/gsd mix that leaned on ME when he got woozy. See, I'd played ball with him in the play-yards on several occasions. I liked that dog a great deal, despite his issues. But he HAD those issues, and we cannot put a dog up for adoption that will bite if someone reaches toward his food dish, or distrusts men completely and barely trusts women. And he was euthanized. Not killed. You know why there's that difference in wording for the people who actually work in this field, Joe? Because frankly, if we look at it as killing, slaughtering, whatever you'd like to call it, it would be impossible for us to do. But if we call it euthanasia, we remember that we put them to sleep, end their suffering, and prevent injury to other animals and other people. We take on that emotional burden and the extra heartbreak that already fills a very emotionally difficult line of work. YOU try to settle it in your mind when a terrified dog trusts you in his last moments with knowing that this dog won't injure anyone, and he won't have to sit in a kennel for another day, just waiting on someone else to do it. YOU try to be grateful that at least in his last moments, someone was with him who cared and cried for him. And if this was all about animal control facilities that don't adopt out? Tell your presenter to cough up the money to build a shelter in that area, then. And pay the staff that takes care of the animals, or the vets that perform the spays and neuters. Because there's no goddamned room in any existing shelter for those 60,000 kittens and puppies of which you spoke. Ask him how many foster animals he's housed in the last six months. It's very easy to preach, much more difficult to practice. Now I'm done ranting, because I've had a long day. It's time to finish a book and be comforted by my cats. ~Kal. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe Pitt" wrote in message
. .. I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that is SICK. It's still ending their life before the natural bodily functions would have stopped on their own. It's killing, either way. The point is the prevention of further suffering, and this DOES include aggressive animals that would otherwise sit in a kennel. What is happening in shelters all over is they are KILLING perfectly fine animals because they are unwanted, often due to the failure to spay and neuter their parents. Yes, a large part of it has to do with the lack of spaying and neutering. But damned near as much of it has to do with irresponsible people who dump their pets on overcrowded shelters for trivial reasons (moving, new baby, too big, no time, etc). A lot of shelters apparently have a reputation for euthanizing strays as soon as their legal holding period is over. NOT every shelter does this. The general public sees 'euthanized' and it softens what is happening in their minds. I see postings that say you adopted the day before the animal was due to be euthanized. Tell people you adopted just before the animal was due to be KILLED. And continue to let people think that killing animals is the sole purpose of shelters and humane societies. One of my coworkers was out a month or so ago, and someone struck up a conversation with her, asking what she did for a living. When she replied that she worked for the humane society, he asked, "Oh, so you kill animals for a living?" THAT --IS-- the general attitude of the public. By the way, not every shelter still uses the time-limit criteria for euthanasia. On a more personal note (which explains why this subject is so intensely irritating), as a certified euthanasia tech, I helped with my first euth today. Four of them, actually. A pit who had attacked two cats, an ancient husky with severe handling issues, an absolutely petrified pit, and a chow/gsd mix that leaned on ME when he got woozy. See, I'd played ball with him in the play-yards on several occasions. I liked that dog a great deal, despite his issues. But he HAD those issues, and we cannot put a dog up for adoption that will bite if someone reaches toward his food dish, or distrusts men completely and barely trusts women. And he was euthanized. Not killed. You know why there's that difference in wording for the people who actually work in this field, Joe? Because frankly, if we look at it as killing, slaughtering, whatever you'd like to call it, it would be impossible for us to do. But if we call it euthanasia, we remember that we put them to sleep, end their suffering, and prevent injury to other animals and other people. We take on that emotional burden and the extra heartbreak that already fills a very emotionally difficult line of work. YOU try to settle it in your mind when a terrified dog trusts you in his last moments with knowing that this dog won't injure anyone, and he won't have to sit in a kennel for another day, just waiting on someone else to do it. YOU try to be grateful that at least in his last moments, someone was with him who cared and cried for him. And if this was all about animal control facilities that don't adopt out? Tell your presenter to cough up the money to build a shelter in that area, then. And pay the staff that takes care of the animals, or the vets that perform the spays and neuters. Because there's no goddamned room in any existing shelter for those 60,000 kittens and puppies of which you spoke. Ask him how many foster animals he's housed in the last six months. It's very easy to preach, much more difficult to practice. Now I'm done ranting, because I've had a long day. It's time to finish a book and be comforted by my cats. ~Kal. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Kalyahna" wrote in message ... "Joe Pitt" wrote in message . .. I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that is SICK. A lot of shelters apparently have a reputation for euthanizing strays as soon as their legal holding period is over. NOT every shelter does this. Yes, this is true. I saw Duffy's picture and description on Petfinders, and it was clear that the picture had been there for some time. The description also said that animals were kept at that shelter for 14 days before being euthanized. I was fairly sure that it was too late, but I called anyway. Duffy was still alive! He had been at the shelter for 3 months, and shelter staff were doing everything possible to keep him (literally, to "shelter" him) until a home could be found. That turned out to be one of the best days of my life because I was able to adopt Duffy (and, I hope, one of the best days of *his* life). That animal shelter is going to receive a donation from me at Christmas in Duffy's honor. By the way, not every shelter still uses the time-limit criteria for euthanasia. On a more personal note (which explains why this subject is so intensely irritating), as a certified euthanasia tech, I helped with my first euth today. But he HAD those issues, and we cannot put a dog up for adoption that will bite if someone reaches toward his food dish, or distrusts men completely and barely trusts women. And he was euthanized. Not killed. You know why there's that difference in wording for the people who actually work in this field, Joe? Because frankly, if we look at it as killing, slaughtering, whatever you'd like to call it, it would be impossible for us to do. But if we call it euthanasia, we remember that we put them to sleep, end their suffering, and prevent injury to other animals and other people. We take on that emotional burden and the extra heartbreak that already fills a very emotionally difficult line of work. This is an excellent point. I once did inspections of our local animal shelter for the Humane Society, and I witnessed the process you just described. I was very impressed with the love and care I saw there. It was clearly painful to the staff when animals were euthanized, but the alternative would have been even worse. ~Kal. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Kalyahna" wrote in message ... "Joe Pitt" wrote in message . .. I attended a presentation about stopping the killing of cats (and dogs) in animal control facilities. He emphasised that you euthanize an animal that is SICK. A lot of shelters apparently have a reputation for euthanizing strays as soon as their legal holding period is over. NOT every shelter does this. Yes, this is true. I saw Duffy's picture and description on Petfinders, and it was clear that the picture had been there for some time. The description also said that animals were kept at that shelter for 14 days before being euthanized. I was fairly sure that it was too late, but I called anyway. Duffy was still alive! He had been at the shelter for 3 months, and shelter staff were doing everything possible to keep him (literally, to "shelter" him) until a home could be found. That turned out to be one of the best days of my life because I was able to adopt Duffy (and, I hope, one of the best days of *his* life). That animal shelter is going to receive a donation from me at Christmas in Duffy's honor. By the way, not every shelter still uses the time-limit criteria for euthanasia. On a more personal note (which explains why this subject is so intensely irritating), as a certified euthanasia tech, I helped with my first euth today. But he HAD those issues, and we cannot put a dog up for adoption that will bite if someone reaches toward his food dish, or distrusts men completely and barely trusts women. And he was euthanized. Not killed. You know why there's that difference in wording for the people who actually work in this field, Joe? Because frankly, if we look at it as killing, slaughtering, whatever you'd like to call it, it would be impossible for us to do. But if we call it euthanasia, we remember that we put them to sleep, end their suffering, and prevent injury to other animals and other people. We take on that emotional burden and the extra heartbreak that already fills a very emotionally difficult line of work. This is an excellent point. I once did inspections of our local animal shelter for the Humane Society, and I witnessed the process you just described. I was very impressed with the love and care I saw there. It was clearly painful to the staff when animals were euthanized, but the alternative would have been even worse. ~Kal. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Meghan Noecker" wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:00:10 -0500, "Phil P." wrote: Maybe if everyone used the correct terms that describes exactly what it is, more people would be outraged and sickened enough to force legislation to eliminate it -- like mandatory neuter before adoption or sale (health permitting) and subsidize vets or give them a tax deduction for neutering all animals in their care regardless of the owners' consent or ability to pay. It would be great to get help with vet costs for altering pets, but no vet would ever go along with mandatory altering without owners' consent. If mandatory neutering was the law, vets would have no choice.... (health permitting). If they altered a champion dog that was part of a breeding program, there would be a major lawsuit. Vets would be protected by the law.... Btw, breeders are not very high on my list of priorities.... In fact, they're not even on it.... Phil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Did my cat just killed a bird? | Kuisse0002 | Cat health & behaviour | 52 | October 20th 03 04:52 PM |
Why the tiger almost killed Roy. | kaeli | Cat health & behaviour | 130 | October 11th 03 06:49 PM |