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 health & behaviour
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Call it what it is: killed NOT euthanized



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 5th 03, 01:15 PM
Wendy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"-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  
Old December 6th 03, 12:27 AM
-L.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 6th 03, 12:27 AM
-L.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 6th 03, 01:14 AM
Rona Yuthasastrakosol
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"-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  
Old December 6th 03, 01:14 AM
Rona Yuthasastrakosol
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"-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  
Old December 6th 03, 05:29 AM
Kalyahna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 6th 03, 05:29 AM
Kalyahna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 6th 03, 11:35 PM
MaryL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old December 6th 03, 11:35 PM
MaryL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old December 8th 03, 01:07 PM
Phil P.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:04 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.