Non-euthanizing groups

"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.

"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.

"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.

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 =---

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 =---

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 =---

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 =---

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

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.

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
=---