Non-euthanizing groups

I too understand how some shelters are limited budgetwise and possibly
timewise but I do believe there may be other rescue groups out there willing
to rehabilitate what supposedly is a troubled animal. I am not sure about
your shelter directors analogy but it seems plausable. I do know that some
rescue groups here in the Phoenix area do rescue cats and other animals on
the euthanasia list. There is also the New Hope program that either the
Humane Society or Maricopa Animal Control has where they send healthy
animals that have been at their shelter longer than normal to others in the
Phoneix area to give them that chance for adoption. I'd say that is one step
closer to ending euthanasia to save space. Whether a shelter is kill or
no-kil, every cat deserves 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
"frlpwr" wrote in message ...

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)

That is pretty bold to say most rescues. I know quite a few shelters in the
Phoenix area that have taken in troubled animals and rehabilitated them. I
rescued one cat who was all **** and vinegar and even the slightest movement
set him off. He also had moments of sweetness. I gave him the name Ali,
because just like the famous boxer, he moved like a butterfly and stung like
a bee. Sun Valley Animal Rescue took him in, rehabilitated him and now Ali
has a good and loving home and the people who adopted him absolutely love
him.

--
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
...

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.

I hate when people just dump the animal and drive away. It shows how low
they are. They also probably don't realize that it is animal cruelty. I
remember hearing one story from the Humane Society where a guy tied up a dog
outside in the summer heat in front of the shelter and drove off. In the
latest sick act a cat was thrown out in a backpack on a busy roadway. A
passing motorist saw a cat's head sticking out of it and contacted Glendale
Police who in turn called the Humane Society. The cat had suffered major
head trama and thus had to be put sleep. Seeing that story made me sick! I
hope they catch the person that did it.

--
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
...

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 Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:38:09 -0700, "Cat Protector"
wrote:

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.


CP, I detailed a lot of points in my last post on this subject that I
asked you to answer. I believe that the answers to them are important,
they were not simply reteric. With all due respect to you, you have
failed to answer some of these questions that I have asked of you
several times. When I asked how you would handle the really hard, but
practical issues that we are facing at our shelter, you failed to
answer.

My reason for going into so much detail, and for pressing on this
issue is that you said some very hurtfull things about people who work
in the "kill" shelters. As one of those people, I felt insulted by
those false statements and implications. That is why I'm making a big
deal out of this.

I readily admitted when you were correct, to do any less would be
dishonest. You have had time to verify with your local shelters
whether the statements that I disputed are correct or not. You owe it
to us to either retract what you said, or to correct the statements
that were wrong.

Included in this is: 1. the implication that only people who work with
"no-kill" truely care about the animals, 2. Only "no-kill" shelters
have a foster program, 3. Only "no-kill" shelters have a strong
volunteer program, 4. There is NEVER a reason to euthanize ANY animal,
5. It is practical and possible to rehabilite ALL animals and
euthanizing any for behaviorial problems, no matter how severe, is
NEVER warranted, Those who don't agree with are just lazy. 6.
"no-kill" shelters never turn away animals because they are full.

A lot of people read this newsgroup and they deserve to know the
truth. As I said, I actually do volunteer at a shelter; I see the
issues, it is not just theory to me. My knowledge on this is not just
reading what people in the newsgroup say, I see it first hand. If you
don't volunteer, will you at least spend a couple of hours calling
your local private shelters to find the truth?


----== 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 =---

I already answered them in a previous post. Why answer it again? I won't be
pressed into retracting statements simply because you don't like them or
because you didn't want to listen to someone else's answer. As for me not
volunteering that is incorrect. I have been involved with rescue for several
years in a more behind the scenes roll. If I didn't believe in the groups I
supported I never would have developed relationships with them.

I don't know how you could feel insulted by what I had to say? Not everyone
is going to agree with your position. I feel you have misjudged me here. All
I have said and I guess I must repeat is that I have a lot of respect for
no-kills because they don't feel the need to destroy an animal in order to
save space.

I find it kind of hard to swallow that you feel I implied that I simply
dismissed those who work in kill shelters but you certainly seemed to
downplay those who work for no-kills which I find kind of insulting but I
still must stand by my defense of those who work in no-kill shelters. You
seemed to post that those who work in shelters that euthanize have a much
tougher job than those who work in no-kills. I said you were wrong and
posted my reasons. Now you seem hell bent on trying to beat an apology or a
retraction out of me simply because I defended the no-kill workers. You also
seem to want to put words in my mouth that I either never said or are
twisting them.

I give kudoes to anyone who helps to save our feline friends but I don't
think euthanasia is the right course of action as you seem to infer it is.
To euthanize to make additional space for incoming animals is wrong in my
book. Every cat deserves the chance at a good and loving home. I am working
hard to achieve that goal in my area. In fact I have even taken in rescues
including one I adopted. My other cat was adopted from the Humane Society
which is a shelter that euthanizes but they have put together some new
programs and are now trying to work with other shelters in the Phoenix area
to get animals adopted.

As much as you have stated that I never answer your questions, I have. I'll
state it clear again. I don't believe in euthanasia to make space for
incoming animals. Fostering animals in your home, or partnering/networking
with other shelters is the best route for not only rehabilitation but also
increases chances for the animal to be adopted. Also animals would not have
to be euthanized to save space. I have no idea what kind of shelter you are
working at but it seems this may be something your directors may have
missed. BTW, since you seem stuck on the medical issues there are groups out
there that rescue cats with special needs especially if they are FELV and
FIV positive. If you had done your homework you would see these are two
fatal diseases in cats. Should these types of cats be put down because they
have medical needs? Nope. In fact with correct treatment, they can live long
and healthy lives.

I don't know what else you really want me to say but I think you and I
should just agree to disagree. Of course I posed a question to you about
declawing but you seemed to have avoided it. But of course your attitude
about avoiding it pretty much gave me it. A lot of people may have read this
newsgroup, but last time I checked not everyone shared your opinion. Should
they have to retract everything they say as well? In my opinion, I think
everyone here has probably had a different opinion whether they volunteered
at a shelter or not. As one user pointed out there are good shelters and bad
ones. Luckily, I have gotten to know and work with the good ones but I have
read and seen horror stories about the bad ones.

--
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
...

CP, I detailed a lot of points in my last post on this subject that I
asked you to answer. I believe that the answers to them are important,
they were not simply reteric. With all due respect to you, you have
failed to answer some of these questions that I have asked of you
several times. When I asked how you would handle the really hard, but
practical issues that we are facing at our shelter, you failed to
answer.

My reason for going into so much detail, and for pressing on this
issue is that you said some very hurtfull things about people who work
in the "kill" shelters. As one of those people, I felt insulted by
those false statements and implications. That is why I'm making a big
deal out of this.

I readily admitted when you were correct, to do any less would be
dishonest. You have had time to verify with your local shelters
whether the statements that I disputed are correct or not. You owe it
to us to either retract what you said, or to correct the statements
that were wrong.

Included in this is: 1. the implication that only people who work with
"no-kill" truely care about the animals, 2. Only "no-kill" shelters
have a foster program, 3. Only "no-kill" shelters have a strong
volunteer program, 4. There is NEVER a reason to euthanize ANY animal,
5. It is practical and possible to rehabilite ALL animals and
euthanizing any for behaviorial problems, no matter how severe, is
NEVER warranted, Those who don't agree with are just lazy. 6.
"no-kill" shelters never turn away animals because they are full.

A lot of people read this newsgroup and they deserve to know the
truth. As I said, I actually do volunteer at a shelter; I see the
issues, it is not just theory to me. My knowledge on this is not just
reading what people in the newsgroup say, I see it first hand. If you
don't volunteer, will you at least spend a couple of hours calling
your local private shelters to find the truth?


----== 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
=---

Ringworm may be contagious but it is treatable. Why destroy a cat simply
because of that. You say many shelters euthanize due to positive tests but
are you including the no-kills in saying that or just the ones that
euthanize? As for ferals there are some shelters which actually test,
vaccinate, spay/neuter, and then release. The ones that can be adopted are
often worked with and rehabilitated because they often were borderline
feral.

As for special needs animals that are FELV or FIV positive, I would be happy
to foster them but my two cats are what is deemed as healthy (I am not
saying this to be high and mighty but this is how shelter and rescue workers
see cats without the illness). FELV and FIV positive cats can't be mixed
with already healthy cats but they can live with other cats who have the
ailment. I use this as an example because I have no idea what you consider
special needs cats. As for the need to euthanize there is no need to do it
unless the animal is so hurt and in pain that they can't be treated
medically.

As for spay/neuter and the whole overpopulation program there are still
going to be people out there who fail to get the message. But I think the
key to winning the battle is through constant education. I know on the
adoption end at some shelters you can't adopt a cat unless they are spayed
or neutered. When I adopted my cat Isis they would not allow me to take her
home until this was done.

--
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
...

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.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:37:12 -0700, "Cat Protector"
wrote:

I already answered them in a previous post. Why answer it again?

Because you did not answer them, reread the posts. I even pointed out,
in one of the answers, that you used a "solution" that was
specifically not available. I asked you to give a solution that is
viable. You did not reply.

I won't be
pressed into retracting statements simply because you don't like them or
because you didn't want to listen to someone else's answer.

WHAT? I asked you to retract the ones that are incorrect AND hurtfull.
An example is that workers and volunteers ONLY at the no-kill shelters
care about their animals.


As for me not
volunteering that is incorrect. I have been involved with rescue for several
years in a more behind the scenes roll. If I didn't believe in the groups I
supported I never would have developed relationships with them.


I applaud that, however this is the first time that you have said it.
Each time I asked you if you had actual volunteer or work experience,
you did not answer. Why didn't you say this before and why are you
still being so vague about it? Are we talking about a couple of hours
a year or at least 20 hours a year?

I don't know how you could feel insulted by what I had to say? Not everyone
is going to agree with your position. I feel you have misjudged me here. All
I have said and I guess I must repeat is that I have a lot of respect for
no-kills because they don't feel the need to destroy an animal in order to
save space.

As do I. The difference is that I also have a lot of respect for those
who work in all private shelters. As I have stated repeatedly, I think
they are equally noble in their desire to help the animals. Do you
think the ones in the no-kill shelter are more noble because it is a
no-kill shelter or not?

There is a classic line in a classic book, Animal Farm. The animals
have revolted and they are now forming a society where all animals,
including humans and non-humans, are entirely equal. Then the pigs
state something like "All animals are equal, but pigs are more equal
than other animals." Such reteric is clearly implying that one group
is better than the other.

Why don't you simply state "I respect the employees and volunteers who
truly care for the animals?" You have repeatedly made it clear that
you think those at no-kill shelters are automatically better than the
ones at other private shelters. It is only that difference that I
argue against.

I find it kind of hard to swallow that you feel I implied that I simply
dismissed those who work in kill shelters but you certainly seemed to
downplay those who work for no-kills which I find kind of insulting but I
still must stand by my defense of those who work in no-kill shelters. You
seemed to post that those who work in shelters that euthanize have a much
tougher job than those who work in no-kills. I said you were wrong and
posted my reasons.
I have not said, nor implied that the ones at either kind of shelter
are in any way better than any other. I went out of my way to point
out that I consider them entirely equal. How is that downplaying
anyone? When did I ever even suggest that it is harder to work in one
kind of shelter vs another? If this is true, point out quotes by me
that say this.

Now you seem hell bent on trying to beat an apology or a
retraction out of me simply because I defended the no-kill workers. You also
seem to want to put words in my mouth that I either never said or are
twisting them.

Again, I simply repeated what you said, often in a direct quote. I
challenge you to post quotes, from me, that said that workers at
no-kill shelters are even a tiny bit less dedicated, caring, etc.

How are you defending the people at the no-kill shelters? What did I
say against them? Post quotes by me that say this or we must conclude
that you are simply trying to divert attention.

If you can find any quotes, I will instantly and sincearly appologe
for that because it is untrue and my saying it would be insulting to
the fine people who work at the no-kill shelters. I have nothing but
respect for what they are doing. The only thing that I am against is
saying incorrect things that downplay the role of people at EITHER
type of shelter.Their level of caring is NOT related to the euthanasia
issue.

I give kudoes to anyone who helps to save our feline friends but I don't
think euthanasia is the right course of action as you seem to infer it is.
To euthanize to make additional space for incoming animals is wrong in my
book. Every cat deserves the chance at a good and loving home.
You have yet to give me an answer on how we can deal with the
situation where there is zero room left in our shelter, zero room in
other local shelters, zero room left in the foster program, and zero
room left for employee/volunteer fosters. There comes a time when
there is NO more room in my part of the state, at any shelter or
foster program, during kitten/puppy season. What alternative is there?

I have asked you this several times and you have not give me an answer
that accepts the fact that all the resources are at zero. You simply
have said to use the foster program or other shelters. Well, they too
are at (or over) 100% capacity. When I asked for another solution
because that was stated as not available, you remained mute.

I am working
hard to achieve that goal in my area. In fact I have even taken in rescues
including one I adopted. My other cat was adopted from the Humane Society
which is a shelter that euthanizes but they have put together some new
programs and are now trying to work with other shelters in the Phoenix area
to get animals adopted.

As I said the last time you pointed this out, I applaud your effort
and that of the shelters in your area.

CP, this is not personal. I have nothing against you. As I have said
before, there are things about you that I admire. I just can't accept
statements that the people at no-kill shelters are in any way more
caring, noble, understanding, etc. I also cannot accept there there is
a solution to our very practical problems, when you say there is and
we are simply not trying hard enough.


As much as you have stated that I never answer your questions, I have. I'll
state it clear again. I don't believe in euthanasia to make space for
incoming animals. Fostering animals in your home, or partnering/networking
with other shelters is the best route for not only rehabilitation but also
increases chances for the animal to be adopted. Also animals would not have
to be euthanized to save space.
And when I pointed out that your answer was not possible because the
foster program can not accept any more animals and the other shelters
are in the same situation, you did NOT reply. I'm not trying to be
disagreeable, but either I misses some of your posts or you did not
reply.

I have also not seen a reply to my question of the vicious animals.
You HAVE skirted around it by saying that no animal is ever beyond
rehabilitation. You remained mute when I questioned that and asked you
about a very plausable senerio.

Some of your writings say that you have contacts that would be willing
to accept animals that we consider not able to be rehibilitated with
our resourses. I volunteered to become involved with a program to ship
our animals to those people. You have not even mentioned my proposal.
If was a sincere one, not theoretical.

You hate euthanasia so much, why didn't you reply to that offer? There
are certain breeds that are routinely euthanized in some cities, they
could be saved. Also the ones who have killed or mauled other animals
and/or humans. Ditto the ones with diseases that are not practical to
treat. These animals can be saved by this program. Why didn't you
reply to this offer?

I have no idea what kind of shelter you are
working at but it seems this may be something your directors may have
missed.
As I have stated, numerous times, we have a strong foster program, we
go out of our way to reach out to other shelters in the area, and we
have a strong volunteer program. We are also involved in community
education, outreach, pet therapy, etc, but that is not part of this
discussion. Ditto, the fact that we at the leading edge for a specific
program to rehabilitate certain kinds of animal problems.

BTW, since you seem stuck on the medical issues there are groups out
there that rescue cats with special needs especially if they are FELV and
FIV positive. If you had done your homework you would see these are two
fatal diseases in cats.
Now you are getting way too personal. "If you had done your homework"
has nothing to do with this discussion. I happen have some
knowledgeable about FELV and FIV, why would you say otherwise and why
is that significant in this discussion? I also know a bit about
ringworn, fleas, various intestinal parasites, ear mites, nausia,
kennel cough, parvo, and URI, to name a few. I have discovered cases
of some of these that the veterinary staff has missed because they can
sometimes be hard to spot. This has nothing to do with this discussion
and only serves to divert attention from the issue at hand, it is a
red herring.

Should these types of cats be put down because they
have medical needs? Nope. In fact with correct treatment, they can live long
and healthy lives.

I agree with you that in some cases it is practical to treat certain
medical conditions. However, with some, it is not practical when you
are at full capacity, to treat an animal with a very small chance of
survival if it means turning away some with no health problems. A
puppy with advanced parvo is not a good risk to treat when there are
ten puppies a day coming in the door and only nine people want to
adopt them. I use this example because more people know about the
unique aspects of parvo than many other diseases.

We can get around 75 animals a day, not all of them are going to be
adoptable. I keep asking and you keep not answering...what do you do
when everyone is out of space? You keep evading this question.

I don't know what else you really want me to say but I think you and I
should just agree to disagree. Of course I posed a question to you about
declawing but you seemed to have avoided it. But of course your attitude
about avoiding it pretty much gave me it.
I did respond to it by saying that the question had nothing to do with
this discussion. Why would you have mentioned it if not to divert
attention about what we are really talking about? If the question was
at all related to this subject, I would have felt an obligation to
answer it.

In a similar vein, I would not have answered questions about my race,
gender, national origin, sexual orientation, political view, or
weight, to name a few. I have thoughts on how to best introduce cats,
litterbox issues, food, vegitarianism, choice of gender for animals,
choice of owners for animals, and many many other issues. None of
which have any place in this discussion. I did answer your question by
clearly stating that this is an improper question.

A lot of people may have read this
newsgroup, but last time I checked not everyone shared your opinion. Should
they have to retract everything they say as well?
In one, or more, of my posts, I made it very clear that I was asking
you to appologise because of your statements or implications that
people at the "kill" shelters are uncaring, or even simply less
caring. Related to that is the statement or implication that ONLY
no-kill shelters have good foster and volunteer programs. Also your
implication that the shelters euthanize animals because they really
don't care for the animals so it makes no difference to them. Most EU
techs do care a lot and implying otherwise makes a very difficult job
even more difficult.

By the way, you never did admit that it is sometimes more humane to
euthanize an injured animal than to prolong suffering that will lead
to a slow painfull death. I asked you to clearify this, several times,
and you remained mute.

If others had said that, I would have given them the same facts that I
gave you and asked them to verify those facts. I would have asked them
to retract their statements once they verified that their facts were,
indeed, incorrect.


In my opinion, I think
everyone here has probably had a different opinion whether they volunteered
at a shelter or not. As one user pointed out there are good shelters and bad
ones. Luckily, I have gotten to know and work with the good ones but I have
read and seen horror stories about the bad ones.

This is completely true except for one important point; if you have
not spent the hours in a shelter, you are just repeating theory that
othes have said. Only by being there, over time, can you understand
what is going on. I do accept as an alternative to actually being
there, to read some unbiased professional writings on both sides of
the issue.

I hope that I will not have to repeat this again, but you just don't
get it that there are good shelters that euthanise. To characterize a
shelter as bad simply because they do, is wrong.

To characterize a volunteer or employee as ANY less caring because
they work in one kind of shelter vs the other is also wrong. To say
that working in a shelter that euthanises is easier because they kill
is also wrong. That is exactly what you do and it is what I think you
are completely wrong about.

I chose to volunteer at a shelter that does euthanasia because they
are the one, in this area, that does the most for the animals. Their
volume is probably a hundred times the volume of the number two
private shelter in the area. I hate it that they euthanize any
adoptable animal, but I have no viable alternative. I have asked you
for one, and have received none.

You simply repeat that we should foster them, or send them to other
shelters. You cannot accept that these programs are full. There is no
room. There is no money to build more facilities.

That is what I found insulting. I don't think my view is difficult to
understand.

Lets ask the others in this group...How many of you think that a
person who works in a shelter that sometimes euthanizes is
automatically less caring than one who works in a "no-kill" shelter?
How many of you think that euthanizing shelters can not possibly have
a good foster or volunteer program?

I promise that I will not say anything against anyone who says they
agree or disagree unless they badmouth the people at one shelter vs
another. I would just as strongly disagree with anyone who says a
"no-kill" shelter is bad because they don't believe in euthanizing.



----== 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 =---

Why do you persist? I stated my case and my position yet you still feel you
need to badger me. Time and time again I gave the facts but you didn't seem
to be getting it. I have given the facts of my position stated several times
where I was involved in rescue and even gave some examples of my position
especially in regards to euthanasia. I will not retract what I have said
simply because you insist I should. I answered all of your questions so why
not drop this matter and move on?


--
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 Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:37:12 -0700, "Cat Protector"
wrote:

I already answered them in a previous post. Why answer it again?

Because you did not answer them, reread the posts. I even pointed out,
in one of the answers, that you used a "solution" that was
specifically not available. I asked you to give a solution that is
viable. You did not reply.

I won't be
pressed into retracting statements simply because you don't like them or
because you didn't want to listen to someone else's answer.

WHAT? I asked you to retract the ones that are incorrect AND hurtfull.
An example is that workers and volunteers ONLY at the no-kill shelters
care about their animals.


As for me not
volunteering that is incorrect. I have been involved with rescue for
several
years in a more behind the scenes roll. If I didn't believe in the groups
I
supported I never would have developed relationships with them.


I applaud that, however this is the first time that you have said it.
Each time I asked you if you had actual volunteer or work experience,
you did not answer. Why didn't you say this before and why are you
still being so vague about it? Are we talking about a couple of hours
a year or at least 20 hours a year?

I don't know how you could feel insulted by what I had to say? Not
everyone
is going to agree with your position. I feel you have misjudged me here.
All
I have said and I guess I must repeat is that I have a lot of respect for
no-kills because they don't feel the need to destroy an animal in order
to
save space.

As do I. The difference is that I also have a lot of respect for those
who work in all private shelters. As I have stated repeatedly, I think
they are equally noble in their desire to help the animals. Do you
think the ones in the no-kill shelter are more noble because it is a
no-kill shelter or not?

There is a classic line in a classic book, Animal Farm. The animals
have revolted and they are now forming a society where all animals,
including humans and non-humans, are entirely equal. Then the pigs
state something like "All animals are equal, but pigs are more equal
than other animals." Such reteric is clearly implying that one group
is better than the other.

Why don't you simply state "I respect the employees and volunteers who
truly care for the animals?" You have repeatedly made it clear that
you think those at no-kill shelters are automatically better than the
ones at other private shelters. It is only that difference that I
argue against.

I find it kind of hard to swallow that you feel I implied that I simply
dismissed those who work in kill shelters but you certainly seemed to
downplay those who work for no-kills which I find kind of insulting but I
still must stand by my defense of those who work in no-kill shelters. You
seemed to post that those who work in shelters that euthanize have a much
tougher job than those who work in no-kills. I said you were wrong and
posted my reasons.
I have not said, nor implied that the ones at either kind of shelter
are in any way better than any other. I went out of my way to point
out that I consider them entirely equal. How is that downplaying
anyone? When did I ever even suggest that it is harder to work in one
kind of shelter vs another? If this is true, point out quotes by me
that say this.

Now you seem hell bent on trying to beat an apology or a
retraction out of me simply because I defended the no-kill workers. You
also
seem to want to put words in my mouth that I either never said or are
twisting them.

Again, I simply repeated what you said, often in a direct quote. I
challenge you to post quotes, from me, that said that workers at
no-kill shelters are even a tiny bit less dedicated, caring, etc.

How are you defending the people at the no-kill shelters? What did I
say against them? Post quotes by me that say this or we must conclude
that you are simply trying to divert attention.

If you can find any quotes, I will instantly and sincearly appologe
for that because it is untrue and my saying it would be insulting to
the fine people who work at the no-kill shelters. I have nothing but
respect for what they are doing. The only thing that I am against is
saying incorrect things that downplay the role of people at EITHER
type of shelter.Their level of caring is NOT related to the euthanasia
issue.

I give kudoes to anyone who helps to save our feline friends but I don't
think euthanasia is the right course of action as you seem to infer it
is.
To euthanize to make additional space for incoming animals is wrong in my
book. Every cat deserves the chance at a good and loving home.
You have yet to give me an answer on how we can deal with the
situation where there is zero room left in our shelter, zero room in
other local shelters, zero room left in the foster program, and zero
room left for employee/volunteer fosters. There comes a time when
there is NO more room in my part of the state, at any shelter or
foster program, during kitten/puppy season. What alternative is there?

I have asked you this several times and you have not give me an answer
that accepts the fact that all the resources are at zero. You simply
have said to use the foster program or other shelters. Well, they too
are at (or over) 100% capacity. When I asked for another solution
because that was stated as not available, you remained mute.

I am working
hard to achieve that goal in my area. In fact I have even taken in
rescues
including one I adopted. My other cat was adopted from the Humane Society
which is a shelter that euthanizes but they have put together some new
programs and are now trying to work with other shelters in the Phoenix
area
to get animals adopted.

As I said the last time you pointed this out, I applaud your effort
and that of the shelters in your area.

CP, this is not personal. I have nothing against you. As I have said
before, there are things about you that I admire. I just can't accept
statements that the people at no-kill shelters are in any way more
caring, noble, understanding, etc. I also cannot accept there there is
a solution to our very practical problems, when you say there is and
we are simply not trying hard enough.


As much as you have stated that I never answer your questions, I have.
I'll
state it clear again. I don't believe in euthanasia to make space for
incoming animals. Fostering animals in your home, or
partnering/networking
with other shelters is the best route for not only rehabilitation but
also
increases chances for the animal to be adopted. Also animals would not
have
to be euthanized to save space.
And when I pointed out that your answer was not possible because the
foster program can not accept any more animals and the other shelters
are in the same situation, you did NOT reply. I'm not trying to be
disagreeable, but either I misses some of your posts or you did not
reply.

I have also not seen a reply to my question of the vicious animals.
You HAVE skirted around it by saying that no animal is ever beyond
rehabilitation. You remained mute when I questioned that and asked you
about a very plausable senerio.

Some of your writings say that you have contacts that would be willing
to accept animals that we consider not able to be rehibilitated with
our resourses. I volunteered to become involved with a program to ship
our animals to those people. You have not even mentioned my proposal.
If was a sincere one, not theoretical.

You hate euthanasia so much, why didn't you reply to that offer? There
are certain breeds that are routinely euthanized in some cities, they
could be saved. Also the ones who have killed or mauled other animals
and/or humans. Ditto the ones with diseases that are not practical to
treat. These animals can be saved by this program. Why didn't you
reply to this offer?

I have no idea what kind of shelter you are
working at but it seems this may be something your directors may have
missed.
As I have stated, numerous times, we have a strong foster program, we
go out of our way to reach out to other shelters in the area, and we
have a strong volunteer program. We are also involved in community
education, outreach, pet therapy, etc, but that is not part of this
discussion. Ditto, the fact that we at the leading edge for a specific
program to rehabilitate certain kinds of animal problems.

BTW, since you seem stuck on the medical issues there are groups out
there that rescue cats with special needs especially if they are FELV and
FIV positive. If you had done your homework you would see these are two
fatal diseases in cats.
Now you are getting way too personal. "If you had done your homework"
has nothing to do with this discussion. I happen have some
knowledgeable about FELV and FIV, why would you say otherwise and why
is that significant in this discussion? I also know a bit about
ringworn, fleas, various intestinal parasites, ear mites, nausia,
kennel cough, parvo, and URI, to name a few. I have discovered cases
of some of these that the veterinary staff has missed because they can
sometimes be hard to spot. This has nothing to do with this discussion
and only serves to divert attention from the issue at hand, it is a
red herring.

Should these types of cats be put down because they
have medical needs? Nope. In fact with correct treatment, they can live
long
and healthy lives.

I agree with you that in some cases it is practical to treat certain
medical conditions. However, with some, it is not practical when you
are at full capacity, to treat an animal with a very small chance of
survival if it means turning away some with no health problems. A
puppy with advanced parvo is not a good risk to treat when there are
ten puppies a day coming in the door and only nine people want to
adopt them. I use this example because more people know about the
unique aspects of parvo than many other diseases.

We can get around 75 animals a day, not all of them are going to be
adoptable. I keep asking and you keep not answering...what do you do
when everyone is out of space? You keep evading this question.

I don't know what else you really want me to say but I think you and I
should just agree to disagree. Of course I posed a question to you about
declawing but you seemed to have avoided it. But of course your attitude
about avoiding it pretty much gave me it.
I did respond to it by saying that the question had nothing to do with
this discussion. Why would you have mentioned it if not to divert
attention about what we are really talking about? If the question was
at all related to this subject, I would have felt an obligation to
answer it.

In a similar vein, I would not have answered questions about my race,
gender, national origin, sexual orientation, political view, or
weight, to name a few. I have thoughts on how to best introduce cats,
litterbox issues, food, vegitarianism, choice of gender for animals,
choice of owners for animals, and many many other issues. None of
which have any place in this discussion. I did answer your question by
clearly stating that this is an improper question.

A lot of people may have read this
newsgroup, but last time I checked not everyone shared your opinion.
Should
they have to retract everything they say as well?
In one, or more, of my posts, I made it very clear that I was asking
you to appologise because of your statements or implications that
people at the "kill" shelters are uncaring, or even simply less
caring. Related to that is the statement or implication that ONLY
no-kill shelters have good foster and volunteer programs. Also your
implication that the shelters euthanize animals because they really
don't care for the animals so it makes no difference to them. Most EU
techs do care a lot and implying otherwise makes a very difficult job
even more difficult.

By the way, you never did admit that it is sometimes more humane to
euthanize an injured animal than to prolong suffering that will lead
to a slow painfull death. I asked you to clearify this, several times,
and you remained mute.

If others had said that, I would have given them the same facts that I
gave you and asked them to verify those facts. I would have asked them
to retract their statements once they verified that their facts were,
indeed, incorrect.


In my opinion, I think
everyone here has probably had a different opinion whether they
volunteered
at a shelter or not. As one user pointed out there are good shelters and
bad
ones. Luckily, I have gotten to know and work with the good ones but I
have
read and seen horror stories about the bad ones.

This is completely true except for one important point; if you have
not spent the hours in a shelter, you are just repeating theory that
othes have said. Only by being there, over time, can you understand
what is going on. I do accept as an alternative to actually being
there, to read some unbiased professional writings on both sides of
the issue.

I hope that I will not have to repeat this again, but you just don't
get it that there are good shelters that euthanise. To characterize a
shelter as bad simply because they do, is wrong.

To characterize a volunteer or employee as ANY less caring because
they work in one kind of shelter vs the other is also wrong. To say
that working in a shelter that euthanises is easier because they kill
is also wrong. That is exactly what you do and it is what I think you
are completely wrong about.

I chose to volunteer at a shelter that does euthanasia because they
are the one, in this area, that does the most for the animals. Their
volume is probably a hundred times the volume of the number two
private shelter in the area. I hate it that they euthanize any
adoptable animal, but I have no viable alternative. I have asked you
for one, and have received none.

You simply repeat that we should foster them, or send them to other
shelters. You cannot accept that these programs are full. There is no
room. There is no money to build more facilities.

That is what I found insulting. I don't think my view is difficult to
understand.

Lets ask the others in this group...How many of you think that a
person who works in a shelter that sometimes euthanizes is
automatically less caring than one who works in a "no-kill" shelter?
How many of you think that euthanizing shelters can not possibly have
a good foster or volunteer program?

I promise that I will not say anything against anyone who says they
agree or disagree unless they badmouth the people at one shelter vs
another. I would just as strongly disagree with anyone who says a
"no-kill" shelter is bad because they don't believe in euthanizing.



----== 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
=---

"Cat Protector" wrote in message
news:ew_Wb.41190$L_4.3704@okepread01...
Ringworm may be contagious but it is treatable. Why destroy a cat simply
because of that. You say many shelters euthanize due to positive tests but
are you including the no-kills in saying that or just the ones that
euthanize?

If they're truly "no kill," they wouldn't be euthanising for ANY reason...
including for mercy reasons, for poor health or whatnot. If they're not
euthing aggressive animals, they shouldn't be euthing ringworm positives. I
was personally referring to shelters that admit to euthanasia, or have
policies in place about ringworm positive animals.

As for ferals there are some shelters which actually test,
vaccinate, spay/neuter, and then release. The ones that can be adopted are
often worked with and rehabilitated because they often were borderline
feral.

Yes. You might have noticed that I said my shelter does exactly that. And I
quote:
"Many shelters euthanize ferals because they don't have the resources (in
personnel, volunteers, or experience) to deal with them; we [my shelter]
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."

As for special needs animals that are FELV or FIV positive, I would be
happy
to foster them but my two cats are what is deemed as healthy (I am not
saying this to be high and mighty but this is how shelter and rescue
workers
see cats without the illness). FELV and FIV positive cats can't be mixed
with already healthy cats but they can live with other cats who have the
ailment. I use this as an example because I have no idea what you consider
special needs cats. As for the need to euthanize there is no need to do it
unless the animal is so hurt and in pain that they can't be treated
medically.

Special needs: epileptic, diabetic, early stage renal disease, early stage
hepatic lipidosis, FIV+, FeLV+, ringworm+, IBD, semi-feral (only in need of
socialization, really)... though half a dozen other personality or
behavioral issues could likely qualify for 'special needs.'

If you have a bathroom or a bedroom with a secure door, CP, then you have
the capability to foster FIV or FeLV+ cats, along with any other special
needs animal. I'm sure you're quite aware that neither disease is passed by
one cat breathing in another cat's direction.
I have a pair of brown tabbies in my bathroom, for example. One of them has
an ulcerated eye and would, at the shelter, literally lie in her own urine
out of fear. She wouldn't eat unless food and water were put directly in
front of her. In my bathroom, I can hear her brother playing with a
jingle-toy, and she came out to use her litterbox and then get attention
during only her second day. This weekend, they're getting moved into the
bedroom so that I can take two semi-feral kittens with URI that will need
medication at least twice daily plus very necessary socialization. I didn't
like the idea of a cat peeing all over my bathroom, but I gave her a second
chance, and she'll get adopted if I have to keep her in foster care until
someone expresses interest or she can get an office or a place at a
satellite multiple cat center. If she had continued to lie in her own urine
and never move and never eat, she would have been euthanised. It wouldn't
have been for any physical illness, but for the mental deterioration.

As for spay/neuter and the whole overpopulation program there are still
going to be people out there who fail to get the message. But I think the
key to winning the battle is through constant education. I know on the
adoption end at some shelters you can't adopt a cat unless they are spayed
or neutered. When I adopted my cat Isis they would not allow me to take
her
home until this was done.

ALL of our animals are altered before they go home. This includes rabbits,
and some of the local vet students are also neutering rats for us. We offer
decreased redemption fees (or in some cases, waive the fees altogether) if
the owner will allow us to alter their pet if they cannot afford the
redemption fee on its own. It's been suggested that when people give up
litters of kittens, we offer to spay the mother and waive the surrender fee.
It -does- all come down to education, but how much educating is getting done
when it's just arguing back and forth and there's never any agreement?

"Cat Protector" wrote in message
news:hIYWb.41175$L_4.10251@okepread01...
That is pretty bold to say most rescues.

At least I didn't say "all rescues."

I know quite a few shelters in the
Phoenix area that have taken in troubled animals and rehabilitated them.

We work with more animals than we used to, particularly dogs. Our canine
behavior consultant is working wonders with Gentle Leader programs, and our
more experienced volunteers work with "issue" dogs, on food aggression,
dominant behavior, poor manners, etc.

Our feline behavior consultant takes calls from new owners and existing
owners and works her ass off to prevent people from bringing in their cats
in the first place.

My comment about rescues was in regards to the fact that -generally
speaking,- many breeders also do rescue (which is why it's called BREED
rescue). Breeders, generally speaking, have other animals of that specific
breed. Some of them are shown, some of them are prize winners. Would you
take a dog into your home that had a history of attacking other dogs and
thus put at risk your own animals? Would you take in a dog with a history of
attacking and killing cats?