If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Sharon Talbert" wrote in message
ashington.edu... Kal, I hope you stay with this newsgroup and that you never allow your voice to be stilled. I admire the work of most private shelters and always will, but I am very sorry the blurry term of "no-kill" was ever invented. Better for all facilities to agree to "low-kill" (with an actual definition of the term to work from) and for private and public shelters to work together toward a common goal: that of educating the public to spay and neuter and to adopt for life. Sharon Talbert Friends of Campus Cats Thank you, Sharon, for your continued support. Interestingly enough, in reference to your last comment, on February 21st of this year, we're having an event called Mardi Paws. This is our first event to focus on cats, and with our staff vets and volunteer vets (and much, much volunteer assistance), we're hoping to spay and neuter over 100 cats from outside sources: breed rescues, other shelters, and low cost assistance program surgeries. It'll be an exciting day for all of us! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:55:27 -0800, Sharon Talbert
wrote: Fan, I admire your posting on the subject of euthanasia and "no-kill" shelters. Do you work in a public shelter or a private shelter that assumes the responsibility of euthanasia as necessary? Sharon Talbert Friends of Campus Cats I have volunteered several hundred hours at a private shelter for over two years. In that time, I have seen perfectly healthy cats and dogs euthanised. Everyone, absolutely everyone, there hates when that happens, but there are no viable alternatives sometimes. When you are out of space to the point of housing animals in people's offices, out of foster families, and all the other shelters are out of space, what is the alternative? I respect the work that the "no-kill" shelters do, but I have zero respect for those who look down their nose on the shelters who do euthanise when there are no alternatives. The local city shelter will euthanise any animal that has not been adopted in x number of days. That should be unacceptable, but there are too few of us to change the city's policy. ----== 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 =--- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Glad to hear of your Mardi Paw! Does your shelter have a website, by the way? Sharon Talbert Friends of Campus Cats |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I have volunteered several hundred hours at a private shelter for over two years. In that time, I have seen perfectly healthy cats and dogs euthanised. Everyone, absolutely everyone, there hates when that happens, but there are no viable alternatives sometimes. When you are out of space to the point of housing animals in people's offices, out of foster families, and all the other shelters are out of space, what is the alternative? The alternative for some "no-kills" I know about: Refusal of all but the cream of the crop Acceptance of only "adoptables" from the immediate area Euthanasia of the "unadoptables" Transfer of the surplus animals to a public shelter for euthanasia Tethering of suplus animals in alleyway behind shelter Sad but true. I respect the work that the "no-kill" shelters do, but I have zero respect for those who look down their nose on the shelters who do euthanise when there are no alternatives. Ditto all over the place. And of course "no-kill" must logically be accompanied by "kill." I recently communicated with a public shelter employee who actually referred to her shelter as a "kill shelter." The local city shelter will euthanise any animal that has not been adopted in x number of days. That should be unacceptable, but there are too few of us to change the city's policy. Not necessarily that there are too few of you, but that there are too many unwanted pets pouring into the shelters. And, sadly, more than ever pouring into (or attempting to, anyway) the so-called "no-kill" shelters. People are assuming these private shelters are a safe haven for their throwaway pets. Sharon Talbert Friends of Campus Cats ----== 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 =--- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I respect the work that the "no-kill" shelters do, but I have zero respect for those who look down their nose on the shelters who do euthanise when there are no alternatives. Not to be argumentative, but I have zero respect for many shelters, including many kill facilities, in particular, our local public shelter, which claims it is striving to become a no-kill facility. This group is not striving to become anything, except more burocratic(spelling?). The head of this facility actually works to NOT get the animals adopted. I am not the only rescue person who has made this comment. It is sickening the number of animals that this place (and others, I am sure) kills in one day because of the idiotic ideas: 1. Not enough space. I have walked in there several days when they claimed on their reports they did not have space -- 15 unused cages in adoption (accounting for cages that are vacant when an animal is seeing the vet). 8 unused cages in stray-wait/lost-and-found. This is the most pathetic and inexcusable excuse. 2. Too many inappropriate judgements about nonrehabable temper. Someone with no training goes in and sticks a pen in the cats faces to see what their reaction is -- a stranger sticks a pen in my face and I am going to spit or hiss or swat or what have you, and I am not even a cat. Inappropriate procedures carried out by an unqualified employee. 3. The killing of supposedly unadoptable cats who would actually be adoptable. How do they kill the animals, anyway? They won't tell me, or anyone else I have spoken with. Do they do a heart stick? Do they sedate the animal first? How well are the vet assistants trained? Is this their first job? Who actually screened this person's background and personality to make sure someone does not get a job there just for the joy of kiling an innocent cat, dog, rabbit, or whatever? 4. The person who runs the shelter tells me that I cannot be in line to adopt a 17 year old Siamese if the rescue groups are full -- they would rather "euthanize" (they really like to use that word) her instead of "playing games" with me and letting me adopt her if the rescue group is full or only wants kittens. 5. The person who runs the shelter looks at me and asks me why I want to adopt an old animal, an animal with fe leuk, a handicapped animal, a supposedly nonrehabable animal, instead of one of the perfectly healthy cats that they have "in the next building". What can I say -- if I choke her they will never let me back on the facility grounds (maybe I should, the animals would be better off without her). I have been around long enough to realize that killiing excess pets is unavoidably necessary, and in some cases it is better than letting them wander the street to suffer persecution and abuse by disturbed members of the public at large, etc, etc. BUT -- My rage comes because the facility is not run well, they actively try to NOT adopt the animals, especially the cats, and when I do adopt an animal from there they loose the paperwork, claim that they need to neuter a male who had been previsouly neutered (I talked to the vet who did it and had the papers faxed to me); don'f follow their own policy about making special arrangements to pickup an animal when I have to work late; they take a kitten who spilled her water all over herself, do not dry her off, and put her in a cage where the cold air conditioning will blow on her and she has no box to hide in; they don't tell you that when you try to adopt a cat who has been cleared for the adoption building that you must specifically tell them beforehand that you will accept a cat with fe leuk. They killed the sweet, sociable, adoptable-temperamented cat without even asking if I wanted him if he had fe leuk. It did not occur to me to ask about this or reject him because he had fe leuk - after all he had been cleared for adoption. I could go on for days on this subject. Killing excess pets because there are no other alternatives is one thing, but this situation is made so much worse and so much more tragic when the facility it not run well and the animals are the ones who pay the price for human stupidity, power games and inefficiency; and it is made so much more pathetic and down right mean, hateful and cowardly when they insist on using the word "euthanize" when an animal is NOT injured, in mental distress, old, or too sick. They should at least live up to the distinction between the words, and use "kill" when destroying excess pets just because they are excess pets. And that is just the local facility -- what about the one in your town? The one two counties over? In the next state? Disorganization and corruption are no reasons for the murder of innocents. Michelle A. "The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The question is not can they REASON, nor can they TALK, but can they SUFFER?" -- Jeremy Bentham |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know how you came by this information about no-kills but mine says
something different. When the no-kills have space here is what I know about. No-kills accept cats from other shelters (thus eliminating your cream of the crop theory) to spear them from euthenasia. No-kills have fostering programs so when they are filled to capacity some of the cats are taken into private homes to be fostered. No-kills have accepted cats from other areas besides their own. I know this to be true because one of them did take in a cat that I rescued and I was in a different city. No-kills mean exactly that. They do not kill and will do everything they can to find a cat a good and loving home. I find it interesting that you state how experienced you are but totally give mis-information when it comes to no-kill shelters. -- 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 "Sharon Talbert" wrote in message The alternative for some "no-kills" I know about: Refusal of all but the cream of the crop Acceptance of only "adoptables" from the immediate area Euthanasia of the "unadoptables" Transfer of the surplus animals to a public shelter for euthanasia Tethering of suplus animals in alleyway behind shelter Sad but true. I respect the work that the "no-kill" shelters do, but I have zero respect for those who look down their nose on the shelters who do euthanise when there are no alternatives. Ditto all over the place. And of course "no-kill" must logically be accompanied by "kill." I recently communicated with a public shelter employee who actually referred to her shelter as a "kill shelter." The local city shelter will euthanise any animal that has not been adopted in x number of days. That should be unacceptable, but there are too few of us to change the city's policy. Not necessarily that there are too few of you, but that there are too many unwanted pets pouring into the shelters. And, sadly, more than ever pouring into (or attempting to, anyway) the so-called "no-kill" shelters. People are assuming these private shelters are a safe haven for their throwaway pets. Sharon Talbert Friends of Campus Cats ----== 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 =--- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:37:33 -0700, "Cat Protector"
wrote: I don't know how you came by this information about no-kills but mine says something different. When the no-kills have space here is what I know about. No-kills accept cats from other shelters (thus eliminating your cream of the crop theory) to spear them from euthenasia. No-kills have fostering programs so when they are filled to capacity some of the cats are taken into private homes to be fostered. No-kills have accepted cats from other areas besides their own. I know this to be true because one of them did take in a cat that I rescued and I was in a different city. No-kills mean exactly that. They do not kill and will do everything they can to find a cat a good and loving home. I find it interesting that you state how experienced you are but totally give mis-information when it comes to no-kill shelters. Cat Protector neglected to answer some questions and concerns that I had about a previous post before repeating some of the same statements that I questioned a few days ago. It was implied that only no-kill shelters have true concern for animals. That is totally untrue and insulting to the dedicated people who work and volunteer there. I again ask you "What do think we should do with animals that are too dangerous to be adopted, or even fostered when all the behavior specialists say there is no hope for rehabilitation? What would you do with a dog that has killed other dogs, bit multiple people over a period of time, and has now severly injured a child. Do you want to foster a pit bull that has been trained to kill and is out of control?" You have the right to say anything that you want to here, but I would ask you to be more honest and to reply to the questions that I asked before. What is done with out-of-control animals who are dangerous? What about ones who are dying and in pain? You say they are never euthanised, but I cannot believe that is the truth. Does anyone believe there are enough no-kill shelters with unlimited funds who can take in every animal that is offered to them or find them another shelter or foster? The no-kills in my area certainly don't have that luxury. ----== 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 =--- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How is my saying I support no-kill shelters insulting to them? I don't get
it. As for animals being too dangerous to be adopted, I am not sure if that is possible since I believe most if not all animals can be rehabilitated. Animal Cops which was a show on Animal Planet showed that they can. I don't believe those animal behaviorists who say there is no hope. There is always hope. BTW, I wish you would not put words in my mouth. I never said dangerous animals aren't euthanized. In fact I never even mentioned dangerous animals. This whole thread has been those who euthanize vs those that don't. I don't believe in the practice. The only time a cat should be put to sleep is when they are in so much pain for them due to illness that it would be very hard for them to go on. The animal I also believes chooses the time they wish to leave this plane just as we humans do. It is called free will and free choice. As for unlimited funds for no-kill shelters, most rely on donations and some also go to great lengths to foster. You seem to have this vision that no-kills are false and are not as good as those that euthanize. That is pure hogwash in my book. No-kills mean just that. They do not kill. I think every shelter should be no-kill. At least then every cat could have a place to go and have double the chance of getting adopted. -- 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 ... Cat Protector neglected to answer some questions and concerns that I had about a previous post before repeating some of the same statements that I questioned a few days ago. It was implied that only no-kill shelters have true concern for animals. That is totally untrue and insulting to the dedicated people who work and volunteer there. I again ask you "What do think we should do with animals that are too dangerous to be adopted, or even fostered when all the behavior specialists say there is no hope for rehabilitation? What would you do with a dog that has killed other dogs, bit multiple people over a period of time, and has now severly injured a child. Do you want to foster a pit bull that has been trained to kill and is out of control?" You have the right to say anything that you want to here, but I would ask you to be more honest and to reply to the questions that I asked before. What is done with out-of-control animals who are dangerous? What about ones who are dying and in pain? You say they are never euthanised, but I cannot believe that is the truth. Does anyone believe there are enough no-kill shelters with unlimited funds who can take in every animal that is offered to them or find them another shelter or foster? The no-kills in my area certainly don't have that luxury. ----== 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 =--- |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Just curious if anyone happened to see the HBO special called "Shelter
Dogs"? W "Cat Protector" wrote in message news:SmlVb.39197$L_4.29384@okepread01... How is my saying I support no-kill shelters insulting to them? I don't get it. As for animals being too dangerous to be adopted, I am not sure if that is possible since I believe most if not all animals can be rehabilitated. Animal Cops which was a show on Animal Planet showed that they can. I don't believe those animal behaviorists who say there is no hope. There is always hope. BTW, I wish you would not put words in my mouth. I never said dangerous animals aren't euthanized. In fact I never even mentioned dangerous animals. This whole thread has been those who euthanize vs those that don't. I don't believe in the practice. The only time a cat should be put to sleep is when they are in so much pain for them due to illness that it would be very hard for them to go on. The animal I also believes chooses the time they wish to leave this plane just as we humans do. It is called free will and free choice. As for unlimited funds for no-kill shelters, most rely on donations and some also go to great lengths to foster. You seem to have this vision that no-kills are false and are not as good as those that euthanize. That is pure hogwash in my book. No-kills mean just that. They do not kill. I think every shelter should be no-kill. At least then every cat could have a place to go and have double the chance of getting adopted. -- 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 ... Cat Protector neglected to answer some questions and concerns that I had about a previous post before repeating some of the same statements that I questioned a few days ago. It was implied that only no-kill shelters have true concern for animals. That is totally untrue and insulting to the dedicated people who work and volunteer there. I again ask you "What do think we should do with animals that are too dangerous to be adopted, or even fostered when all the behavior specialists say there is no hope for rehabilitation? What would you do with a dog that has killed other dogs, bit multiple people over a period of time, and has now severly injured a child. Do you want to foster a pit bull that has been trained to kill and is out of control?" You have the right to say anything that you want to here, but I would ask you to be more honest and to reply to the questions that I asked before. What is done with out-of-control animals who are dangerous? What about ones who are dying and in pain? You say they are never euthanised, but I cannot believe that is the truth. Does anyone believe there are enough no-kill shelters with unlimited funds who can take in every animal that is offered to them or find them another shelter or foster? The no-kills in my area certainly don't have that luxury. ----== 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 =--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
feed Nutro? | Tamara | Cat health & behaviour | 90 | November 19th 03 12:57 AM |