Posted by savetheanimals at 07/11/13 01:35:42It is really [censored]ed up how the world works. Next time you go to a place to adopt an animal go to a no kill shelter. If you want to adopt the animal that needs it most adopt the "unadoptables". If you go to a kill shelter you are promoting the murdering of animals after they run out of room at the shelter. You are voting with your dollar that you approve what they are doing. I can't afford to take care of an animal right now but, I hope someone adopts the kitten. I have volunteered at a no kill shelter before. When you adopt from them they get an empty cage that can guarantee another animal they get will be rescued forever. Cute baby animals get adopted fast in a no kill shelter. In a kill shelter they will get murdered unless someone adopts them in time. It still helps to adopt the most adoptable in a no kill shelter because it does give an empty cage for another animal. The more "unadoptable" the animal the more good your doing adopting the animal. When I volunteered at the no kill shelter there were some good people who came and adopted the "unadoptables". The "unadoptables" most likely came from abusive backgrounds and act aggressive because of this. They sometimes have a disability or are seniors. Humans don't want aggressive, disabled or old animals. I hope next time you want an animal companion you think of my "unadoptable" friends at a no kill shelter near you.
Posted by AndyT at 07/07/14 23:52:46Krysta, are you sure that your husband does not have issues with dogs as well? I have heard it being called an "animal hair allergy" because it can be caused both by cat and dog hair.
But ... I would definitely NOT support a "shelter" that kills animals after ONE WEEK? C'mon? That is a slaughterhouse....
Posted by ahimsa32fa at 07/08/14 07:40:51The vast majority of shelters and local "Humane Society's struggle to make ends meet. When they have more animals than space, what do you want them to do with them?
If you adopt an animal from what you call a "kill" shelter, you are obviously saving that animals life, no?
Only a very small percentage of shelters can afford to be "no kill". It's not their fault that they have so many "unwanted" "pets" to deal with.
Instead of bad-mouthing the vast majority of shelters (most of which are doing the best they can), why not help them expand? Why not foster animals from these shelters?
I abhor the killing of any animals, including humans, but I must admit that dying from an injection of barbiturates is better than being shot, drowned or starved to death, as would be the norm but for animal shelters. Even at the shelters that do euthanize, animals are being saved from extreme cruelty and many find homes...it would be far worse without them.
This is my opinion after being an Animal Control Officer for a year during the almost forty years that I have been an activist for animals. I've marched, protested, donated, written many articles, essays and a few books...and been jailed for my efforts...so I hope my opinion carries a little weight.
Posted by happycowgirl at 07/08/14 09:43:09ahimsa32fa, thank you for your years of activism for the animals. I wish the world was filled with more people like you. We need a billion more ahimsa32fa's! (and Andy T's, savetheanimals and KristalynRamirez's!
The homeless animal population problem boils down to an issue of supply and demand. We are fools to focus on the demand side. The long term solution to the problem is on the supply side. Allow me to elaborate.
With the current pet overpopulation problem, we could fill up every pet lover's home with 20 dogs and cats and we still would not be able to house all the homeless animals. In other words, increasing the demand for homeless animals is helpful but is not the long term solution to the problem. Similarly, no-kill shelters are wonderful for the animals in the no-kill shelters, but they do nothing to address the bigger issue of pet overpopulation. Every shelter cannot be a no-kill shelter unless we are going to have no-kill shelters the size of New York City. There simply are too many homeless animals.
The solution lies on the supply side. Specifically, spaying/neutering and making the breeding of cats and dogs illegal. Until there are no more homeless pets being euthanized in shelters, we should not purposely be breeding more. Not only should puppy mills be illegal, even the "responsible" breeding of cats and dogs needs to be illegal until we have the homeless animal population under control. Likewise, spaying and neutering of pets needs to be mandatory for all animals. It should be illegal to own a cat or dog and not have them spayed or neutered. And spaying/neutering needs to be free or very low cost. Just like each city has a coroner, a recorder of deeds and other such municipal employees, each city should have a veterinarian whose full time job is performing spay/neuter surgeries.
From a fiscal point or view, think of all the taxpayer money being spent every year on housing and euthanizing homeless pets. If we implemented a nation-wide crack down like the one I'm proposing with strict anti-breeding and pro-spay/neuter laws that were actively enforced and spaying/neutering was a free community service, it would not be long until we would have the pet overpopulation problem under control. It would be a short term expenditure for long term savings.
Does this sound extreme? The first time you hear an idea that hasn't been proposed before it can sound extreme. The reality is, we have an extreme homeless animal problem in America: 2.7 million animals are euthanized in our country each year. If the problem is going to be solved, we need to take extreme measures or the killing will continue.
Posted by StephenS at 07/08/14 19:03:40I'm sorry - but I can't support the wholesale mutilation of various class of animals because it is fiscally and socially problematic for us. And personally, in my opinion the last thing we need is blanket laws telling us we must be cruel to animals. I understand the emotion behind the argument for spaying and neutering, but I cannot fathom the logic of it when it comes from an "Animal Activist". I ask; if there is ever a time when the rise of population of your race or ethnic or religious or lifestyle group has become too problematic for the greater community - will you then support forced sterilization of said group. I think it's time we stop using animal mutilation and forced control over animal communities as an argument to further our agendas of dominance. We have no right to mutilate animals because we have fostered a problematic growth rate. Personally, I am more supportive of eating animals than spaying and neutering. I've been a Vegan for over 20 years now, and veg many more before that - but I still believe that Hunting or even Raising animals for food is a far more natural and far less barbaric act than the idea of controlling animal populations by forced sterilization. If it's not okay for Humans - why should it be okay for Animals?? I think a far greater statement and far more powerful act is to get ourselves sterilized and start adopting some children and attempting to raise them with a true sense of compassion and wonder for all living things, as well as a true sense of their place in a natural world. Perhaps we could one day build a real community based on Social Interaction and acceptance where a huge portion of the population doesn't need to find their only solace and companionship from pets, as a surrogate to real Human interaction.
Posted by ahimsa32fa at 07/09/14 08:43:10Stephen-
Your sentiments are heart-felt and appreciated.
But if a dog or a cat knew about the millions of their kind being killed because of HUMAN thoughtlessness, I believe they might opt for birth control themselves.
There is an option that might satisfy you and HappyCowGirl (whose comments are equally well-stated), and that is vasectomy and tubal ligation.
I found a vet that did a vasectomy for my boy Jacob (who surprisingly had sired a litter at a very young age) in 1973. Jacob thus enjoyed thirteen years of sex, without fear of creating "unwanted" pups.
I included a chapter on this topic in my last book.