Agenda, Broken Clock, or Spot Changing Leopard?

I found myself in a strange situation earlier this week.  On Tuesday, Wayne Pacelle's blog (not really written by Wayne I don't think, but it bears his name) had a post entitled Adopting Fido, Minus the Catfight.  And strangely, I agreed with everything that was written.

Pacelle begins:

"It's a moral imperative to reduce euthanasia rates in shelters and to find homes for as many animals as possible.  But adoption itself is not the end -- a safe and loving home for animals is the goal. And that's why shelters and rescue grops must screen adopters."

Ok, I'm 100% with him on this so far, but the last line makes me twitch a little. Not because I don't think animals should go to good homes, but because the idea of a good home has become so narrow that it makes it nearly impossible for even an above-average adopter to adopt.

Pacelle then goes on to talk about how the reality that shelter euthansia rates have dropped considerably over the past 30 years, and that if we could just turn a small percentage of people who turn to pet stores and breeders to shelters, the problem would be virtually solved. It's like Pacelle is reading off a page of Winograd's book.  Then he goes further:

"But we're not always great with customer service - -and that's an imperative in an economy where the best businesses pay careful attentin to the needs and expectations of customers. Many people go to shelters with the intention of getting a companion and saving a life, but they face, depending on the facility, rigorous screening about their suitability as an adopter.  Sometimes too rigorous. Sometimes, they are turned off, fed up, done with shelters.  That's a bad outcome for animals....

"Let's face the facts. When we turn away good people, who are attempting to go the responsible route in adopting a companion, we drive them to pet stores and other soruces that do harm to animals.  That's a shame."

I've got to confess, my jaw hit the floor as I was reading this. 

For quite some time I have become frustrated by shelters and rescue groups that deny animals "good" homes because they are not "perfect" homes.  When we do this, we not only deny one animal a home, but we also deny other animals the opportunity for that foster home, or that kennel space. And, we have created demand for bred animals. HSUS has traditionally pushed for shelters to do heavy screening of homes. 

Pacelle concludes: "There are no guarantees in life, and we take a chance every time we adopt out an animal.  There's no perfect outcome here. But in this case, we should lead toward more permissive adoptions, especially in facilities that are euthanizing sustantial numbers of healthy and treatable animals."

So, is the Leopard changing its spots? Has the No-Kill movement pushed Pacelle and HSUS more toward policies that focus on animals living vs animals dying?

Or does this feed an agenda of running all breeders out of business so they can eventually end pet ownership?

Or is even a broken clock right twice a day?

Either way the post is excellent -- and worth the read for everyone. 

Comments

[Caveat]

Whatever the reason, I suspect that fundraising is behind it.

Maybe the H$U$ is finally losing its sheen with the millions of soft-hearted people who fill its coffers and is trying a new tactic - sounding like an animal welfare organization instead of an animal rights organization.

I'm not religious, but one saying often comes to mind (paraphrasing):

"Even the Devil can quote scriptures to suit his purpose"

[skennedy]

It's all for show to raise money. No other reason. A good liar, a good media misleader, and he even has pro bono attys fooled. HSUS amicus brief in Denver says breed can be determined 99% of the time and they are quoting the tester companies. what they fail to say is it's for entertainment,it's not proven for court use, and it couldn't be used in Denver anyway (they admitted that). So why did they bring it UP???? It wasn't to help get dogs adopted, that's for sure. I will support hunting/sporting groups so the credibility of HSUS can be taken down, esp in regard to pet ownership. The misleading needs to be publicized nationwide. Maybe not on Oprah but on grassroots level.