My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« There is not need to reinvent the wheel with mandatory spay/neuter | Main | Roverlution on Sautrday, 10/23 »

October 19, 2010

Comments

Brent

Valerie,

I agree with your statement -- and probably wasn't clear in my original comment. I was thinking about several cases in particular (a couple in my area) where fairly high-kill shelters have made the "decision" to be "no kill" but really didn't change any of their practices beyond being limited admission.

That really didn't help anything at all.

So instead of having (for example) 2 shelters killing 2,000 animals apiece, we have one that is "no kill" and the other killing 4,000 animals a year because they're getting all of the animals being turned away from the other shelter. In fact, they've made it even worse, because now they are getting donations that previously went to the other shelter -- and so the high-kill shelter has less revenue and more animals to deal with -- causing higher kill rates.

I guess my point is that being a "no kill shelter" shouldn't be the end goal....being a no kill community should be.

kmk

Valerie - you make some excellent points, but per Nathan Winograd's definition of no-kill, shelters must be open admission to meet the true definition of no-kill. the idea, as Brent said, is to establish a no-kill community. All shelters and rescues should work together to achieve no-kill, along with encouraging municipal ordinances and policies that don't contribute to the problem by removing pets from perfectly good homes because of BSL, MSN, or limit laws. Those policies suck up FAR too many resources in our area.

Private shelters and rescues can do whatever they choose, provided they aren't getting any taxpayer dollars. If they're completely private they can turn every last animal away and refuse to adopt pets to people who wear white shoes before Easter and after Labor Day. I really don't care. I do believe importing animals from overseas is insane and the laws need to be changed to make that completely illegal.

However, I get testy when my tax money is involved. One local shelter advertises on their web site that they achieved no-kill by going to a limited admission policy, and that just makes my head hurt. That is NOT "no kill". That is called, "Someone else is killing these animals but it's not us". This is a large shelter with tons of money. They claim to be private but have received a large sum of tax dollars from the county every year (that may end, which is another story). I have a problem with this shelter turning away desperate pet owners that live in the county that's donating the tax money while they "cherry pick" more adoptable dogs from other area shelters.

Public, taxpayer supported shelters are well within their right to only accept animals from the municipality they serve. But, they do NOT have the luxury of saying, "Sorry, we're full" and sending their own taxpayers elsewhere in order to make their euth numbers look better. As I've said, there's plenty of room in the Mayor's office for crates. :-) The goal should be to enact programs that decrease intake. Or, just bite the bullet, build a bigger shelter, and kill more animals if that's the city's goal.

EmilyS

Shelters always have, and always will, "game" their kill/euth decisions and statistics. At least from the beginning of the Sue Sternberg era, "temperament" has been used to identify dogs as "unadoptable". And then they don't go into the "adoptable" stats. A shelter can claim they kill/euth "no" adoptable animals, and still kill plenty. And the whole "no kill" definition-by-Winograd has ALWAYS accepted the killing/euthing of some animals (but only the ones that are truly "suffering" of course). Every shelter/sanctuary that has any legitimacy kills/euths some animals.

Instead of playing the "who's the real no-killer" game of recrimination and one-up-manship, shelters and people should focus on what's important about the so called "no kill" agenda: and that is reducing-to-a-genuine-minimum the killing of animals, killing only the irredeemably suffering and being 100% open and transparent about shelter policies and statistics.

The comments to this entry are closed.