My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Another ill-informed, well-meaning person pushes for MSN in Memphis | Main | Success is available to you »

July 07, 2011



$9.00 adoption fees make me very nervous. It is good that so many animals have been adopted ~ but what type of screening was done for potential adopters? I hate to think of where some of these pets may have ended up. I guess you can't have everything ~ but I don't think adopting pets to anyone with a $10.00 bill is the answer either. We need to act responsibly when we offer these pets to the public ~ they need forever homes that are safe and loving with the appropriate environment for each animal. I also believe that the public shares the responsibility for this nightmare along with the "shelters" and "humane societies". Placing the blame entirely on the shelters is not appropriate. Shelters can do a lot more and so can the public. We need to work together.


Carmen - what nightmare? Were you around in the 1970s and 1980s? THAT was a nightmare. the glass is half-full now. The only nightmare going on today is the animal rights movement is working overtime convincing government to kill dogs that have homes and care. Oh yea, and shelters in other areas of the country are importing diseased strays into their shelters.

I loved this quote: "I wish people would address their frustration at the people who aren't spaying and neutering their animals."
And that is Okay, I'm frustrated with all you breeding criminals. Oh wait - pet owners don't speuter anything in Europe and yet they don't have shelters full of animals. Amazing!

I don't think $10 adoptions are a bad thing, especially for cats. They should be giving cats away. In fact, one local shelter IS giving cats away. They should have "take one, take a couple more free" specials every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think Brent's point on the inexpensive adoptions isn't the dollar amount, but that the public helped when the shelter(s) asked for help. I'll help the city all day long but they'd better leave my dogs alone. the Joplin shelter asked the public for help and they got a response. Irresponsible people aren't going to go through the trouble to adopt a dog from the situation like the one in Joplin. My attorney and his wife went down to Joplin for the adoption. They drove three hours down there and stood in line for quite a while. They adopted a shepherd mix - I told him I was surprised they gave him a dog since he's an attorney, LOL. He said the small dogs were very popular and his comment was it was the second time in a month the little dogs "flew out the doors and windows". :-)

I was in St. Joseph, MO a couple of weeks ago discussing a perfectly ridiculous proposed ordinance - the Cliff Notes Version is animal control would inspect anyone's home with more than three intact dogs "for breeding or exhibition purposes". After a vet and me told them why there was ten kinds of crazy in that idea, I asked everyone if it had occurred to them that we were wasting a lot of time and resources worrying about dogs that have homes and have care? Would it be possible for animal control to direct their energy to the animals in the shelter? They killed 1700 last year at the city shelter, so how about we try to avoid a repeat of that scenario rather than traipsing around in private homes looking for - what, exactly?


I think there is a very key component here that is implied but not outright stated.

Shelter animals (or homeless animals or abused animals) get to homes faster when the public is aware of their plight AND when proper marketing and public relations is done by the rescue/shelter needing to get animals home.

Why did the animals in Joplin and Louisville get to homes so quickly? Because there's a story there. Every one of those adopters can tell their friends and family about the good deed that they did and their pet will always be "the one that survived the tornado/flood/distemper outbreak", etc, etc.

I would STRONGLY encourage local shelters/rescues to develop good relationships with local media and use social media as well to help get pets home. BUT...that comes with a caveat that you are available to potential adopters at THEIR convenience (no 12-4 M-F adoption times).

Just another thought... :-)

Pamela Terry

I do believe that "the public" has to take a fair part of the blame for animals being euthanized. They fail to have their pets spayed or neutered, then rely on others to find homes for the puppies. Or, they bring an aged or infirm pet in, because they can no longer care for it (or they just don't want to). While I do believe that networking, adoption drives and the like should be utilized to the fullest measure, I cannot, in good conscience, place all the blame on animal control agencies.


You know what. I'm a member of the public and I am in no way responsible for our shelter killing. I'm a rescue volunteer, I train dogs and owners for retention, I purchased a dog from a rescue, I'm on the board for a large fundraising event where we raise money to do projects at the shelter.

My rescue girl is not spayed. When I adopted her she was too skinny and too sick. Now she's almost done being in heat and shazam! we somehow managed not to let her become pregnant. It wasn't that difficult. She will probably be spayed in a couple of months, or after her next heat (where we will take the same common-sense precautions to prevent her from becoming pregnant). So I've "failed" to spay and yet produced no puppies!

I have also been on the receiving end of blame-the-public because I apparently made the mistake of catching a stray dog and taking to the shelter. Instead of being thanked for doing their job, they accused me of dumping my pet and claiming it was a stray.

I have been on the receiving end of rescues that don't want to help you with animals you've found, like the half dead kitten I found last year. I nursed it back to health at my own expense even though hubby and I are VERY allergic. It took weeks to find a rescue that would take the cat, and then only after I agreed to another couple hundred dollars in "donations" for the kitten's care.

So both shelter and rescue have made it clear that I'm apparently stupid to even consider trying to get stray and half dead animals to safety. I could have just walked away, but chose to do the right thing and make the animal safe. No good deed goes unpunished, right Pamela?

So, no. The public does not have to take a share of the blame for an entire system that is broken.


Pamela, you might also want to read the Yes Biscuit! blog where average members of the public are getting animals into rescue that a shelter would prefer to just kill.

Amelia Ireland

How about the public isn't on any side, because you can't generalize about a population of people with many different attitudes towards animals? IMHO turning this into a situation where sides need to be picked--the public vs the shelter, us vs them--and assigning blame might make people feel better, but it does not help the animals involved.


I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a few people don't get it.

In the story above, the failing shelters were the one with the shelter directors blaming the public.

The ones that saw success in helping animals embraced them.

So the very same "public" that so many WANT to blame for their problems is the very same one that is going to be their ticket to success by helping them should they ever reach out and embrace their help instead of blaming them for their problems.

Janice Wolf,0,3899608.story?track=rss


Okay, I went to the link about Cassville and I must comment because this kind of makes me a little angry.

When the animal rights activists were still collecting signatures to get Proposition B on the ballot, I had a call from a woman in southwest Missouri, near Springfield. Cassville is on the Arkansas border in Barry County near Roaring River State park and in the same general area of the state as Springfield. The entire county probably doesn't have 5,000 people so yes, I'm sure they ARE desperate for volunteers. It's not the wealthiest area of Missouri and it's not like everyone is flush with cash. They're probably busy putting food on the table instead of fostering dogs.

BAck to my caller - the caller was a big Prop B supporter and clearly that area of Missouri is a good ten to 15 years behind the Kansas City area in low cost speuter options and reducing shelter populations.

I asked her if it would not have been better had HSUS donated the half-million dollars they'd given to pass Prop B (at that time) so they could open low cost speuter clinics in southwestern Missouri, possibly even get a mobile veterinary van, etc. She said, "Why NO!". yea, right, because the no-kill shelters in places like Cassville are filled with Yorkies, Maltese, and Shit-Tzus.

good grief, I commend these folks for doing what they've been able to do on what must be limited resources. It's bad enough in the KC Metro area. At least here we have enough large shelters and they can shuffle the dogs around enough to make things look good. We also have a population in the Kansas City Metro area (Kansas side included) of about 1.5 million people.


My problem with the Cassville story is that at no point was there ever a mention of ever adopting any animals from this "shelter". I might be wrong, but this story sounded far more like a "collector" than a "Shelter".

Barry County has about 34,000 people in it.

The comments to this entry are closed.